Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category.
I find this interesting on 2 points.
- Allowing one and two term definitions of alignment to co-exist, and
- stating that evil is 'inimical towards humanity', placing the interests of humanity as the objective standard (which is probably the safest approach, maybe the only approach...)
Holmes alignment is the one I've felt most comfortable with. Not too esoteric, but of finer resolution. Continuing to use Lawful and Chaotic as independent terms does not seem a serious complication, and one that allows the existence of objective Law and objective Chaos, in the realm of deities and such.
And to maintain the humanocentric interpretation of alignment, the last paragraph of this article says:
As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.
Perhaps to reinterpret the 1e AD&D alignment, removing the neutrality of each of its variations (and get rid of True, same as adding it implicitly)...nah.
This is the alignment table I use for random determination
|d%||1e AD&D||Holmes Basic|
|01-05||Lawful Evil||Lawful Evil|
|06-15||Chaotic Evil||Chaotic Evil|
|16-20||Neutral Evil||Neutral (evil tendencies)|
|81-85||Neutral Good||Neutral (good tendencies)|
|86-95||Chaotic Good||Chaotic Good|
|96-00||Lawful Good||Lawful Good|
So 60-70% of the aligned population falls into neutral territory, with a greater chance of lawful ethos where applicable. Boring? Realistic? Not sure. Somewhat comfortable though.