Shall we go ahead and discuss the definition and boundaries of the various alignments, so we can get all the baseline D&D wankery out of the way?

If we must

Everything I have done has been with the careful deliberateness of a bomb squad technician 3 sheets to the wind.

I REGRET NOTHING!

*Picks from a hat full of classic alignment wankery*

No one can truly be Lawful Good because Lawful Good denies the person choice of action.

Also, because I'm a Paladin it is my job to kill everything evil. Evil things don't count as people, like orcs, dragons, and people with differing political ideals.

Chaotic Neutral is a player's way of saying "I wanted to play an evil character, but in absence of that option..."

True Neutral is an impossible ideal because there is no way to guarentee everything you do is balanced between good and evil, law and chaos.

True Neutral is the lazy alignment for people who don't want to roleplay

I don't actually hold to any of these arguments, just getting them out of the way.

Please referred to the much maligned Alignment Debate KTD Side Project for my views on alignment.

I think alignment gets far more discussion and attention than it deserves. Alignment can be interesting, but it should be a flavour and role-playing tool, not a mechanical element of the game. Once alignment begins to have an effect on the powers and abilities of characters then it becomes a point of contention, as it is important to be able to accurately estimate someone's alignment quickly. This leads to the tendancy of players and GMs to demand that players and NPCs stricktly adhere to the stereotyipical representations of their alignment; which in turn leads to contention over if a player is playing his alignment "right" and marginalizes the fact that no one is purely or entirely codifiable in a good/evil, law/chaos graph. This is a big flaw of 3/3.5 as there are many powers that only affect certain alignments.

Alignments should be left as flavour on the character sheet, no more or less important than that spod for eye colour, height or weight. That being said however, I still think the classic alignments are superior to the linear good/evil alignment of 4e. That however is one of very few points I will concede that 4e is inferior to older editions.

Oh, I was under the impression that the fact 4e totally sucked donkey balls was something now being taught in public schools. Please...4e is so terrible that they'd refuse to bury copies of it in a New Jersey landfill.
As for alignments they are rather stupid. They serve no real point and don't make any sense. I would rather let the players play the characters for a couple session then have the players figure if they're playing a dick or a nice guy. People are too many shades of grey to be hung with Neutral Good or Lawful Evil...and no one ever is true to the alignment anyways...so ditch them and agree that 4e is by far the worst edition of editions.

Best. Host. Evar.