We keep going back to this idea that neutral is some kind of a default, that if you don't do anything you get stuck in neutral, as it were. And further, it keeps grinding on the mechanics of the other alignments because of it's relationship to intent and action. For example, good characters can't just be well-wishers who do whatever it takes out of some kind of ends-justify-the-means utilitarianism. They have to intend good, as well as actually do good.

According to the typical description of your average, commoner neutrality, they might not have any preference toward intending toward good or evil, or law or chaos, but in action it certainly sounds like they tend toward good behavior. So being neutral doesn't take hardly any work at all, but you have to actually try to be good. It seems a little strange to me.

Another area we've touched upon is the idea that neutral alignment reflects a character primarily concerned with behavior along an axis other than ethics and morality. The idea of doing good or evil for its own sake doesn't interest them, but they'll help their friends and fight their foes. This description of neutral alignment, though, has implications for evil and good characters as well. After all, rarely do evil characters conduct evil for its own sake. Often times, the evil is a byproduct or a symptom of behavior intended toward achieving something on another spectrum.