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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

They're not following the rule "druids won't wear metal armour."

The text in question doesn’t disallow X from doing Y.

Yes it does.

It simply states that X won’t do Y.

This disallows it.

Ans since a player of an X character is in no way prevented from declaring that their character attempts Y,

Yes they are. The rule is "X won't do Y" thus, "My X does Y" is not a valid action declaration. It clearly and obviously breaks the rule.

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.

It does just fine. It may be a stupid rule, but not a complicated one.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Is an unwinged player prevented from attempting to fly?

 

[Charlaquin]

They're not following the rule "druids won't wear metal armour."

My character has not yet worn metal armor. I have merely described what I want to do, as per the how to play rules. The procedure then instructs the DM to describe the results. So, what are the results?

Yes it does.


This disallows it.

If we’re just going to contradict each other without presenting actual arguments, there’s no point in having this discussion.

Yes they are. The rule is "X won't do Y" thus, "My X does Y" is not a valid action declaration. It clearly and obviously breaks the rule.

But “X won’t do Y” isn’t “X can’t do Y.” I decide what my character will or won’t do, the DM decides if my attempt to do something succeeds or fails. So, again I ask, I have described that I want to put on the plate armor, in accordance with the how to play rules. It is now the DM’s role to determine what happens as a result. Since my character is a druid and druids “won’t” wear metal armor, what result should the DM describe? Does it just fail to go on somehow? That would be can’t rather than won’t.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is an unwinged player prevented from attempting to fly?

No, they just won’t succeed in their attempt (barring the use of a spell or whatever, of course).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If we’re just going to contradict each other without presenting actual arguments, there’s no point in having this discussion.

I mean you don't really have an argument. You just declare that you're not going to follow a rule.

But “X won’t do Y” isn’t “X can’t do Y.”

Doesn't matter. X doing Y is an illegal gamestate in either case.

I decide what my character will or won’t do,

Except if more specific rule instructs otherwise. And in this case it does.

the DM decides if my attempt to do something succeeds or fails. So, again I ask, I have described that I want to put on the plate armor, in accordance with the how to play rules.

Then you are breaking a rule. The DM informs that you're doing so. Then you hopefully will instead declare something that is not breaking the rules. Or to be specific, you can declare that your character wants to put on metal armour. But they still won't do it.

It is now the DM’s role to determine what happens as a result. Since my character is a druid and druids “won’t” wear metal armor, what result should the DM describe? Does it just fail to go on somehow? That would be can’t rather than won’t.

The rules do not give reason for why a druid won't wear metal armour. But the rules is that they won't. Why this won't happen is fluff. The player and the GM should work out a satisfactory reason for why the druid won't wear metal armour.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I stand corrected.

The answer is also to stop pretending to care about RAW.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I stand corrected.

The answer is also to stop pretending to care about RAW.

That certainly is a perfectly reasonable position and my approach in practice!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Mechanical consequences for your character's choices aren't cool you see. Unless they benefit you, of course.

 

[Voadam]

My character has not yet worn metal armor. I have merely described what I want to do, as per the how to play rules. The procedure then instructs the DM to describe the results. So, what are the results?

The DM says per RAW that is not something you as a druid will do.

Same as if they were charmed and said they acted in violation of the charmed conditions.

General rule for 5e is that players choose what their characters think and do.

Specific rule overriding the general rule in 5e is that druids will not wear metal armor or shields.

How this goes about in effect is a DM call, maybe the druid wants to but will not actually wear the armor. Maybe they are magically prohibited from wearing the armor. The play loop picks up at that point where the desire is made but the action is prevented.

Maybe to effect the "will not wear" rule the druid does not actually want to wear it and that is where play loop picks up again.

Maybe the DM houserules this and allows it to happen but imposes consequences. Maybe the DM houserules this and imposes no consequences.

 

[Voadam]

Mechanical consequences for your character's choices aren't cool you see. Unless they benefit you, of course.

Mechanical consequences are just a cost for getting around the prohibition. A 3e druid can wear metal armor, there is just a specific consequence.

Magic-Users can't wear armor or use most weapons, period.* No specified consequences, they just can't.

* (OD&D elves, B/X elves, and AD&D multiclass elves excepted).