An Attack on "Alignment"

[Soliloquy]

Disclaimer:
I shall proceed to rage systematically against everything you have said. If you do not want to read someone yelling about how much he hates everything you say, skip this.

My lesson can be summed up thusly: Any alignment system ultimately causes conflict.

Well, that's the point of alignment, to cause conflict between them. (Good vs. Evil, for instance, is a particularly common goal)

Let us begin with those who follow "Law" or "Order".
What is Law? A definite principle, student. But what can be said to be definite? Your existence? Not at all. You and I are but fleeting flashes in the movement of the planes. Even the planes will eventually die student.
So if nothing can be definite, what do the Lawful follow?
They follow principles which eventually have no meaning. They cause confilct by believing their principles eternal.

Here you do somethings that angers me greatly.
First, You redefine law, and than pick apart the definition, despite it only being your interpretation. The definition you are using is not from any dictionary, you just made it up, for the sole purpose of taking it apart. Second, you seem to have confused the definitions of definite and infinite definite means decided, clear, unambiguous, not vague. It does not mean that it is eternal. Whereas infinite means almost the opposite, immeasurable, boundless. Third, In your definition you use principles, and then claim that you defined it as something that does not exist. Therefore, you have proved not that there is a problem with law, but rather that there is a problem with your (definit)ion. You also did not prove that nothing is eternal, only that noting physical is eternal (I am assuming that by definite you meant eternal, and infallibly correct). Proving the impermanence of physical things could just as well be a segue into talking about permanence of principles. Fourth, you then arbitrarily write off said principles of meaningless. You than conclude with the same infallible logic you have used thus far by concluding that they cause strife by believing their principles eternal. Once more, you invoke eternity when it has no real relevance to the current topic. It seems to me that while strife may be caused, time has little to do with it. D&D does not take place in an era with to much new things being introduced. If your campaign does, you should take the time to explain just how you feel this change should affect their principles and why, in your imaginary world, it doesn't.

Do not think me some Chaos obssessed fool, student. Those who call themselves "Chaotic" are rarely truly so.
The base element of Chaos is Change. But even the most devout worshipper of chaos has limits on that change, no? A true being of chaos will save you one moment and kill your family the next. They follow that which is pointless to follow. They cause conflict by change.

First, you say that Chaotic characters are not chaotic. The rest of the section goes under the assumption that they are, which you claim is not true. For lawful you define them wrong, but here, you define them and say outright that they don't actually fit into your definition. If you admit that your definition for chaotic people does not fit the reality, no arguments based off of this definition fit the reality either. This next part is not as bad, as Chaos and change are quite related, however, you do make mistakes, such as the classification of all chaos into change. Chaos is random, and you can't have randomness without change. But the change does not occur in a fashion so simple as good to evil. You are thinking of chaos in the form of chaos on the alignment table (between alignments). That would be chaotic, but chaos as an alignment itself means rather that you don't follow a set of principles, nor do you obey the rules of society. Once more you don't explain how what they do causes conflict. You have now claimed that the following cause conflict: staying the same, changing. You have not explained either

And now on to the case of "Good", student.
Good is not definite nor is it ultimately changing and as such is separate from Law or Chaos. This we know for certain.
But oh the EVIL done in pursuit of the "Greatest Good." There is no man more evil than he that thinks himself Good. A good act can cause great suffering in the future. Save a madman and you doom a family to death. Not straight away, but afterwards.
Good, my student, causes conflict by acting without consequence.

Here you don't define good, saving me the trouble of explaining how you did it wrong, but you claim that it is wrong to do an evil act that results in good, and that it is wrong to do a good act that results in evil. Of course a good act resulting in good is preferred, but in the madman scenario, you say that good cannot be done. If a person of absolute goodness, who knew all futures, was in that scenario, what would he do? You show not that good is not a "good" thing, but that goodness is not definite (as you already said yourself) and what is good is not obvious. note: this last part of good is done under the assumption that by "without consequence", you meant "without regard for the consequence". Here you assume that good people act without thinking of the results to their actions. This is only true for some, as not all people who are good have the same personality. A good person is not someone who does good things, it is someone who tries to do good things.

And now on to Evil.
Such an odd label. Can you tell me any act that can ever be said to be truly "Evil?" Even mass slaughter isn't truly evil. A forest may burn to allow new life so to may life be cleansed in order to allow new life to form.
Murder is another action. I once heard a story, a story mark you, about a man who slaughtered a family. No reason beyond pure hatred for the act. He left one little boy alive as evidence of his handiwork. That man ended up dead by the hand of that boy, grown strong by hatred.
The boy later went on to do "Good" actions in later life. So I ask you, student, the original act: Was it evil or good?
Evil causes conflict for the same reason good does: Action without heed for consequence.

Okay, here you almost had a good point. But the bit about mass slaughter not being evil? Last I checked, roughly 100% of sane, rational, not currently performing mass slaughter individuals either said it was evil, or said it wasn't sarcastically. Once more you confuse reality and intent. If the killer had done it for the purpose of creating a hero, one could say he did a good thing. Whether an action is good or evil is one thing, whether the purpose is good or evil is another, and whether the person who did it is good or evil is another altogether (usually ties in with purpose pretty well).

Hm? What of Neutrality you ask?
Even it causes strife. But it understands that all actions lead to Neutrality in the long term.
Neutrality, my student, is the only path which would minimise the conflict. I believe it so, to any extent. Even then, people would still fight over the correct path in Neutrality.

You don't say much about it, so there is nothing for me to attack, except that you provide no evidence or reasoning.

One parting comment:
You prove not that the system of categorizing causes conflict, only that the people of those alignments do.

I apologize for my rudeness (but not really)