The problem with alignments is that they don't really tell you how your character should behave. We intelligent beings are complex and contradictory, and in no case do we conform to such a rigid pattern. Although a person tends to be legally good (ie, honorable, respectful, and kind), he is not always going to be so in all situations. And there are also degrees of honor, kindness and respect. If you want to play that legal good character, how would he behave before a legitimate, but evil authority? Would he respect her for being legitimate, or would he fight her for being evil? Any answer is good, so alignment is not meant to be used as a guide for interpreting your character's behavior.
So I go back to what I said before. The alignment only makes sense in the context of a confrontation of cosmic forces, and to know which side you support (consciously or unconsciously). Not as a behavior guide.
As an example, Elric of Melnibone, typically chaotic evil, often behaves against that alignment. But that doesn't stop him from being chaotic evil, because that doesn't respond to his behavior, but to his alignment.
Alignment may not be useful to you, but it should remain in the Player's Handbook as an option for people like me who find it to be helpful. Alignment is really just a helpful tool for the player to have a guideline on what their character's morality is. Of course your character won't always act like their alignment in situations where the system is relevant. However, it can still be useful to have an extra thing to predicate your character's choices in complex situations.
Also, you and your Dungeon Master should both be able to change your alignment at any time, though the latter individual should be a lot more careful and discuss the change instead of just outright declaring it.
As for the example you gave, I would like to say that's when you turn to factors outside of alignment - like ideals, bonds, quirks, flaws and backstory - so that you can make a more informed decision. As your example shows, alignment can't always be used on its own and certainly flawless. However, it is still helpful for people like me and it should be an option for us to use as one part of a behavioral guide if we want to.
No one says don't use it. If it works for you, go ahead. What I do want to clarify is that the concept "alignment" initially had a different meaning than that of being a moral compass. And it only referred to personal behavior tangentially. That is why it is not a good tool for interpretation, because its raison d'être is, as its name says, to align yourself with one side in an eternal conflict.
Think LoTR. All the characters in the fellowship of the ring are on the side of good, but not all behave the same. Anderson and Moorcock encapsulated this in the concept "alignment", and from there it jumped to OD&D.
That is why many people do not use it as an interpretation guide, and they find it strange. Simply because it has lost its initial meaning, and today it is a vestige that no longer makes sense. It is no longer an alignment.
But if it works for you, perfect. You do nothing wrong.
No one says don't use it. If it works for you, go ahead. What I do want to clarify is that the concept "alignment" initially had a different meaning than that of being a moral compass. And it only referred to personal behavior tangentially. That is why it is not a good tool for interpretation, because its raison d'être is, as its name says, to align yourself with one side in an eternal conflict.
Think LoTR. All the characters in the fellowship of the ring are on the side of good, but not all behave the same. Anderson and Moorcock encapsulated this in the concept "alignment", and from there it jumped to OD&D.
That is why many people do not use it as an interpretation guide, and they find it strange. Simply because it has lost its initial meaning, and today it is a vestige that no longer makes sense. It is no longer an alignment.
But if it works for you, perfect. You do nothing wrong.