I usually tend towards neutral or chaotic.

Part of it is that it's so standard for NPCs, organizations, etc in many games to end up holding the idiot ball or have unreasonable secret agendas in an attempt to create drama, that putting your decisions in the hands of others in a D&D-like world is just asking for trouble. Its hard for DMs to mentally model the ways in which large organizations actually do ensure their own stability, because the DM is emulating all that on the brain of a single individual. So large organizations end up being just as flaky if not more so than individuals, which saps away a lot of what Lawfulness has going for it in practice.

It also doesn't play nicely with the usual D&D growth curve, because its pretty easy to level up more quickly than you could reasonable advance within an organization. The result can be a sort of weird power imbalance (or even worse, a competency imbalance). A lawful outlook also can have problems with changes in scope - if the thing you character owes loyalty to becomes irrelevant due to escalation in the game, that can make it hard to maintain the character's motivation. E.g. its all well and good to be dedicated to the defense of the village of Hommlett, but when suddenly you find yourself fighting against planar incursions, dealing with Blood War politics, etc then it can be hard to keep that concrete thing relevant. The character must grow at that point, but timescales are generally pretty compressed in adventures so it ends up feeling sort of forced and disconnecting for a character who really cares about their fealty or membership in some specific social structure in the world. A chaotic-leaning character (e.g. inward-focused) carries their motivations with them and can more easily adapt them to a new situation.