Neutral Evil has no drive? They're ineffectual? Ahahaha. I need my home PC, I'll refute that when I can.
Oh no, not at all. The difference between Neutral (in terms of morality) and either of the two extremes is that they don't feel compelled to do anything particularly altruistic or selfish. Like an everyday person, not plagued by guilt or restlessness, generally content with whatever happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly. Somebody who finds things generally simpler to ignore than engage.
The difference between a Good oppressed peasant, a Neutral oppressed peasant and an Evil oppressed peasant would be something like this:
Good: life sucks, but you have to keep trying, keep helping, keep hoping. If we all did the best we can, you can bet things would be better.
Neutral: life sucks, but what're you gonna do? If things are ever going to change, it's not going to be because some dirty peasant said so.
Evil: life sucks, but what if all you need to get out of this hole is to step on someone? Works well for the people in charge.
As for ethicality, you could likely work out something similar.
Good, Neutral or Evil?
Seems pretty neutral to me, if only to signify how much of a gray area it might be. Really, it's a classic tale of evil turning good, sort of. Not terribly depraved evil, not incredibly shining good. Humble in both directions.