The thing about having Objective alignment in D&D is that there's always a higher authority, until you get to the Alignment absolutes. When Miko killed Shojo, she was acting in a Lawful manner (Especially from her limited-vision persective). What she saw of Azure city, between Kubota and Shojo, was something that looked like a Chaotic Evil society masquerading as a Lawful Good one - Shojo's Good undermined the Law of Azure City, and nobles like Kubota undermined the Good. She just happened to fail to see Shojo's Good. And, Shojo made it very clear that the courts were his plaything (Even the very incarnations of Law and Good) - there was no mortal authority she could appeal his crimes to, so had to directly appeal the case to the Twelve Gods, and invoke the 0th law of the Paladin Code. However, the verdict was "Malicious Prosecution".


But... anyway. the point I was also going to make is that alignments are absolutes on a cosmic scale, but Relative on the mortal scale. This isn't to say definitions of good and evil and law and chaos vary from location from location, but instead the people within a closed (Or nearly-closed) system are judged by the whole material plane. D&D worlds usually assume a "Balance" of law and chaos and good and evil.

In an overwhelmingly-good paradise, the guy who kicks puppies and steals candy from babies pings as Evil, though his transgressions are minor compared to what good people can get away with in a "Balanced" society.

Likewise, someone in an overwhelmingly-"Evil" setting (Think the Grim Darkness of the 41st millenium) can ping as Good if they hold themselves to a higher moral standard than their peers, and engage in behaviors that alleviate the overall evil (Such as pressing for better conditions for slaves, and putting their desires aside to help and encourage others to do likewise). He may engage in evil par for the setting, but his actions and efforts are increasing the influence of altruism and good in the world (Perhaps even moreso and more effectively than an outright messiahnic figure)

In Overwhelmingly-Lawful settings, the muckraker going through all the 'technically legal' channels to raise noise about something he thinks is an injustice or is stifling his freedoms pings as Chaotic, even though he obeys the laws (at least while being watched). His acts are chaotic, because they're opening up freedoms and (Gradually) reducing the orderly regimentation of the setting.

In largely chaotic settings such as the Western Continent, Tarquin pings as Lawful because, although he tends to act on a whim and put himself outside the law, he's carving and establishing a world order, and directly strengthening the influence of Law in the setting, despite not being a stellar example of a lawful-acting person. A non-evil example of this sort of person is Sam Vimes from Discworld, who pretty much single-handedly built and established actual law and order in Anhk-Morpork despite having to work around and subvert the existing legal hurdles to do so. Batman is Lawful in the same vein - he is forced to bypass and work around existing legal hurdles to stop far worse transgressions. If the law worked, and cops weren't defunct or crooked, he'd be unnecessary, and could hang up his cape.