>I don't think the giants acts are inherently evil if he sees
>almost everyone as a threat to his wilds, and acts on it.

If your role amounts to something similar to "I will kill almost everyone, all the time", I will turn you evil.

>Why
>should he let ANYONE with the stink of civilization live?
>Unless you're a serious friend to the wilds, I should be able
>to kill you without remorse.

Sure, but you're evil.

"I'm evil, but I don't think of myself as evil and have what I consider to be good reasons for all the evil things I do, even though I'm actually evil" describes most of my evil characters, incidentally.

>A harbinger should have a reason, but if the role was written
>right, I would be super upset and dissapointed if I got turned
>evil for what could actually be a really well done role.

Okay, I'm telling you right now to not write that role and play that character if you don't want to be upset and disappointed.

>You didn't turn fjodir neutral or good
>for hunting basically all evils. His acts were inherently
>good, so why the difference here?

I don't think you really understand how the alignment system works. Killing evil doesn't make you good, but killing good can make you evil. The two alignment are opposites but they're not mirror images.

For the record, Fjodir is an immensely more complicated character than you're giving him credit for. Even as much as his concept was to focus on evil he had moments of weakness and frequently did unambiguously evil things. These weren't failings in his roleplay but expressions of it.