Huge caveat: IMO PCs and DMs should be able to decide for themselves how they want to play the game. There's no need to comply with all of the RAW. If they allow an evil druid, it's all good.
For me, an evil druid doesn't make sense, unless nature is evil. Because druids are supposed to be dedicated to preserving/protecting and acting in accordance with nature, which is neither good or evil (which are evaluative concepts), but neutral (merely describable). That said, I totally understand a druid that engages in means that are (perceived as?) evil as long as these means promote/preserve ends that are in accordance with nature. For example, I could totally understand a druid that engages in sabotage, property damage and even harming humanoids in order to protect nature.
So, back to the original issue about alignment: is this type of druid evil? I'd say no, I'd say they're neutral because they're committed to protecting/promoting nature, which is neither good nor evil, but neutral. Because the type of druid I described has principles, I think lawful neutral best suits them. But alignment is a fundamental issue and intuitions of reasonable people can disagree.
EDIT: I suppose an evil druid could worship an evil nature divinity, e.g., god of death, destruction, chaos, etc. The Underdark circle is a natural fit for an evil druid, but I also think that there is much more unexplored thematic space for an evil druid that found in the core rulebooks.
That said, I totally understand a druid that engages in means that are (perceived as?) evil as long as these means promote/preserve ends that are in accordance with nature. For example, I could totally understand a druid that engages in sabotage, property damage and even harming humanoids in order to protect nature.
Personally, I've always believed that lawful evil has a lot to do with an "ends justify the means" mentality.
That said, I totally understand a druid that engages in means that are (perceived as?) evil as long as these means promote/preserve ends that are in accordance with nature. For example, I could totally understand a druid that engages in sabotage, property damage and even harming humanoids in order to protect nature.
Personally, I've always believed that lawful evil has a lot to do with an "ends justify the means" mentality.
I think it depends a lot on the character's reasoning (if any).
Lawful typically means you follow some form of strict code, usually something external – devils are lawful evil because they have strict rules to follow in making and enacting infernal contracts for example. An evil druid might be lawful evil if they have some kind of code they follow as laid down by a god or other belief system, or some kind of tradition.
Personally I would think if you're going to have an evil druid then neutral evil is the better fit, because it suits more a character that's simply ruthless, i.e- willing to do whatever it takes to pursue their goals, even if it means harming others in order to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll go out of their way to harm others, I've always taken it more to mean that they just don't care if others are harmed so long as they consider what they did to be necessary.
The main question to answer for an evil druid though is where the goal becomes personal, as evil in D&D alignment seems more intended to mean "selfish" – a thief who never directly harms someone for example might be neutral evil if they don't care who they steal from, because all they care about is gaining more themselves, even if it means stealing things of deep sentimental value, or money being saved to buy someone's freedom etc.
Druids are typically champions and defenders of nature though, so even if their methods are extreme their motivations aren't typically evil – shadow druids for example are true neutral, despite the fact that they are militant extremists who will attack or kill to defend any threat they perceive to nature. In terms of their morality any action that halts the progress of "civilisation" is serving the greater good of defending nature, the methods to them do not matter.
That's not to say a druid has to protect nature, they could be in tune with nature in the sense they know how to exploit it for their own selfish ends. I can definitely see that in neutral evil, and maybe lawful evil if there's some external code involved somewhere. Chaotic evil may be more of a stretch unless a druid is somehow following the principle that chaos is natural – there's a thematically interesting Circle of Mutation in the Grim Hollow core player book that I could see maybe working well for a chaotic evil druid, though I'm not a fan of it mechanically.
Huge caveat: IMO PCs and DMs should be able to decide for themselves how they want to play the game. There's no need to comply with all of the RAW. If they allow an evil druid, it's all good.
For me, an evil druid doesn't make sense, unless nature is evil. Because druids are supposed to be dedicated to preserving/protecting and acting in accordance with nature, which is neither good or evil (which are evaluative concepts), but neutral (merely describable). That said, I totally understand a druid that engages in means that are (perceived as?) evil as long as these means promote/preserve ends that are in accordance with nature. For example, I could totally understand a druid that engages in sabotage, property damage and even harming humanoids in order to protect nature.
So, back to the original issue about alignment: is this type of druid evil? I'd say no, I'd say they're neutral because they're committed to protecting/promoting nature, which is neither good nor evil, but neutral. Because the type of druid I described has principles, I think lawful neutral best suits them. But alignment is a fundamental issue and intuitions of reasonable people can disagree.
EDIT: I suppose an evil druid could worship an evil nature divinity, e.g., god of death, destruction, chaos, etc. The Underdark circle is a natural fit for an evil druid, but I also think that there is much more unexplored thematic space for an evil druid that found in the core rulebooks.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Personally, I've always believed that lawful evil has a lot to do with an "ends justify the means" mentality.
I think it depends a lot on the character's reasoning (if any).
Lawful typically means you follow some form of strict code, usually something external – devils are lawful evil because they have strict rules to follow in making and enacting infernal contracts for example. An evil druid might be lawful evil if they have some kind of code they follow as laid down by a god or other belief system, or some kind of tradition.
Personally I would think if you're going to have an evil druid then neutral evil is the better fit, because it suits more a character that's simply ruthless, i.e- willing to do whatever it takes to pursue their goals, even if it means harming others in order to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll go out of their way to harm others, I've always taken it more to mean that they just don't care if others are harmed so long as they consider what they did to be necessary.
The main question to answer for an evil druid though is where the goal becomes personal, as evil in D&D alignment seems more intended to mean "selfish" – a thief who never directly harms someone for example might be neutral evil if they don't care who they steal from, because all they care about is gaining more themselves, even if it means stealing things of deep sentimental value, or money being saved to buy someone's freedom etc.
Druids are typically champions and defenders of nature though, so even if their methods are extreme their motivations aren't typically evil – shadow druids for example are true neutral, despite the fact that they are militant extremists who will attack or kill to defend any threat they perceive to nature. In terms of their morality any action that halts the progress of "civilisation" is serving the greater good of defending nature, the methods to them do not matter.
That's not to say a druid has to protect nature, they could be in tune with nature in the sense they know how to exploit it for their own selfish ends. I can definitely see that in neutral evil, and maybe lawful evil if there's some external code involved somewhere. Chaotic evil may be more of a stretch unless a druid is somehow following the principle that chaos is natural – there's a thematically interesting Circle of Mutation in the Grim Hollow core player book that I could see maybe working well for a chaotic evil druid, though I'm not a fan of it mechanically.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.