Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as the reasoning engines for agentic AI systems, yet they exhibit a critical flaw: a rigid adherence to explicit rules that leads to decisions misaligned with human common sense and intent. This "rule-rigidity" is a significant barrier to building trustworthy autonomous agents. While prior work has shown that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with human explanations can mitigate this issue, SFT is computationally expensive and inaccessible to many practitioners. To address this gap, we introduce the Rule-Intent Distinction (RID) Framework, a novel, low-compute meta-prompting technique designed to elicit human-aligned exception handling in LLMs in a zero-shot manner. The RID framework provides the model with a structured cognitive schema for deconstructing tasks, classifying rules, weighing conflicting outcomes, and justifying its final decision. We evaluated the RID framework against baseline and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting on a custom benchmark of 20 scenarios requiring nuanced judgment across diverse domains. Our human-verified results demonstrate that the RID framework significantly improves performance, achieving a 95% Human Alignment Score (HAS), compared to 80% for the baseline and 75% for CoT. Furthermore, it consistently produces higher-quality, intent-driven reasoning. This work presents a practical, accessible, and effective method for steering LLMs from literal instruction-following to liberal, goal-oriented reasoning, paving the way for more reliable and pragmatic AI agents.