http://arcana.wikidot.com/character-alignment

(till I find a better link)

*Notable, is that the palladium system omits any neutral alignments outright.

Found better ...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3401634&postcount=1

I can't really say I agree with that system, it sounds way to black and white.

That surprises me. I always considered the D&D alignment grid to be quite rigidly structured, and very black & white. Both systems work well in practice though.

Well I think D&Ds morality structure seems to be mildly bendable, but the system you noted seems to paint you as good, selfish, or evil, which might as well be good and evil, since USUALLY, not always, evil and selfish are two in the same.

Only in the same way as D&D paints one as Lawful, Neutral, and Evil. While the Palladium system does not define you as good, evil and neutral ~lawful/chaotic variants, in its place it has some overlap between the alignments which works out to be loosely similar in the end (minus the true neutrals).

I would give the Mojave desert an alignment of neutral evil. Since the DnD system tends to rule self-serving behavior as evil, but in this case I am not so sure about that. I tend to think of it as self-preservation in this instance. There is no established area of order.... at best there are newly constructed outposts that are built to achieve domination of the area and in the process some form of stabilization. I could go into specifics... but it is late. The flip-side of selfish is self-sacrifice which is hardly a healthy behavior for any sane wanderer living in a chaotic battle-torn region.

Self-serving behavior is chaotic-neutral. Unless you're a tyrant, then it's neutral/chaotic evil.

So did Hitler, Stalin, etc...
I do agree with you however on the game being morally gray and the DnD system not being the best to classify NV factions.