The D&D game provides a system for categorizing creatures into alignments. This system is used primarily as a guideline to the behavior of creatures; alignment tells you quickly about the basic direction of key fundamental beliefs.
However, the system is (intentionally) fairly vague. It contains no blanket condemnations, no blanket endorsements. Behaviors are Good (or Evil), not in and of themselves, but only when aligned creatures engage in them for specific reasons. It is the moral choice, not the action itself, which is aligned.
This does not mean the D&D system is a "relative" system. When an actor takes action, for specific reasons, the act's alignment is not subject to debate within the system. If the moral choice was basically a Good one, the actor's alignment is nudged slowly towards Good; if it was Evil, his alignment shifts towards Evil.
However, different people, taking the same perceived "action", may be taking it for different reasons. One person gives a beggar money, admonishing him sternly to buy food, not liquor. His motive is simple concern for a fellow being; he is Good. Another gives a beggar money, admonishing him sternly to buy food, not liquor. He knows that the mention of alcohol nearly guarantees that the beggar will buy strong drink, and drink until he passes out. His motive is the desire to watch a helpless fool die painfully as his liver fails. He is Evil.
To judge the alignment of a given decision, you must know the reasons for which the decision was made, and the circumstances and information it was based on. If the reasons are firmly grounded in the beliefs and goals of Good, the decision was a Good one; if they are grounded in the goals of Evil, it was an Evil one. Actions which are based on no particular moral goals, or on conflicting ones, are Neutral. So, too, are actions based on the "goals" of active Neutrality, though these are rarer.
Most importantly, one must always remember that the D&D alignment system models a moral system suitable for fantasy gaming. Fantasy heroes fight evil; they don't generally invite it in for counseling sessions. It is quite common for rational, well-informed people to have ideals which are not the same as the ideals of D&D Good; after all, we live in different worlds.
This has been moved to a sub-page about Good and Evil.
This has been moved to a sub-page about Law and Chaos.
This has been moved to a sub-page about The Nine Alignments.
It is possible to present Good characters with situations which appear untenable. Imagine a dungeon where there is a trap, and two generic innocent victims are placed in the trap. The Good character is asked to kill one; if he does not, both are killed. What can he do?
One answer is to do nothing; after all, the Good character is not killing anyone, and he has no way to prevent the innocent victims from dying.
Another answer is to pick one, because only by doing so can he save any innocent lives at all. This character accepts greater personal responsibility for the death.
So far as I can tell, the D&D moral system considers both to be potentially Good actions. Neither is an intrinsic failure to follow the ideals of Good. Some people argue that either result is a compromise of the ideal. This is not the way the D&D alignment system works; all that matters is how you choose from your available options. (Of course, a Good character would certainly look for a solution that expands the available options, but in a fantasy world, magic can create situations with no way out.)
In general, Good characters can disagree substantially about moral issues, without one or the other being "more good".
It is possible to have multiple orders of paladins. One believes in summary justice for unrepentant murderers. One doesn't. The first group believes the second group to be wrong; they consider this to be simply creating opportunities for known killers to try to kill again. The second group likewise believes the first group to be wrong; they believe that even an unrepentant murderer may change his mind, and will not kill him without giving him a month of counseling sessions with a priest of their order, before they try him and execute him. Another order locks the murderers up for life, and tries to redeem them throughout this time. The others believe this to be wasteful and object to the indignity of locking someone up for life when you have no expectation of ever freeing him.
All three are Good. No compromises, no "well, if that's the best you can do". They disagree, but Detect Good will show them all as powerfully aligned, and will not intrinsically favor one over another.
I have created a handful of examples, with analysis.
A number of the statements in this article are not universally agreed on by D&D players. Some specific points of dispute follow.
I believe these all to be false within the default scope of the D&D game, but they may allow for interesting alternative alignment systems.
Comments about this page may be sent to seebs@plethora.net.