Nah, alignment is too poorly defined as a consequence of it being misunderstood in the first place.
There is plenty of scope for two lawful good characters to be fighting each other, for example: if an evil potentate makes a bad law, then the lawful good sherrif either:
follows the law, because that's what she does, or
protects the innocent, because that's what she does.
Therefore, two characters of the same alignment can quite easily interpret the same situation differently and still be within their alignment.
I know option A seems more lawful, and option B seems more good, but I could also argue that A is lawful-neutral, and B is neutral-good. (Assuming for the purposes of this example that the sherrif couldn't change the law; a Kobayashi Maru, is better to test ethical boundaries.) The crux is the semantics of "law": does lawful mean
"obey laws of society", like democracy, or does it mean
"obey the laws of God", like a theocracy?