A very long way to prove my point - it's more complicated than simply putting characters into categories
Eh, if you tried really hard you could put Anakin into lawful good and Darth Vader into lawful evil categories tho. Your idea that the alignment system is stupid is a bit overreaching? You can make all the alignments as nuanced or shallow as you want. It's up to you as a player. What I personally hated about the original BG1/2 is that your alignment could only switch to evil, never from neutral or evil to good (without mods anyway). Now that was unrealistic. Like in my opinion, NWN1/2 had it perfect. You pick an alignment, but the actions you took could heavily change it. You could realistically speaking start with a paladin, murder innocents, become one greedy chaotic force of evil and your alignment would reflect that over time. Or you could play a rogue who becomes an assassin (in D&D 3-3.5e assassins could only be taken by evil alignments btw) and then have a change of heart and slowly become good. The possibilities were endless.
It's that type of alignment people want and I agree with them. Anyone and everyone is capable of change, for good or bad. But I also recall you saying in this topic or in another one that you never really played much D&D, so I can understand why the entire idea is so alien to you and you dislike it. But truth be told? It's not as restrictive as you think it is.
I have nothing against alignments if it is the way you describe it. But I've seen in a lot of places how people don't intend to play it in the way you describe, but in the opposite way - a player who is lawful good will never take shadowheart simply because she is a priestess of Shar. It doesn't matter to him what she says and does, from his lawful good perspective she is evil period
