I don't get it.
Like, I don't get your post. You "addressed" my example points without even mentioning my actual topic, nor adding anything to the conversation. I know this sounds mean in text, and I can't really think of a nicer way to write it this late, but what are trying to say?
Maybe it would help if I summarize the conversation.
OP: Holy Word is an ethical puzzle. (They list an example)
Me: I agree. I would like to add that one reason why it's an ethical puzzle is because the spell cannot differentiate between major evil deserving death and minor evil deserving lesser punishment.
You: your examples aren't evil and alignment isn't related to morality. (???)
Are you actually saying that the assignments were just team names to justify killing and that GOOD didn't have anything to do with being good?
Because if so, I'm grognard enough to not be impressed by the "I remember the old lore and you don't even know what alignment is" argument. You're just wrong (if that's even what you actually said).