That's a really good point. People (and therefore believable characters) are much more complicated than some simple pigeon-holing would indicate and their reactions even on simple good/evil and lawful/random axes are going to be highly dependent on the situation. I'm not "what I'm supposed to be" for narrow values of "supposed" IRL so my character shouldn't be either. I mean, to take something really basic like my current FO4 character as an example, she's the one who's snarky and rude in conversation but a bit of a do-gooder in her actions, which creates a bit of an incongruity on the D&D alignment scale. I'm not saying FO4 handles it especially well, but it would be worse if I felt some real obligation to always act in a certain way.
I actually would just say it's a Chaotic Good character in DnD.
However I agree that there is no need for an alignement in DOS2. The reputation works well enough I suppose. If everyone hates you, chances are you are bad.
I also like that sometimes you may finish a quest thinking it was a good solution but in the end the consequences are pretty evil although you did not foresee that. I don't need an alignement meter to reflect it you know and feel bad already. And it could work the other way around too.
