Almost all alignment disputes evaporate if you accept the fact that lots of different personalities and behaviors (some mutually contradictory) can fall under the banner of a single alignment.
A lawful neutral samurai who follows a rigid code may find himself at odds with a militia of law neutral town guards if they disagree about whether he should surrender his katana.
A neutral good cleric may disagree with a neutral good ranger about whether an evil spirit should be bound into an ancient tree at the heart of a woodland shrine.?
You can't both argue that the alignment system isn't complex enough and then insist on interpreting it in the least complex manner possible. As long as alignments are broad categories and not a sort of choose-your-own-adventure sub-system for role-playing, then I really don't see what the problem is.
There comes a point where, interpreted broadly enough, any alignment can be justified to do almost anything. IMO, that's the point where alignment has clearly outlived its usefulness.
Sure the LN samurai might refuse to surrender his sword. The CN almost certainly will refuse too (defiance of authority). You can use similar justifications with the good/evil versions, and neutrals certainly aren't prohibited from taking lawful or chaotic actions, so there's your justification there.
After a bit of thought, I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather see alignment used as a DM's tool, than one for players.
Alignment is a useful shorthand for how a group of creatures might behave, and since it's up to the DM to interpret, you can't really have a "wrong" interpretation. That's in contrast to disagreements I've seen come up between players and DMs as to whether certain actions were in keeping with someone's alignment. Those rarely end well.
Alignment could also be useful as a campaign descriptor. We abandoned alignment a while back, but the DM will still sometimes say before a campaign, "This campaign is a good campaign" or "This is an evil campaign" or even "The events of this campaign are totally up to your characters to decide, but try to get along". That way, we know to create characters whose personalities accommodate the style of the campaign. A goody-goody doesn't really belong in a campaign where all of the PCs are flesh eating zombies, after all.
In general, what I think I'm getting at is that I find alignment too limited to serve as any kind of true guide for role playing. I prefer a good personality any day. Who cares whether the devious and sneaky ninja who is thoroughly devoted to his lord is lawful (because he's devoted to his lord) or chaotic (because he's an assassin who defies the laws of the land)? I'd rather know that he's an assassin willing to go to any lengths for his lord. One sentence of personality tells me more than CN or LE ever could.
Alignments as cosmic jerseys are a different matter, but one that doesn't seem all that popular based on my reading of this thread. Which strikes me as a bit odd, seeing as that was clearly the root of the alignment concept.
