True Neutral comes in 2, maybe 3 flavors in D&D.

The first is the one you've mentioned: things that just don't "get" alignments. They're not evil, they're just creatures doing what creatures do. They pursue food and shelter and personal safety, and they do not discriminate in their targets except as those targets help or hinder their goals.

This type would be Evil if they understood their actions, if only because their willingness to directly take from/cause harm to other sentient creatures for their own personal selfish interests is one of the definitions of evil acts. But evil requires at least some level of intent.


The second is the old classic jerk-druid alignment: Neutrality through Fanatical Balance. For every puppy you pet, you have to kick another one. If a kingdom is full of good and virtue, you have to foment sin and suffering. If it is full of corruption and vice, you seek to tamp it down with an equal measure of goodness. For every law that is fairly enforced, you need to encourage arbitrary antiauthoritarianism. For every law ignored and freedom granted, you have to ensure somebody is enforcing order to counter it.

This kind sounds interesting, but in reality just makes for schizophrenic antagonists or unreliable allies.


The third kind is, arguably, the "don't care" variety. They'll live and let live. They understand well enough that hurting others for pure selfish convenience or comfort is not cool, and thus they typically won't do it. But they're not likely to go out of their way to help somebody without at least some persuasion (or personal stake, like that "somebody" being a friend or loved one). They ARE as likely to steal if they think it's "victimless" (e.g. the target can afford it) as to refrain (if they think they'd get caught, or they decide that their need for it doesn't justify the theft). They will bend the rules or ignore them where they feel they have a good reason, but they will not rail against them and will expect others to follow them unless there's good reason not to.


True Neutral is usually not all that interesting because it's the "normal" state for a human who is not particularly devoted to helping others and views laws as guidelines worth following but not slavishly adhering to. It's said humans lack a predisposition to any alignment, including neutral, but in truth, most humans are True Neutral with a leaning towards the edges, not real paragons of any of them.

I'd venture to say that most modern Americans fall somewhere in the True Neutral with Lawful or Good Tendencies category. We do value charity and think following the law is a good idea, but we'll rationalize ignoring the latter when it's a major hassle or doesn't seem important, and we tend to be more focused on our own benefit than our neighbors'. But at the same time, we admire good people for being good and charitable, and we respect the honor of those who are strict in their adherence to law - at the least it's spirit. (We may, if anything, be more solidly neutral on the law/chaos axis, as we tend to also sometimes view strict adherence to law as a bit silly.)

Neutral people find murder abhorrent, but aren't above revenge (as opposed to justice).