Alas, Mr. Siembieda is mighty anal about such things. Go peruse a core Palladium book other than Recon, they all have it.
Essentially each Palladium alignment, in addition to the usual vague description, spells out what this character is likely to do in certain situations an RPG character is likely to find themselves in. It covers things like lying, stealing, torturing, betraying friends, harming innocents, opinion/relationship concerning authoritah, etc.
Alignments fall into 3 categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. Because the descriptions focus on practical matters it short cicuits a lot of the pointless discussions about what a given alignment would or would not do that plagued (in my experience) 1st and early 2nd Ed AD&D. The Good alignments are Principled (closest to AD&D lawful good) and Scrupulous (closest to neutral good). The selfish alignments are Unscrupulous (chaotic good) and Anarchist (pretty much out for themselves, but not quite evil, what I always called non-philosophical neutral). The Evil alignments are Abberant (lawful evil), Miscreant (neutral evil), and Diabolical (chaotic evil).
The AD&D approximations are rough at best, but I can't go into too much detail without risking copyright infringement. On the good side your FLGS probably has some very cheap old Palladium rulebooks. Older editions and discontinued game lines (except Recon) should all have the same alignment system as exists in the newer stuff. You can also read Palladium's very interesting basic combat mechanic that way too. The attribute improvements through study also bear examination.
Finally, I never had so much of a problem with AD&D alignments so much as a combination of the vague way they were written and the way most GMs insisted on a literal interpretation of them. There was no way to play a strict opportunist by the way most GMs in my area interpreted things. Neutral was forced to try and "maintain the balance." Chaotic Neutral had to be crazy (correct really), chaotic good had to help people (screw that!
), any Lawful alignment had to respect authoritah (see prior note on helping people), and any Evil alignment had to go out of it's way to kick puppy dogs and trip up little old ladies.
I am thinking of re-adapting alignments because most people don't want to load up on mental disadvantages now that I have lowered the points on them. My logic is that if it doesn't hinder the character the way a missing arm does it shouldn't be worth as many points as said missing limb would be.
OTOH, good characters should get some added points, as they are limited by morals where opportunistic, apathetic, and evil characters are not. Secondly there still needs to be some quick measure of a character's beliefs, much like the combination of the Morality stat and religious tenets in HMx.