On-topic:

I don't understand why you want to be rewarded for being "gray." You're right that most real people are gray, but it seems to me that most of life's rewards come from non-gray actions. Whether you're helping a friend in need or ruthlessly clawing your way to the top of your profession, it's generally the extremes that give the best returns. Now, living a neutral life might be easier (which is probably why most people do it) but I'm not sure it makes sense to specifically and intentionally REWARD the neutral path. Unless the reward you're talking about is just to have an easier playthrough, I guess.

Semi-off-topic:

I hate most morality systems in games these days. Why? Because it's not always clear what effect your actions will have on your morality. I guess this is done to increase the "realism" or whatever, but it doesn't make any sense. Maybe someone in a game asks me to stay in their house to protect them. Maybe I decide to go outside, reasoning that I can protect them better if I can see enemies coming. Then a ghost materializes in their house and slaughters them. I would probably be given "evil points" for abandoning them, despite having completely altruistic goals. That doesn't make sense.

It does (sort of) make sense to have unclear choices that result in good or bad outcomes, but accidental morality is stupid. If I'm trying my hardest to make good/pure decisions, then my morality should reflect that, even if I accidentally help the other side with my every deed.

Game developers: don't try to assign my morality based on the actions I take, because today's technology is not sophisticated enough to convincingly manage that. Just tell me how different choices will affect my morality (if not their effect on the world at large) and let me play the kind of character I want to play.