[RedMattis]

I think even the D&D morality can be made interesting, but generally the bias of the authors tends to ruin it. (Hurr, dur, Chaos is random/stupid/extra evil. Or all the various "Lawful Stupid")

Example:

Lawful Evil. The count of a corrupt domain. He tries to bind down everything with rules to keep all those under him in line and play them off against each other. He himself will cheat rules, but claim otherwise and his corrupted court of law will make sure he always gets away clean.

Lawful Good. The count of a fair domain. He tries to promote good productive behavior through an elaborate array of laws and rules to which everyone must obey without fail. When faced with corruption the count will try to handle it in the most legal manner.

Chaotic Evil. The count of a ruthless domain. He uses displays of force to keep those under him in line, and makes violent displays of those who might appear to challenge him. Laws might exist, but everyone knows that they are meaningless; what matters is who you are useful to, and whom you might offend.

Chaotic Good. The count of a idealistic domain. He tries to promote the ideas of 'doing the right thing'. There might be rules, but ultimately what matters the most within the domain is essentially a popularity contest; whether or not someone seems to be 'decent person' and 'good for the community'. Obeying the rules isn't considered terribly important as long as you are 'good', and a person seen as 'bad' who obeys the rules will find they provide little shelter.