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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

It is. You made that choice when you decided to play a druid.

I did no such thing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I did no such thing.

If you chose to play a druid you did. Druids have a rule 'druids won't wear metal armour'. When you chose to play a druid, you also implicitly agreed to follow the rules of the class. This is not complicated. Yes, it is a weird rule, but not unclear.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh good, on top of the already contentious animate dead rules we dropped druid armor in?

This has become the 'Dumb Things in D&D' Megathread.

 

[Voadam]

From a PC point of view. Alignment is a short hand to help the DM categorize behavior and come up with reasonable responses to that behavior. Do NPCs approve of your behavior or not. Do some items and abilities affect you or not.

Whether an NPC approves of your behavior can be based on the NPC's alignment, but that is generally a very loose connection and usually more context and NPC specific. A DM could use the fact that an NPC is lawful or chaotic to say they disapprove of something a PC did but that is not usually a big factor.

There is almost no basis for an NPC in 5e to approve or disapprove of a PC's behavior differently based on that PC's alignment. Alignment is generally unknowable to others in 5e and so while it can be used to guide an individual's behavior or response to other's behavior, that is usually the non-mechanical limit. The actual behavior is the big factor, not the alignment on the sheet.

From an NPC point of view alignment helps the DM determine general tendencies and behaviors. Evil probably won’t be very nice. Good probably will be nice (unless maybe you’re evil).

I agree, I find labeling an NPC or monster different alignments can be a useful roleplay hook for portraying them and how they react to PC's and their actions. Good and evil is particularly useful in thinking if this NPC is a bad guy in some way.

It becomes very useful if tables want to have a more heroic game and don’t want edgelord’s bringing everyone else down. Instead of specifying every action that might annoy/offend the table agrees no evil. Incidentally I see this more often as a table decision than a DM decision. Certainly in king standing groups anyway.

I find that in games without alignment (Vampire, Shadowrun, D20 Modern) it has been easy to say "Are we doing black hats or no black hats this campaign?" or for a DM to say "For this Mutants & Masterminds game I want to do actual good guy superheroes. Are you interested?"

Changing alignment is just a way of codifying that reaction in response to the players decision. It’s just another form of description. If your player changes their hair style that description on their character sheet changes. No rule needs to tell us to do that, the DM referrees the decision.

I don't think it is necessary or useful. NPCs should be reacting to the PCs' actions, not the alignment on their sheets. If a PC has a known reputation the reaction should incorporate that rep, but generally the alignment on the PC's sheet should be irrelevant to an NPC.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. And adding sneak attack only one per turn under certain conditions is just politeness, but the rogue can just ignore that and add it to every attack roll as many times as they like! It's a rule buddy, printed in the rule summary section of the class.

Comparing a mechanical rules to something that is explicitly an in-game taboo is a False Equivalence. One is a rule and one is not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Comparing a mechanical rules to something that is explicitly an in-game taboo is a False Equivalence. One is a rule and one is not.

That it is somehow not a rule is something you have literally arbitrarily made up. It is written in the druid proficiency summary, certainly not a place to insert pure fluff. That the designer gives a fictional reason for rules existence, in no way or form stops it being a rule. Most rules in D&D has a fictional justification for their existence, as good rules should. Why you would think the much more vaguer necromancy rule is a rule is also a total mystery.

I am perfectly willing to discuss with the players whether rules are silly and could they be somehow altered, but a player unilaterally declaring that rules do not apply to them because they get to decide that a rule is not a rule would certainly be a good way to not get invited back.

 

[Maxperson]

That it is somehow not a rule is something you have literally arbitrarily made up.

Funny thing. The designers have "arbitrarily" made it up as well I guess. Oh, wait. Something based in reason literally cannot be arbitrary, so the designers just made it up. Just like all the rest of the game. Take it up with them if you don't like it.

The fact is, this taboo is just an in-game decision druids make that is part of the story of the class.

It is written in the druid proficiency summary, certainly not a place to insert pure fluff.

And yet I can get heavy armor proficiency as a druid if feats and/or multiclassing are allowed, and my druid comes with proficiency with metal armor. That and absolutely nothing says you can't wear armor you are not proficient with and there are no actual rules against wearing metal armor. So yes, druids due to their in-fiction choice won't wear metal armor, but that choice can be changed. And has been allowed to be changed since 1e.

There has never been an edition where a druid literally could not put on metal armor.

That the designer gives a fictional reason for rules existence, in no way or form stops it being a rule.

They also in no way stop druids from putting on metal armor. In 1e it spoiled your magical powers. How do druids know that? Because they put it on!

If you want to keep 5e druids from CHOOSING to put on metal armor, bring back the mechanical penalties. Call it a rule if you want to for your game. It's not relevant whether it's a rule or not, since they can put it on even if it is a rule.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

OK. I'm done* arguing with people who just declare that they're not gonna follow the rules. The position is simply blatantly absurd and not based on any logic, so no logical argument can be made to convince such people.

(* Granted, I have a poor track record on sticking to these sorts of decisions.)

 

[Maxperson]

OK. I'm done* arguing with people who just declare that they're not gonna follow the rules. The position is simply blatantly absurd and not based on any logic, so no logical argument can be made to convince such people.

(* Granted, I have a poor track record on sticking to these sorts of decisions.)

Nobody here has made such a declaration. Feel free to bow out, just be accurate when you do it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nobody here has made such a declaration.

The rule is "X won't do Y". If you say your X will do Y, you're not following the rule. That's it. This is not hard.