D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I'm having a troublesome time understanding why the animate dead spell is considered evil. When I read the manual it states that the spall imbues the targeted corpse with a foul mimicry of life, implying that the soul is not a sentient being who is trapped in a decaying corpse. Rather, the spell does exactly what its title suggests, it only animates the corps. Now of course one could use the spell to create zombies that would hunt and kill humans, but by that same coin, they could create a labor force that needs no form of sustenance (other than for the spell to be recast of course). There have also been those who have said "the spell is associated with the negative realm which is evil", however when you ask someone why the negative realm is bad that will say "because it is used for necromancy", I'm sure you can see the fallacy in this argument.

However, I must take into account that I have only looked into the DnD magic system since yesterday so there are likely large gaps in my knowledge. PS(Apon further reflection I've decided that the animate dead spell doesn't fall into the school of necromancy, as life is not truly given to the corps, instead I believe this would most likely fall into the school of transmutation.) PPS(I apologize for my sloppy writing, I've decided I'm feeling too lazy to correct it.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Druids have been able to wear metal armor since 1e. There were just mechanical consequences for it in the older editions. 5e? Not so much. No mechanical consequences at all for violating the voluntary taboo.

Again, so it means nothing and serves no one.

 

[Charlaquin]

No. These are not situations allowed by the rules. I can declare I add my proficiency bonus to damage instead of strength, I can declare that my character jumps over a house, I can declare all sort of things that are not allowed to come pass according the RAW. It still isn't going to happen.

"X won't do Y" is the rule. If You declare your X doing Y, you're breaking the rule. The RAW is not complicated at all. Sure, it is a stupid way to formulate rules, and in case of 'frequent casting' so ambiguous that it makes it useless.

See my response to @Cadence - if you declare that you are adding your proficiency bonus to damage, you are not following the procedures described by the rules correctly. If you say that your character performs (or attempts to perform) a certain action in the game world, you are following the procedures described by the rules correctly. The rules stating your character “won’t” do a thing are proven false by you following this procedure, and now the DM is in the position of having to ad-hoc declare a result for something the “rules” incorrectly said wouldn’t happen.

No. It says that the rule exist because of the taboo, and you can ask GM about omitting the rule.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Sage Advice says ask your DM if you want your druid character to wear metal armor, ergo the consequences of declaring that your character puts metal armor (a declaration the rules do explicitly permit you to make) when your character happens to be a druid are not provided by the rules, and must be ad-hoc made up by the DM.

 

[Oofta]

Agreed to an extent but I consider them to be related concepts.

In game, there is very little difference. A creature that dies with an Evil alignment (regardless of due to it being a Cosmic evil, or a Moral one) adds his soul to the tally of the forces of Evil (goes to a Negative Outer Plane).

In the grand scheme of things, there isnt any difference 'in game'. The forces of Evil gain 1 soul. The forces of Good lose 1 soul.

Of course, there is a difference to the players at the table, where selling souls and animating the dead and trucking with Demons is 'meh' but torture, murder and to a far greater degree rape are frowned upon (usually).

When it comes to animating the dead, I always frame it in the following way to players.

You're:

1) Using 'foul, dark, unholy, black magic' (think Dark Side, Star Wars) to,
2) Channel an evil monstrous spirit into,
3) The corpse of a dead person, defiling that corpse, and the dignity of the deceased,
4) To create a horrific undead monster, that would happily eat babies if you lost control of it (a possibility).

Regardless of your intentions (and the path to Hell is lined with good intentions), this is not a Good act, and only Evil creatures do so with any regularity.

End of story.

Unless there is a social contract at the table, whereby we want to explore a heroic (but misguided) PCs fall to evil, or it's a non heroic game (all alignments welcome) there will be an additional warning that the PC is in the red zone for an alignment change, and possible loss of PC (presuming a heroic campaign) or other consequences, including an alignment change and everything that goes with that.

Of course, if I have a player whining about an alignment change for doing something ONLY evil creatures do, we likely have a bigger problem on our hands, and a player that would likely be better off playing elsewhere.

I agree. The ends justifies the means is quite the popular standby for people doing evil. Doesn't make it less evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

It sounded (post 540) like you were referring to the "incompleteness" of the rules in regards to the player doing something, where incompleteness is where the rules don't tell the DM how to address it. Is that true?

If so, do the rules tell the DM how to fulfill their role in the procedure if they suspect a player is fudging their dice rolls, or not marking down spells memorized, or not marking down spells cast, or changing their equipment lists?

In these cases, the player is the one who has not correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure, by fudging their roll or whatever. The DM need only point out that this error has been made. In the case of the druid armor and the good necromancer, the player has correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure by describing what their character does. The “rules,” if we interpret them as such, instruct the DM to determine the results of the action the player describes, but fail to account for the possibility that the character who’s player describes them putting on metal armor might be a druid, or that the character who’s player frequently describes casting animate dead might be good.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

See my response to @Cadence - if you declare that you are adding your proficiency bonus to damage, you are not following the procedures described by the rules correctly. If you say that your character performs (or attempts to perform) a certain action in the game world, you are following the procedures described by the rules correctly. The rules stating your character “won’t” do a thing are proven false by you following this procedure, and now the DM is in the position of having to ad-hoc declare a result for something the “rules” incorrectly said wouldn’t happen.

