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]

I mean, any one in this thread could have explained that better in our sleep. WotC chose not to. My headcanon is this is just another example of wishy washiness on their part. "We could remove this senseless restriction but the old school gamers will be upset. I know, let's just make it vague, and not include any mechanical enforcement, so each DM can decide for themselves whether it's worth restricting Druid armor or not!"

Especially when Nature Clerics are running around in plate mail. It's like, wait, what about Chauntea, Mielikki, or Lurue the Unicorn screams "WEAR STEEL ARMOR!"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

It's fun, isn't it?

It would seem that there are people that think 5e isn't a good system, or is an incomplete system, or even is a failure as a system.

And yet, despite the fact that so many people enjoy talking about what a dismal failure of a system 5e is, it is, by far, the most popular version of D&D to ever be released, and is responsible for the most popular time our hobby has ever seen (yes, even more than the early 80s).

Maybe it's doing something right, for some people. Just saying.

 

[James Gasik]

I'll go you one better, Oofta! Have it simply say "Druids are not proficient with metal armors".

 

[Maxperson]

No, it is not a choice. It's in the rule section, not the fluff section.

Then you agree that forest gnomes cannot have darkvision for violating the rule that they don't live undergound. And you agree that Barbarians that are even a smidge concerned for defense and/or are not desperate cannot use Reckless Attack. And you agree that an elf that has not lived in twilit forests under the night sky cannot have darkvision. And you agree that a Ranger who has not been tenacious cannot take Colossus Slayer. Because those things are every bit as much "rules" as won't wear metal armor.

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.

It's consistent with every prior edition of D&D. Your new interpretation that a druid simply cannot do it is the new and strange one. Starting with 1e druids could do it, which is why mechanical penalties for druids wearing metal armor existed.

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.

I don't think proficiency is relevant.

Bold section - all gnomes have this trait.

Because of the rule that they live underground. Break that rule and the trait goes away.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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!

No.

You need to go Galaxy brained on this one.

In 6e, the rule will state, "Druids must wear metal armor at all times."

There will be no further explanation.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

 

[Mort]

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!

Umm, it is in the armor proficiency line (well it is on DnDbeyond, can't get to my physical PHB right now), which is why I said it's not a suggestion, it's a rule.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Maxperson]

I'll go you one better, Oofta! Have it simply say "Druids are not proficient with metal armors".

Except that proficiency isn't relevant to this argument. They would have to provide some in-game explanation for why it's impossible for a druid to put on metal armor. I don't see that happening.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Compared too?

The technical acumen possessed even by the How to Play card in a rummy deck.

Natural language is dumb and too muddy to be useful for anything but starting fights.

 

[James Gasik]

It's fun, isn't it?

It would seem that there are people that think 5e isn't a good system, or is an incomplete system, or even is a failure as a system.

And yet, despite the fact that so many people enjoy talking about what a dismal failure of a system 5e is, it is, be far, the most popular version of D&D to ever be released, and is responsible for the most popular time our hobby has ever seen (yes, even more than the early 80s).

Maybe it's doing something right, for some people. Just saying.

So here's my hot take. I dislike 5e, not because I have a problem with people who like it or who like playing the game. I'm happy that people are, I'm happy that the hobby is growing, and if given an opportunity, I will play 5e again- I may even DM for it again.

But I dislike it because WotC didn't sell me a game. They sold me the idea of a game. The basic framework of a game. Then they said "hey, you're free to rule however you like. If there's something we didn't address, well, figure it out."

Now, this annoys me because I'm an experienced DM. I can do that. I could have also made my own game and saved myself a couple hundred dollars for the few books I own.

But what really, really, really irks me? D&D NEEDS DM'S. And none of this, I feel, is good guidance to teach someone how to run the darned game. To make a ruling, you need to have understanding of the intent behind the rules, and how it impacts the game as a whole.

If I say "hey, I think +5 armor should be a thing", I'm destroying the integrity of the game the instant it hits play, because very few monsters are able to hit someone who has an AC that approaches 30. Even some high CR monsters have abilities that have a single-digit attack bonus.

The game needs to inform you "this is a rule and this is why this is a rule" for you to become better at running it. Not this "well, we didn't bother to make rules like that".

There was a thread I posted in last week with a huge debate about how you calculate speed with haste. The game never really tells you. You can logically infer that you apply all modifiers to speed before doubling it, but it never explicitly says that. In the end, we had to get a tweet from Crawford (you know, that guy) to resolve it.

And you know where this all falls apart? The public play WotC is so fond of. If even an experienced DM tries to make a ruling, you'll have people throwing Crawford tweets at you that make no sense, and every other DM in earshot chipping in their two cents. Leaving you with no recourse other than say "sit down and play or go". The game should not be like this!

But apparently that's just my opinion, and most people are okay with the game in this state. And I just have to accept that.

SIDE NOTE: I have an example of a Crawford "ruling" that made me quit DMing because it was so ridiculous my brain melted. But I'll only share if someone is morbidly curious- I think I've derailed this conversation quite enough.

 

[TheSword]

Ultimately, this is just a very poorly written game.

Or maybe it’s an extremely complicated game with about a thousand moving parts that has decided to write its rules on the understanding that it’s being read by normal people and not folks trying to break the system.

Most people read the phrase ‘creating undead frequently is evil’ and take that at face value.