Just to put it out there, and as much as D&D Alignments are a fascinating thing, the main flaw that comes to fruition, is that moral neutrality does not exist, at least rightly so because, our own actions, methods, personality, and behavior, all dictate for us on what morality we are apart of, good or evil.

Only evil and good technically exist. From the outset though, neutrality exists in the sense of not partaking in conflicts/conundrums, as well as during good vs. evil conflicts, that goes without saying. But it is vitally important to note, that I am only calling it nonexistent, in the sense that its in association with morality. In real life, judges may be neutral in the sense that they are not taking sides in a conflict or anything, but morality wise, their morality is either evil for the corrupt ones, while the more reasonable ones are good. In other words, being Lawful Evil or Lawful Good.

I can even say the same for detectives, as they tend to investigate whatever malignant things a criminal is doing in order to advance the benign cause of making them face justice for the evil things they had done. The corrupt ones on the other are evil. Twilight Sparkle during the Hoofield conflict, had not taken sides, but she is Lawful Good.

The character named Judge Dredd is a token good teammate (on an anti-heroic scale) within a dictatorial system, believing he is upholding order and justice against evil and violent criminals. As for the characters/real-life people taking sides, whether its good or evil, is contradictory against neutrality as a meaning, and plus, betrayal is an evil action. That being said, neutrality exists, but not in the field of morality.

My proposal, is to remove the Lawful, True, to Chaotic Neutral pages.