Every six months or so the alignment debate gets recycled on one of the various mailing lists online. Each time we see the system misrepresented a dozen different ways and correctly interpreted, and implemented by one or two people. Ocassionally I get sick of it and post the following essay, which has yet to be challenged or fail to stop the bickering over what alignment is, and what it is not. I assume therefore that it is essentially correct: I and several fellow DM's have used it for years with no complaints. Anyone who does wish to debate me on the subject is welcome to do so, but first read this in its entirety. I feel you will find it quite enlightening and useful...
One of the more misunderstood aspects of the AD&D game system is the presence of the alignment system. Designed to be a very simplistic method of sketching out a character's moral and ethical beliefs, alignment can run much deeper than that, and to be useable in the Dusk campaign setting it has to be.
Alignment, for the purposes of the Dusk campaign if not AD&D in general, is the character's moral and ethical outlook. The word "outlook" is the key of the sentence, for what a character believes and how he behaves can be two different aspects entirely. The character's innermost beliefs and urges are his alignment; once everything else about the character has been boiled away.
For a beginning role-player dealing with this alone can be a challenge, since declaring alignment is like saying, "I'm going to play a character who will do this because he believes this." Although somewhat one dimensional, it is important that this first step be mastered before attempting to play a character who has multiple views - some of which will may seem to conflict on the surface.
Alignment is also important to the DM, since at a glance it can give him some very sketchy ideals on how to approach the character and what to expect of him. In a way alignment is more important to the DM than the player, for with his cast of hundreds of roles the less he has to learn about any particular NPC to play him well the better.
Still, alignment is seen by master role-players as a straight-jacket to be left behind with the other training wheels of life. But casting away alignment is not so simple: many magic spells and items have their results at least partially based on alignment. To cast away the alignment system cripples or eliminates these items, and with it a large part of the AD&D game.
Remember however, that alignment states tendencies and beliefs that the character may hold. Not all of what the character does may coincide with this, but the greater average will. To illustrate this point the nine basic alignments are discussed once again with broader interpretations than those of the Player's Handbook.
Ethics: Law vs. Chaos
The ethical component of the character's alignment is where he stands between law and chaos. Lawful characters view the world as essentially ordered, or at least a place where order must be established and maintained. Chaotic characters see no such order, and usually disdain its establishment unless necessary. A character who is neutral in this regard has not remarkable views either way, or they may be mixed. He may see no order in the universe other than what is established by sentient creatures, but may see that imposed order as necessary.
Morals: Good vs. Evil
The definitions of what is "good" and "evil" change wildly between societies, and for the purposes of alignment play these definitions must be broad based as well. As a rule, "good" is the concern for the welfare of other sentient creatures. "Evil" is the inverse, a lack of concern for the welfare of others. A character who is morally neutral would not take active participation to further the welfare of others or to hinder it. There are no absolutes here, and within the context of an individual character his beliefs come into play since they are likely to be less universal.
As an example, in traditional "Western philosophy" suicide is wrong. Most Christian sects go so far as to state that it is a damnable act. A character with these believes would, in his mind at least, be committing an evil act by committing or assisting in a suicide. On the contrary, in Medieval Japanese society, suicide was morally righteous to the point of being the ultimate, final means of atonement for failure or an evil act. A character with these beliefs could commit or assist in a suicide without endangering his alignment standing.
It is important to stick to the more universal precepts of the first paragraph for the general determination of what is good and what is evil, especially between societies. They may be less exacting, but they give the DM more flexibility in his judgments and choices.
"Advice is one of those rare things that is far easier to give than to receive." -- Telsindria.