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.)

 

[James Gasik]

In all honesty, only once. I tried to play a "grey" Necromancer in 2e, but quickly realized there were just not enough spells I could employ that didn't have "evil flavor". My experiences with animating the dead are mostly restricted to my Neutral Death Priest character (though I did make a few zombies in a short lived evil campaign).

I still don't like the idea that these specific spells are called out for "evilness", but that's what WotC decided to do, so it is rules as written, as they say.

 

[James Gasik]

it's no different than summoning. if you summon evil creatures it's an evil act. Even if you do something good. You are bringing an evil creature who is supposed to be imprisoned on the lower planes and allowing them to potentially spread evil.

Well I brought up summoning earlier, mentioning using Gate to call forth a Chaotic Neutral Red Slaad, and then losing control of it. It's an evil act, but Gate is not inherently evil.

It's still my belief that all spells can be used or misused, and it's the actions that should make them evil, but again, that's not something WotC decided to support.

 

[nevin]

I com

Well I brought up summoning earlier, mentioning using Gate to call forth a Chaotic Neutral Red Slaad, and then losing control of it. It's an evil act, but Gate is not inherently evil.

It's still my belief that all spells can be used or misused, and it's the actions that should make them evil, but again, that's not something WotC decided to support.

I mostly agree with that sentiment but I still think bringing a bound lower planar or opening a gate to an evil realm just by nature of allowing them to affect the prime material would be an evil act regardless of intent. Makes it cleaner and gives the same justification for undead because they are made from negative energy , or pure entropy which shouldn't exist on the prime material. Maybe even infusing something with Positive energy would be evil, in it's pure form it shouldn't be on the prime material and it's just as dangerous.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Because it's a choice. Plain and simple. A choice is not a rule.

I've already pointed out a bunch of fluff in various rules portions of classes and races. The fluff portions are not rules. If they were, forest gnomes wouldn't have darkvision. The gnome rules section says that they get darkvision from living underground, which forest gnomes don't.

Why would I need proficiency to override the taboo? One does not need to be proficient in armor to wear it. It just takes the choice.

No, it is not a choice. It's in the rule section, not the fluff section. It's a poorly written rule, but a rule none the less. Sure, you can extrapolate and state that your character made a "choice" when they became a druid. But this isn't a "choice" like picking out one's clothes. And it's strange to me that people point this out as some kind of loophole or ambiguity. Sure, it's vague, and there is little guidance when the player asks "why not?" in 5e. But that's why there is a DM.

I'm suggesting that the Proficiency section can provide guidance should the player of a druid decide their character needs to put on metal armor. Then, whatever the paladin section has to offer, if applicable. But if this isn't important to the DM then, sure, wear your chain mail and draw a line through that sentence in the PHB.

Gnome Traits​

Your gnome character has certain characteristics in common with all other gnomes.

...

Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.

Bold section - all gnomes have this trait.
Italicized section - I guess that forest gnomes spend their time in dark, old growth forests or have deep cellars. That doesn't override the text of the bolded section.

But, you know, maybe I'm missing a point in all of the pedantry.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ultimately, this is just a very poorly written game.

 

[James Gasik]

Again, the problem is, it's an implied rule. Saying "you don't do that" makes it very different than the Paladin's oath- Paladins shouldn't break their oath, but they can, and there are consequences.

Saying Druids "do not wear metal armor" is, simply put, a restriction on your character's actions. It's no different than me saying "dwarves don't swim", as an example.

If this were stated in the game somewhere, you could imply there's a reason, perhaps the muscles of dwarves are too dense and they sink like rocks. But without that justification, it's nonsensical. Why can't dwarves swim? Why can't I choose to swim if I'm drowning? Dunno, just is.

So yeah, why wouldn't someone take umbrage with that? Because most of us expect that to be a prohibition, and have been trained to accept it beforehand. But a new player who doesn't have that level of indoctrination is going to be confused, because THAT IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD WRITE RULES.

 

[nevin]

I think the whole druid thing confuses me. Is he saying that even though you made your choice to be a druid and draw on the powers of nature and the fey, knowing up front that metal interferes with that power, that it's not your choice to be a druid and not wear metal armor?

You can be a druid and wear metal armor. People will probably confuse you with a Ranger because you won't be able to cast spells. Still your choice.

If I understand the argument correctly it's like saying if I jump out of a plane without a parachute, and chose to hit the ground that it wasn't my choice to die when i did. That's not splitting hairs that's spitting atoms.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Ultimately, this is just a very poorly written game.

You know, I don't particularly care for 4e but it struck me as a pretty internally consistent game engine. Ignore the fluff and it was a fine game.

5e is sometimes like the Weasley house with a fresh coat of paint. AD&D foundation and garage, 3e for the first couple of floors, plus a new 5e floor and some improvements makes for a fine game as well, but it feels a bit ... incomplete to me.

 

[Mort]

Ultimately, this is just a very poorly written game.

Compared too?

The natural language was a deliberate choice and a backtrack from the technical precise language of 4e. Clearly it's working with the wider audience!

What I actually find problematic isn't how it's written - it's the organization and the lack of explanatory text. Both of which, frustrate new gamers to no end.

But that's a whole other thread. There hasn't really been a disagreement on what's written or what it means here (for the most part).

 

[Oofta]

I've decided I have another thing to add to the wishlist for the anniversary edition: put the "no metal" restriction in the armor proficiency line for druids.

That way we can have a whole new set of arguments like "why can't they'" and "what about multiclassing" instead of just the same old posts back and forth.

Come on WOTC! We need new topics to argue about endlessly!