Simply no, you cannot "prove rule wrong". That's nonsensical. You can break a rule though. If "X won't do Y" is the rule, then if you declare that your X does Y you're breaking the rules. That's it. That's the RAW. Stupid? Sure. Hard to understand? Not really.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Sage Advice says ask your DM if you want your druid character to wear metal armor, ergo the consequences of declaring that your character puts metal armor (a declaration the rules do explicitly permit you to make) when your character happens to be a druid are not provided by the rules, and must be ad-hoc made up by the DM.

No. It merely means that GM can waive the rule. Like they can waive any rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

Simply no, you cannot "prove rule wrong".

Right, and so this statement, which can be proven wrong by a player who is correctly following the gameplay procedure, cannot be a rule.

That's nonsensical. You can break a rule though. If "X won't do Y" is the rule, then if you declare that your X does Y you're breaking the rules. That's it. That's the RAW. Stupid? Sure. Hard to understand? Not really.

“X won’t do Y” isn’t a rule, it’s a declarative statement. “X can’t do Y” would be a rule, but that’s not what the text in question says.

 

[Cadence]

In these cases, the player is the one who has not correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure, by fudging their roll or whatever.

Do the rules actually discuss what "gameplay procedure" is defined as? (Is having your player attempt something they aren't supposed to do against gameplay procedure?)

The DM need only point out that this error has been made.

But do the rules say that? Or what to do if the player denies it or doesn't do it?

In the case of the druid armor and the good necromancer, the player has correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure by describing what their character does.

Is describing something impossible fulfilling their role in the gameplay procedure?

The “rules,” if we interpret them as such, instruct the DM to determine the results of the action the player describes, but fail to account for the possibility that the character who’s player describes them putting on metal armor might be a druid, or that the character who’s player frequently describes casting animate dead might be good.

Do they fail to account for lots of things that players aren't generally expected to try? ("I dive into the bin of gold and swim to the bottom to recover the lucky dime"?)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, and so this statement, which can be proven wrong by a player who is correctly following the gameplay procedure, cannot be a rule.

This is nonsensical. You're not correctly following a gameplay structure if you're breaking a rule and you breaking a rule doesn't in any way prove that it is not a rule!

“X won’t do Y” isn’t a rule, it’s a declarative statement. “X can’t do Y” would be a rule, but that’s not what the text in question says.

There is no practical difference. In both cases X doing Y is not a gamestate that is allowed under the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do the rules actually discuss what "gameplay procedure" is defined as? (Is having your player attempt something they aren't supposed to do against gameplay procedure?)

The rules DO NOT SAY they aren’t supposed to do those things. If the text said druids can’t wear metal armor, or that only evil characters can cast animate dead, this would be a very different discussion.

But do the rules say that? Or what to do if the player denies it or doesn't do it?

It’s not necessary, because in this case the player is doing something contrary to what the rules instruct them to do. The player who says “my character puts on that armor” or “my character casts animate dead again” is not doing something contrary to what the rules instruct them to do - they are in fact acting in accordance with what the rules instruct them to do. The text also says that some characters won’t do some things, but the players, acting entirely in accordance with what the rules instruct them to do, can cause a gamestate to arise in which their character is attempting to do something which the text says a character in a category to which their character belongs won’t do. This is a problem if you interpret said text as rules, which can only be resolved by DM ruling.

Is describing something impossible fulfilling their role in the gameplay procedure?

The rules DO NOT SAY it’s impossible for a druid to wear metal armor or a good character to cast animate dead. Again, if they actually used prescriptive language, this would be a very different discussion.

Do they fail to account for lots of things that players aren't generally expected to try? ("I dive into the bin of gold and swim to the bottom to recover the lucky dime"?)

If a player described such an action, the DM could fairly easily determine what happens as a result (probably the character lands on the gold and takes falling damage). They do not need to contend with any contradictory statements in the text like “only ducks will dive into bins of gold.” If the text contained such a statement, it would be equally meaningless.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is nonsensical. You're not correctly following a gameplay structure if you're breaking a rule and you breaking a rule doesn't in any way prove that it is not a rule!

What procedure is a player incorrectly following by saying “I put on the plate armor”?

There is no practical difference. In both cases X doing Y is not a situation that is allowed under the rules.

The text in question doesn’t disallow X from doing Y. It simply states that X won’t do Y. Ans since a player of an X character is in no way prevented from declaring that their character attempts Y, any interpretation which tries to treat the text in question as a rule about what Xs can’t do does not hold up to scrutiny.