Alignment
Character alignment is covered in some detail on pages 103-106 of the player's handbook, and this is [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment reproduced on d20srd].
The PHB starts by stating that Alignment is not a straightjacket, then goes on to give some clear definitions and examples of behaviour. Within this campaign world, alignment is less of a straightjacket and more of a perspective on the behaviour of individuals in comparison to other intelligent individuals.
Alignment cannot be measured objectively, but should be considered an average of behaviour over a period of time, not the spot behaviour of an instant. Of course, it is possible that solitary actions may be of a scale to affect alignment, but this would not be normal.
All alignment in the game-world is influenced by perspective. In general, most normal people consider themselves to be largely lawful/ordered and within their own frame of reference morally sound (i.e. 'good'), although it is unusual for people to consider themselves to be outright 'lawful-good' unless their faith demands it of them. The human capacity for self-deception also plays a big part - it's quite normal for people to accept that many of the things they do during a normal day are morally suspect, but that their underlying trait is that of being 'good'. This situation becomes worse as intelligence increases. Somehow, the smarter someone is, the easier it becomes to convince themselves that their actions do not represent their true nature.
Also, within the game world, alignments are comparitive. Those in the former Empire, for instance, consider the lands of the north to be less lawful than themselves, yet in the north the perspective is that the south are less moral and focus more on both order and greed. And within the former Empire there are comparitive alignment views between the nations. Antaurus and Cerlain have reputations for being 'good', while Jorlinum and Hebria are considered less ordered - not wholly chaotic, but seem to call for less order than other nations. Tholain still suffers from a percieved lack of moral fortitude, it has a reputation for being greedy and borderline 'evil'.
Alignment Conflicts
Good vs Evil
These alignments are both subjective and passing. Individuals can be, in any given moment, either good or evil. In fact, one of them may be done in an attempt to carry out its opposite, but intent is always the arbiter of an action here. Good people do evil deeds and evil people do good deeds. The moral compass is hugely subjective, and a character's average behaviour is what really determines their alignment in these scenarios, and that average of their behaviour can only be measured against the moral behaviour of others. Without good behaviour, there would be no evil behaviour.
For characters to be considered 'good', they would have to actively seek to behave in line with their own society's moral rules. Orcs, for instance, may consider humans to be 'evil' because they push back the orcs, steal their resources and kill orcs and their racial cousins. Orcs may, of course, behave badly to each other yet they still consider themselves to be morally 'good' in their own context - they may beat up weaker orcs but only within and to progress the structures of their own clan or family group, a structure that exists to perpetuate the orc's traditional livelihood and the continuation of the strength of their own race, i.e. a morally sound position from their own point of view.
Goodness and Evilness, then, exist in all characters - it is just the degree to which they seek certain moral behaviours and how they justify them, along with the comparative average of their overall behaviour, that determines their true alignment.
Law vs Chaos
In terms of the history of the free peoples, this is the real battle that takes place in social structures. Again, it is subjective, and is influenced by the type of law being imposed on that society. It can be summarised by many smaller battles between different minor aspects of the alignment positions.
- Order vs Disorder - the degree to which social structure helps or hinders the individuals that make it up. It reflects the struggle between those seeking mutual support and co-operation and those who can survive and progress alone. It is also the pull between a simple and a complex society.
- Law vs Unlaw - the rules imposed upon society, the protection offered by well-defined legal structures and the straitjacket that could impose. It is about how legal frameworks can be used to limit and equalise the power of some, protect those with little or no say in the wider society, and how law can be used to empower and entrench the incumbent political rulers.
- Lawfulness vs Lawfulness - linked in many ways to the law vs unlaw struggle, this conflict is about the distinction between different approaches to law. There is a marked difference in Arthea between the brand of lawfulness that the northern kingdoms would choose over the lawfulness of the former empire. The law of the north seems to be tighter, more restrictive to individuals than Imperial law was - but not as wide-reaching. Imperial law was intended to level the ground between those in power and those seeking to be socially mobile, while the law of the north seems more focussed on making the act of ruling more straightforward and harder to challenge.
- True Chaos - not a conflict as such, but an enemy of all ordered ways. This applies to all things that have no framework of rules whatsoever, where no consequence exists, all that matters is survival in the current moment. This applies to many works of horror, especially mindless undead. It is an anathema to life, an opposite to anything that requires some degree of order to improve and expand.
To expand this further, consider elves in the standard D&D players notes - this paints the picture of a race that is chaotic good by alignment. From their own point of view, their societies shun law and lawfulness, but at the same time they are not 'chaotic'. Elfish societies are ordered, they are a largely peaceful people, and they work collectively for their common good. They are ordered, yet not lawful in comparison to humans. Dwarfs, on the other hand, live their lives by clear rules - calculations about the strength of tunnel roofs and the amount of shoring needed is pretty precise, as are the angles of walls and the strengths of supports for the ceilings of their large underground halls. This attention to detail gives rise to a society that lives by clear laws, a society that seems to take great glee from the production of laws. Yet outside that lawfulness their communities are ordered in similar ways to those of humans and elves, look beyond the law and the order of the society is not so different from the other free races.
Applying this to Player Characters
As this gives some leeway to players to step outside the normal confines of their alignment, it also provides a mechanism to make the character's alignment reflect their actions. A character's alignment is based on their behaviour over a longer period than just a single encounter or even a single adventure. It should work like this:
- Alignment should be re-considered every time a character levels-up.
- Alignment should reflect what the character has done (actions they've taken, not their achievements), not what they intend to do
- Alignment should not be changed easily because of this, the player should still seek to keep their character's behaviour along the guidelines of their alignment
- The alignment should be considered by the player first, and then in discussion with the DM if it looks like it should change
- Purposeful action to change an alignment (or to change it back) is possible, when a character levels up their alignment position should be re-assessed to reflect actions of the character - if the player has tried to behave in line with a different alignment, then this should have its effect.
- Higher level characters may need more frequent alignment reviews than once per level - every three to four adventures should be the rule of thumb.