Alignment

Pragmatic, Indifferent, and Neutral

The D&D alignment system is one of the most entertaining and thought provoking ways to define the ethics of a character and encourage roleplay according to these ethics. However, the system has often created confusion in the "neutral" areas, between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil. The problem is not that the neutral alignments are il-defined, but that they by their names do not encourage thoughtful roleplay. My changes to the alignment system are meant to address this by giving guidance to players of neutral and nonaligned characters.
We know that a "Good" character will make decisions guided by the needs of others and that an "Evil" character will make decisions on a basis that is purely selfish and often harmful to others. But what does it mean to be neutral with respect to Good and Evil? Many people would say that to remain neutral in the face of Evil would itself be Evil. As a result of this lack of definition, Characters who are neutral on the Good/Evil axis are often left to either "be generally good with permission to do selfish things once in a while" or "be basically evil but just not go out of the way to hurt others". This leads to a lack of thought put into decisions that would otherwise be interesting roleplay, but even more critically, to a distortion of the evil alignment away from "selfish to the detriment of others" but toward "actively seeking to harm others", a position that makes sense for monsters and villains but makes absolutely no sense to roleplay.
On the Lawful/Chaotic axis, we find the Neutral alignment similarly uninstructive. What does it mean to be neutral in the face of Lawfulness or Chaos? If a Lawful Good character makes decisions according to society's rules and a Chaotic Good character makes decisions according to their conscience, what is left for a Neutral Good character to use when they are making decisions? And what happens to this conscience as we move down into Chaotic Neutrality and Chaotic Evil?

Pragmatism and the Altruism Axis

It is not a far stretch to understand the Good/Evil axis as an axis of altruism. On the Good side, we have altruism and a tendency to value the wellbeing of others. On the Evil side, we have selfishness and a tendency to devalue the wellbeing of others. This distinction is made with the express point that what benefits the self does not always harm others, and that neither pure selfishness nor pure altruism are adequate representations of Good and Evil, since it is conceivable that what could benefit the self could benefit others as well or that one could do harm by attempting to help others.
So what lies in the middle ground of Good and Evil, or better yet, how can we establish a middle ground between the two that leads to interesting decisions?
The answer is Pragmatism. Pragmatic characters take the situation into account when attempting to make a decision whether to help others or put themselves first. You can count on a Pragmatic character to let you know why your suggestion to spare a surrendered enemy or give the party's last coin to a beggar might be a bad idea. However you won't hear them do the former for reasons of prejudice or the latter for reasons of greed. They will do so from a standpoint of reason and not morals, and they will respect a response in kind. The demands of others' wellbeing should be balanced against the needs of the self in a way that takes full advantage of the situation.
Taking a previously mentioned scenario further, imagine an argument over whether to execute a surrendered character between a good and an evil character. If you are told to roleplay "Neutrality", abstaining from the argument is an option to you. Maybe you as a player would rather update your character sheet, or browse the player's handbook, or maybe check your phone, and you might take advantage of your character's alignment that opportunity. Now imagine yourself in this situation being told to roleplay "Pragmatism". Abstaining is no longer an option for you, because you need to think about the situation and how forgiving you can afford to be, or how cruel you need to be. You are now compelled to involve yourself in this debate. Don't be Neutral, be Pragmatic!

Indifference and the Systems Axis

The Systems axis, on the other hand, is a rethink of the Law/Chaos dichotomy. While Lawful is fairly consistent up and down the Altruism Axis, Chaotic involves huge leaps in morality. We descend from someone who merely prioritizes their own code above society's, to someone who is capable of making good decisions but often would rather not, to someone who actively looks for every chance to cause suffering and destruction and chaos. This leaves Neutral Good as one of the least played and uninteresting alignments on the board.
To remedy this, we need to look at the conflict between Lawful and Chaotic forces in the universe and try to understand why one would try to side with either one. Most people believe that rules and laws are helpful guidelines at the least, after all. Looking at Lawfulness, we can define this as the tendency to limit possibilities and reduce the world to dichotomies: Either you're breaking the rules, or you're abiding by them. In that case, a Chaotic tendency should be the tendency to maximize possibilities. The Chaotic individual feels restricted by the rules of society and wants to break free. They don't just make their own decisions about how to be good or evil or pragmatic, but actively push the boundaries, break the rules if need be. This frees up the neutral character to have their own moral compass, deciding whether the rules fit the situation, since the Chaotic character will always reject them in spirit, if not in practice.
In this way we can say that a character who doesn't tend towards Law or Chaos is Indifferent, with respect to the systems that restrain them. They don't mind following the rules, but they don't mind breaking them either because the fact that the rules are there simply doesn't affect them either way. Let's imagine the classic decision whether to steal bread to feed someone who is starving. You can count on the Indifferent character to look at the situation for what it is. They might advocate taking the bread, but they won't derive any pleasure from "sticking it to the man". In fact they can see that this is a real dilemma and would feel torn where the characters on the other sides of the spectrum would act without question. If you are playing a chaotic character in this campaign, don't just follow your instincts. Chafe under the rules and restrictions and lash out against the people who enforce them. If you're Chaotic Good, rebel in ways that minimize others' suffering or even without regard to your own suffering and compel yourself to break any rule that causes suffering. If you're pragmatic, break those rules when it's convenient for you and accomplishes your goals. If you're evil, break them any time you can and be sure to cause as much suffering as possible in the process (why are you even in a Party anyway?).

The Alignment Table

Systems→ Altruism↓	Lawful	Indifferent	Chaotic
Good	Lawful Good	Indifferent Good	Chaotic Good
Pragmatic	Lawful Pragmatic	Indifferent Pragmatic	Chaotic Pragmatic
Evil	Lawful Evil	Indifferent Evil	Chaotic Evil