After reading through this thread, I think I will say something here.
Dungeons and Dragons, is a unique thing, but its also takes from actual folk lore and some of this folk lore actually hurt innocent peoples or people actually got killed because of it. So d&d draws from that and though it is interesitng they use it for a fun storytelling dice game. The actual reality is they have used real life superstiions that really do get people killed. They use what these people believed about them to place them under alignments. This the basis for the alignments of the lycanthropes and vampires for example. But the way its done with werewolves is discrimatory to actual animals because of the lore on this. In fact the lore seems to suggest they are not are not evil because of the curse they are evil or treated that way because wolves were considered evil thus this makes werewolves evil. Rats carry disease so wererats are evil. Werebears I think them being good aligned had something to do with a certain bear shifter in some other genre. The game was designed for being a hero saving the day slaying the monster, alignment used as to justify killing the monsters as murder hobos without taking in any considation for it.
Examples of how D&d does things that are not only unrealistic it basically is saying because this person is this or that. They are are defined under this.
Chromantic dragons are based on legends of dragons burning down villages, Metallics are based upon more noble dragons seen in more asian folklore I think. The point is D&D has done what I would call sterotypical placing, which hinders actual interesting stories. Because its a red dragon its default Chaotic evil because its a red dragon. If its a Gold Dragon its lawful good because of its color.
Now Lycanthropes I mentioned this up above. Lycanthropes have a curse that turns them into a beastial hybrid of man and whatever subtype they are. They vary some are born and have control others do not. Now if thye become that most of the time they say oh, they are always this alignment because it was believed in real life or in the setting that wolves are evil and thus this lycanthrope is evil based on that belief.
I see Wizards moving away from that a good thing and all of these companions what or who they are does not define them. Each one of them has free will. One of them regained free will. They have the path to choose, to a more redeeming path for themselves or a darker path. Our interactions and our way of doing things may infuence them and their outcomes. Who you pick and what race you are maybe even class does seem to matter on their opinion of you. For my Drow cleric of Eilistraee I made, Shadowheart seemed ruder and not as trusting. But with my Tiefling ranger, she seemed not nearly as supicious and more friendly. So just because you experiance something on one character does not mean that will be the same on another. So each unique playthrough should be interesting and that is even how they react to you it seems.
Shadowheart and Astarion, are what I would consider to be more morally ambiguous.
Shadowheart as a Cleric of Shar, I think is conflicted not sure about her choices and our interactions may impact if she goes full on evil cleric or maybe redeems herself and turn away from the Goddess.
Astarion was a vampire spawn who was forced to do evil things from his evil master. Like Jandar Sunstar and he does seem to have that struggle. I don't think he was as morally good as Jander. He is also at a turning point and I think our own actions will actually either redeem him or make him become true monster.
So I think each character is more complex then just a label. They are intentionally doing this by the way, and Wizards asked them not to define them by alignement. Larian was going to do a lot with alignment. But Wizards said no that is why the characters are more like this. To be honest maybe its a good thing if they don't do an alignment system.
