What is the stance of “nature” on the forces of law and chaos? Considering the monsters in the rulebook it seems that the implied setting with its neutral fey and Centaurs and lawful unicorns, pegasus and treants is more leaning towards pro humanity.
Did the struggle of “wilderness vs civilisation” ever came up above the level of “local druid doenst like the wood cutters”? Is that a topic in the Auran Empire Setting?
I think law, neutrality, and chaos would all claim "nature" to be on their side, but in a different way.
Law would claim that "natural law" exists, that humans are born with an innate moral sense, that by nature, humans are social animals designed to live in civilized polities, and that as such we should claim and tame wilderness as a moral good. "I have built a city on this mountain top because it is right and proper that the domain of man conquer and tame the frontier. It is a grand accomplishment testifying to the power of civilization."
Neutrality would claim that while there is "natural law," it's look out for yourself; that nature is amoral, and dangerous, and that whether you think wilderness should be claimed will depend on whether you enjoy living in the wilderness. "I built a city on this mountain top because I like the view. If you enjoyed skiing here, too bad."
Chaos would claim that nature is red in tooth and claw, violent, and that the supreme destructive power of nature shows that what Law considers "the proper order of things" is an aberration. "Your city on the mountain top exists only because you were strong enough to build it. But when an avalanche destroys your little city, you'll see you weren't strong enough to keep it."
The idea of "druids v. wood cutters" is not something that the Auran Empire setting concerns itself with. The idea of progress versus environmentalism is a very modern idea. Of course Modern ACKS (MACKS!) might have an "alignment system" of "techno-capitalists" and "environmentalists" as the two opposed factions...