Hmm, then thats where we disagree, for me true neutral is the person you cant hate, because you realize in his situation you would also do the same.
True neutral is the kind of person, he sees the natural needs of everyone more or less equal. Be it rich, or poor, good or bad, selfish or altruist, you believe not deserves more to live than you, nor you deserve to live more than others. You act as your nature suggests you at a time.
You dont force yourself to apply a law you dont agree, nor you will fight the order in general. You wont let something great evil happen, nor you will sacrifice yourself for something great good.
But most of all, you believe in natural balance, you take as much as you give to the others. This is where i disagree with you guys. Being apathetic, when you live in a society, is evil. If you live as a hermit, its ok to not be concerned with others because you live alone. You dont see the suffering of others, nor you cause it in any direct way. You live in your forest/mountain/monastery in peace, so you CAN be neutral by not looking for others. But when you LIVE in a society, and you have taken the aids of others, its your duty to yourself, to return the favor.
If others help you, but you dont help the world back, you create an imbalance, where you deserve more than others, pretty un-true neutral for me.
For me being true neutral is like animals (they generally are the most close if not perfect example of natural balance)
Those that hunt alone, give no help to anyone, but take no help from anyone.
Those that are social, form packs and herds and help each other, they protect their babies, the females, or the weaker animals of the herd. Even out of your self interest you realize your survival goes with the survival of the others. So you see for example bishons forming a wall against the predators, hunting the herd. If they were apathetic, they would run away and let the herd get eaten.
But that goes against their nature (and thefore against their natural neutrality) when they have the reproductive needs.
So you live in a society, where by default everyone plays his role so we can exist together. Or you help, or you become evil, because my definition when you live in a society, someone helps you. So you have to return the favor. As animals in herds/packs do. Where they protect each others, they all scout for food, they all try for the common as the individual interest.
Imo 2 very good and clear examples are.
-LOTR, ents. I will not harm those who do no harm me. I will not go beyond my woods to help others(they dont initially go to fight). If something walks in my woods and he means no harm but he has need, i might help him(saving hobbits from orc/goblin). Should i see the need to go for war, i will honor my allies and help them, as i help my family. (fighting in the iseguard to assist saving the middle earth).
fullmetal alchemist brotherhood, briggs soldiers.
We protect our own people. The strongest by nature will survive. If you help us , we will help you, if you want to stay with us you will work for your food, and we will assist you as well. Should something terrible, come to destroy the world, we will stop it, because its our world as well.
Both the examples in by opinion are excellent true neutrals. They live with their natural ideas, help those that help them, protect themselves from those to harm them, and if needed harm those, who are trying to bring a great destruction.
You cant hate them, or like them. They seem just (at least to me).