What if alignments were a continuum and not mutually exclusive?

[Vahnavoi]

@Anymage: you're now guilty of regurgitating the same bad arguments found in the "Unanimous Good" thread.

You cannot use "people will argue over anything and everything!" as a counter-argument to any specific ruleset. Yes, people argue over alignment, but they also argue about trifle things like meaning of hitpoints, whether psionics are any good and whether the game master was a jerk for destroying a wizard's spellbook. The sane reaction is to simply accept that some of the arguments are silly and then find players who can agree to play a game under given rules.

This isn't hard. It isn't hard for hit points, it isn't hard for psionics, it isn't hard for equipment destruction, it isn't hard for basic morals and alignment.