No, they're not.
Are you saying a murdering rapist slave tormenting Orc or Drow is LG within their own societies because their society condones (indeed encourages) rape, murder and slavery, and sees mercy, compassion and kindness as weaknesses?
Are you saying that when the 5E PHB uses words like 'good' and 'evil' those words are intended to have different meanings that what they actually have?
I'm saying "alignment" is a modern notion. When you are living in an environment where you could be killed due to plague, famine, or even just
traveling somewhere (freezing to death or being killed and robbed while sleeping on the road, drowning crossing a river, starvation because you ran out of food and couldn't fine more, disease due to food poisoning or tainted water, etc.), there is no distinction between good and evil. It's a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest type of situation. The notion of a benevolent society taking care of everyone except their own didn't exist back then, for the most part. Julius Caesar providing free bread to the plebeians was the same Emperor whose troops had torture brigades to extract info from enemy troops, who used decimation to keep the troops in line, and whose armies razed every village and town in Gaul that they came across. Was Caesar good for providing free bread and bringing peace to the empire? Was he evil for killing an untold number of people in Gaul?
In ancient Rome, killing and torture weren't evil (torture of slaves was
required to ensure that their testimony in legal proceedings was valid), but treason, mutiny, and other acts were. It was a matter of what was considered to affect mens' personal honor moreso than what we today would consider evil.
Keeping of slaves was "normal" in ancient societies. Killing of those below one's own station was not particularly concerning other than the possibility of needing to pay a monetary fine.
Most of the things that western society considers to be serious crime (what in the US we primarily consider felonies) were considered minor in nature back then. Their values didn't see things in terms of "good" or "evil," they considered them with a view towards what would destabilize societal structures (killing family members, treason, intentionally setting a fire, failure to obey good order and discipline in the case of soldiers) or which would bring shame on one's honor (cowardly acts, being
caught doing something underhanded (it was well understood that everyone of the political class schemed), etc.)
A better way to consider D&D alignment is to consider "Good" to be altruism and "Evil" to be selfishness while "Lawful" is rules, order, and societal norms while "Chaotic" is personal freedom.
I blatantly stole the following from a quora.com post:
"Lawful-Good believes that rules should benefit everyone so that a healthy society can function. There should be generous charity for the poor so that no one goes hungry or needs to resort to theft to survive. They follow the rules and expect others to do so as well. Each crime is judged on individual merits. For example, murder is always wrong, but if the murderer can show that they were defending themselves from the murder victim, they would be shown mercy and the penalties would be reduced.
Lawful-Neutral believes that a lawful society must always follow the laws/ rules, no matter the circumstances, otherwise society will fall apart. Circumstances either don't matter or have a smaller impact to those of this alignment.
Lawful-Evil uses the existing legal structure to benefit themselves. They follow the rules, but are willing to bend them in order to get what they want. They may view lying and cheating as a way to advance, as long as they don't do too much and get caught. They will not care if poor people starve as long as “they get theirs” and will use the law against others when it benefits them.
Neutral-Good people obey the laws that they believe make sense and ignore laws that they don't believe make sense or are oppressive. In modern day terms, these are people who drive faster than the speed limit (as long as that speed is safe) and may use (or have used) recreational drugs. Individual freedom for every one is their top goal, so if they have to break a few laws for the greater good, they will. Many revolutionaries are neutral-good.
Neutral-evil, on the other hands, are selfish. They don't care about society as a whole, just themselves or perhaps a small circle of friends and/ or family. They don't want to be caught breaking the law (because they don't want to risk the punishment), but hold most rules in contempt.
Chaotic-good believe that most laws are repressive and that society should have the minimum number of laws possible to function. They are willing to flout the law if they believe that the law is wrong, and may even do so openly if they think it will show how ridiculous that particular law is. Otherwise, they will go along when necessary. These people are generous and kind, always willing to give aid to someone in need.
Chaotic-Neutral people are often extremely creative and don’t like following the rules. They will do so if they feel they must, either to avoid problems with others or to avoid penalties, but individual freedoms are paramount in their minds, and they view all rules as oppressive, even the simplest and most obvious.
Chaotic-Evil represents a hatred of society, laws and rule with a generous scoop of selfishness on top. These are the criminals who will cut a peasant’s throat for a copper piece and laugh while they do it. They view anyone who follows the rules as a “rube” begging to be taken down, and people of good alignment as fools too stupid to care for themselves. This doesn't make them stupid, and they will hide their crimes to the best of their ability."
Based upon these descriptions, Titus Pullo is squarely CN and Marc Antony is squarely LE. Ancient Roman society itself would likely be considered a mixture of LN or LE with pockets of NE.
The issue boils down to alignment being applied objectively to situations of moral relativism. I think a
better way of doing alignment is to "assign" it after you go from 1st level to 2nd level. The DM can write down instances of each PC's actions during each session of gameplay while at 1st level and then come to a conclusion as to the path that PC is on. How about a necromancer who worships Wee Jas who donates alms to the local parish to feed the poor. Is the necromancer good for feeding the poor, or is he evil for creating undead? And - that's a perfect example. In The Walking Dead, the zombies aren't good or evil, they just are. "Killing" them isn't considered evil or good, just necessary.
