As has been mentioned here "Team Neutral" is an
incredibly varied definition, but in my opinion one wrought with so much breadth as to be useless.
Until further qualified, it technically encompasses five alignments (NG, CN, TN, LN, NE) for both Ethical and Moral Neutrality, as well as being readily confused with Political or Ideological Neutrality, the everpresent multitudes of other conflations of "I'm not this type of extremist, therefore I'm Neutral",
as well as the unique case of "Unaligned" (like animals, plants, golems, rocks, etc. lacking in the means to make any such decisions.). As such, I generally advocate for defining a position not by their moderation, but by their excess.
However, in this particular discussion, we
have further qualified, to examine the circumstance as Neutral on the moral axis. At this point, I reject the idea of "Team Næ[ut/tu]ral" as a combined unit, for it is not strictly performed in the interests of a singular perspective of 'The Natural Order'. The alignment band includes everything from extremists willing to endorse both violently Good and Evil acts in equal measure if it means accomplishing their goals, to extremists who interfere with as little as possible with events within the world even it it means a concession of power.
I tend to see Emanuel as one of the former, as an advocate for a specific cause (the interests of the Forests) at the cost of treating "Civilisation" as seperate from "Nature". While this fits the dogma of Sylvanus and the opposition of great Evils will fairly reliably be in the interests of the Wilds, advocating the death of sentient beings (as in the example provided) is still Evil from the objective morals of the setting, and overall leans towards a more active form of Moral Neutrality who express or impress their goals on others. Meanwhile numerous elements of Team Natural lean towards NG because the ensopuse Good principles (Such as the devotees of Eldath) or explicitly oppose Evil (Such as Mielikki).
In contrast, characters exist who strive to remove themselves from the problem. There are Neutral characters who see civilisation as just as much a part of the natural order as the Wilds are - people being simply bipedal animals of their own form and many driven by base behavior imposed upon them by the gods. Some characters might simply have their nose focused on a specific outcome, like research or a great work, and
neglect or ignore the greater philosophical questions. Meanwhile, foreigners like my own character, Sayushi Furuki, may see it as entirely out of place to interfere with the moral and metaphysical politiciking of the lands beyond the Dragonwall because it isn't her world. These examples of Passive Neutrality tend to focus on either removing themselves from the moral/ethical problems, or turning them into a matter of enforcing internal balance rather than external balance.
Where "Team Natural" and other advocacy guilds are clearly self-organising groups, the latter I would consider as "a loose coalition of independent members". These players still have plenty of value to add to the community as a whole, but in smaller and more discrete contributions often as a speciality or buisness for others to request. As an example, Sayushi has focused on her buisness as a tavernkeep and culinarian; These skills have a demand completely independent of morality and may be of interest to anyone with need for them. However, a customer is unlikely to patronise a buisness that they find antagonistic, so ideological bias may make a simple job harder. For settings where the goal is a impartial meeting spot, a willingness to broker and enforce peace between different extremist groups is all but manditory.
Part of why I bring this up is that it is entirely reasonable to be Neutral on the moral axis and oppose Team Natural. Much of the discussion thus far has been conflating Neutrality with Naturality, but a variety of arguments can be made that are just as valid that characterise the latter as a group of meddlesome ecoterrorists. A Gondar focused on their next construction, a justicar of the law, and a self-interested scoundrel may all find it terribly offensive when informed that the forest-folk are gearing for war once again to oppose some new city expantion. These views are equally as Neutral, but demonstrate that "Team Neutral" is not a monolithic cohesion with any expectation of shared values to bind them, the way that Good or Evil might.
I have often found amoral characters to be satisfying, and shall likely continue to do so in future, but in no way have I ever perceived myself to be a portion of any "Team" of such. There is plenty of opportunity for individuals for whom the objective moral grading-rubric dosen't need to be a constant and lurking concern, and none of them need share the same values.
And many fun times had for me over many years .