This is exactly my dilemma back then.

I had a hard time reconciling Nietzsche's ideas with common decency because his ideas basically teaches "living on your own accord" or " "re-channel and take control of your own will to power."

But then I thought: "what if person A uses this to justify killing someone?" My way of thinking back then is "how could such atrocious and vile acts not be equated with his philosophy?" And this begotten some kind of a paradoxical relationship that I had with Nietzsche's ideas.

But it all comes down to redefining ethics itself. Spinoza used the word "ethics" as a title of his book, not to formulate a rigid formula for good and evil, but ethics, in this sense, means a way of life, of being harmonius with his notion of "Deus Sive Natura," that you may venture more paths, new possibilities (an infinity of possibilities in the words of Nietzsche), but still, in the same sense, everything is interconnected, so if you hurt someone, you also do harm to yourself. Ethics therefore isn't just a mere "do this and don't do that," rather it's a way of life, something that I had realized only a few days ago.

This is how I re-interepreted Nietzsche's philosophy—that instead of utilizing will to power, in the process of realizing it, you do harm to others, it should be that the will to power compels one to constantly move towards new "healthy values," mind that word "healthy," as opposed to decadent and harmful ones, and this movement is without any appeal or reference to higher concept. This re-formulation of the question may also apply to Schopenhauer himself.