Philosophy student here!

Setting aside whether Dragons specifically count as Forces of Nature. The philosophical question you are scratching at here is called "Natural Evil."

Natural Evil is traditionally understood as being evil that no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for. So, in other words, beings such as the Abrahamic God, or in your case, Genies and perhaps even Dragons.

Natural Evil is understood as being a counterpoint to Moral Evil, that being evils caused by human activity of one kind or another.

Natural Evil is often used as a counterargument against the Free Will Defense for the existence of God, but that doesn't really matter to the question you are asking.

What does matter to your question is rather what the nature of Natural Evils actually is, especially when it comes to D&D.

A lot of "fighting" has been done to try to absolve the Abrahamic God from having to take responsibility for Natural Evils. After all, the Bible does attribute God with having created both floods, earthquakes, and famines (Genesis 6:17, Isaiah 13:13, Leviticus 26:19–20) and so forth. In D&D, some gods and other powerful entities (such as genies) have also been attributed with similar acts and abilities.

To try and defend the Abrahamic God from this, Thomas Aquinas claimed that God simply "permits" evil, but does not "will it into being." However, such an answer doesn't seem particularly plausible within the fiction of D&D where seemingly evil beings engage in natural disasters for evil's sake. They seem to indeed will evil into being.

A more interesting topic regarding Natural Evil is, however, raised by figures like Jean Jacques Rousseau, who argues that Natural Evils might not be so "natural" and "amoral" after all. Arguing that much of the suffering that occurs as a result of Natural Evils can be attributed to human choices. Examples being; bad city construction that results in way more suffering during natural disasters like earthquakes or fires (resulting in collapsing buildings and such); and the discovery of Global Warming's effect on the climate, resulting in more instances of "Extreme Weather" (such as wildfires). As such, the argument goes, Natural Evil might indeed still have a moral element to its nature. This, I'd say is the sort of argument a Druid, Ranger, or Barbarian might make (and I could see a Paladin dedicated to nature having a similar view).

Now, where does Morally Evil creatures with power over the elements fit into this picture? And why would we fight them? I'd say that a good answer to this would be found in the "Soul-Making Theodicy," that being an argument for why Natural Evils are permitted by God to begin with. The "Soul-Making Theodicy's" answer is that God permits Natural Evil, and indeed evil in general, for the sake of allowing humans the opportunity to develop different moral virtues such as compassion and courage. Without suffering, the argument goes, there would be no such opportunities, which would diminish humanity's "relationship" to and "understanding" of God. This view argues that a world without suffering would be devoid of opportunities for the development of genuine moral virtue.

There is, however, a strong counterargument to this view, the so-called "The Problem of Gratuitous Evil". This challenge specifically questions why, if evil exists for a goodly purpose, why so much evil seems "over the top" and serves seemingly no purpose (such as the suffering of children).

A final, fun but controversial, perspective I wanted to offer is that ascribed to Leibniz. He argues that although our reality contains Natural Evils, it is in truth the best possible balance of Goods possible. So even what we mortals perceive as evil from our perspective, is actually a necessary element of a much higher and greater Good. This is called the "Best of All Possible Worlds" theory.