So, this is just one of those thought I had when thinking about Druidic neutrality.
Originally all druids had to be True Neutral, reflecting the perfect balance of nature which does not distinguish aspirations like good, evil, law, and chaos, it simply is. This is the core druid philosophy. Of course, 3rd edition allowed for druids to be any partially neutral alignment, most likely for metagame reasons to allow players a wider option, after all, druids aren't paladins and that precise strictness is not necessary to follow the druid's path.
Then I got to thinking...each neutral alignment could be its own druidic philosophy, it's own interpretation on what "nature" is. Nature may not necessarily *need* to be a balance, that is only one interpretation. Nature may embody other ideals as well, and so I came up with four possible individual variations on druid philosophy for the other alignments:
Neutral Good: Nature is above all Life. Green, growing things, forests flourishing, a thing of beauty and positivity. Such a druid would respect life above all else and not wish to harm other creatures (despite death and violent competition being the so-called "nature's way"). It may be simply that the world is corrupted or not-there-yet, and that the ultimate goal will be universal harmony between all life, the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. Might also involve some belief in a primordial "Eden" where such a state actually existed, the world has fallen and must be restored.
Lawful Neutral: Nature is Order. The natural world has laws. Look at the seasons. Look at the cycles of the sun and moon. Look at the behaviour of animals, and how their ingrained instincts guide them in predictable patterns. When you put a seed in good soil, water it, sun it, a tree will grow, and always of the same kind as the seed. Then it bears more seeds. Sure, you can't always predict the weather, but maybe you just don't know enough to do so yet? In seeming chaos, there may simply be hidden order. Such druids would be into observation and study of the natural world.
Chaotic Neutral: Nature is Wild. That's why they call it wilderness. Civilization tries to carve it up and build neat little cities with neat little streets, but when those societies inevitably fall, nature is there to restore chaos. Look at all the ancient ruins now overrun with critters and ivy. Notice how creatures evolve and adapt to their environments. Mother Nature is unpredictable, who knows what she'll do next? These druids would exmphasize the importance that Nature runs free to do what it will and may well be more lax about crusading against civilization and planting trees in deserts. After all, the world keeps on spinning despite the efforts of mortals.
Neutral Evil: Nature is Selfish. Everything out there is in competition with each other, each trying to push itself to the top and spread its own kind. Trees grow tall and choke out the mere weeds, the Alpha wolf asserts its dominane over the Omega, predators chase down prey and devour them. It's survival of the fittest out there and to deny that is unnatural. Druids of this breed may be more comfortable with a forest being razed somewhere, so long as it isn't their forest. They may also view natural forces as things to be harnessed and controlled for personal gain.
Any thoughts?
I really like the notion and encourage you to build up more of a tradition based around them! The names of the various 'churches,' perhaps some symbols (something other than mistletoe, maybe?), some slight variants in the druid powers based on the alignments chosen, or a different spell list or options for animal companions. Definitely a fuller description of their theological interpretations of the core druidic tradition. For example, the Neutral Good druidic philosophy would harp on those themes of Eden; most likely the world would have been created a Paradise, there was a Fall, and there is a future Paradise in the afterlife for the blessed, while the world of the living is either constantly improvable if always imperfect, or truly perfectible, with variations among churches as to whether this is merely possible or is prophetically inevitable. Morality is judged in terms of that ideal Paradise. We are gardeners, caretakers, with responsibilities. The world is fundamentally providential. Djinn might really dig this theology.
The Neutral Evil philosophy could use some work, though. The first three are very reasonable, but I'm not getting a real justification there. Perhaps an emphasis on eugenics (not that they'd know what genes are, but genus as type would be known to them). A gentle face to the theology, at first: the world was created lifeless, without divine purpose or plan, but only natural forces. Life emerged, and has been developing and improving ever since. We, and the world, can approach perfection. We are the gardeners; the garden is under our domination and it is our responsibility to exercise that domination effectively. It is incumbent upon us to cleanse our species of its impurities, by ridding ourselves of the less fit and seeking or experimenting with improvements upon the most fit. We are in competition with other intelligent species, and ultimately a dominant species will emerge from that conflict. Utopia will follow, because we will have perfect fitness for the world that remains after that emergence.
Alternatively, invert the Neutral Good philosophy a different way, by focusing on the opposite of the life aspect. Death is natural and inevitable, and individuals are spiritually best served by preparation for this. The dead themselves are irrelevant. Individuals are brief; it is the species which continues, and which demands loyalty. It is a moral commandment to outcompete other species -- there can be no overarching morality or coexistence between different modes of consciousness. Only one will survive. A particular denomination may seek immortality or embrace undeath.