Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition - Alignment

I've always been against the concept of alignment, being of the mind that no person is completely good or evil, and that an entire setting system with integral components revolving around being centered on one or the other is silly.

I mean, if it were that easy to tell who's evil or not, why the hell aren't there paladins and clerics walking around good societies weeding out the evil on a daily basis by performing random scans on the populace? That alone should alter the whole paradigm of how that kind of society would work. And that musing is just off the top of my head.

Don't get me started on how many debates have been made on what constitutes as good or evil, by action or omission, especially in the context of the pre-4E paladin and the chance of "losing your divine powers" and reverting to "a common fighter" till "atonement is made."

Ugh.

Thankfully, 4E seems to have lifted much of the importance of alignment in its structure. The original editions had nine alignments, as well as overtly elaborate, yet still lacking, definitions on what counted as what. Certain alignment definitions came out as awkward or half-baked, while others were defined to rigidly and lacked flexibility.

The new edition simplifies things into 5 alignments, though their terminology could use some elaboration (that last opinion really isn't important and is a manifestation of my OC tendencies). The five alignments are Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. The book does a good job in defining each of these, but they can easily be summarized in a statement or two:

Lawful Good - "I will do whatever is of greatest benefit for everyone and my society."

Good - "I want what's best for those I care about."

Unaligned - "I just want to survive and be happy."

Evil - "I am willing to hurt selected individuals and manipulate the system for my personal benefit."

Chaotic Evil - "I'll do anything to get what I want, and I'll get rid of anyone or anything that gets in my way."

The book goes on to state that most people, players characters included, are unaligned. Which is quite true. And here, given the new definitions, the alignments are more flexible in their interpretations, plus, it hints that alignment in general is more an interpretation of how the character is acting at present, in general, than a conscious decision to uphold the cause of good or evil. After all, even good people do things which can be interpreted as evil once in a while.

It's a step in the right direction. Now if only they'd remove it as a line item entirely. Hmm... Maybe in Fifth Edition.