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.)

 

[payn]

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.

Rulings over rules is the way today. In another edition or two they will swing back to rules over rulings for you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Not a single normal person has ever read a D&D book and you know it.

 

[Mort]

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.

If you take how thoroughly dissected the game is now, what with so many people playing it and the ability to communicate to each other in ways such as we are doing now - it holds up remarkably well!

That said, could it be more technical and clearer? Yes, 4e was, and WoTC made an express choice to NOT do that and go with the natural language route instead. From a financial perspective, you can't say they were wrong to do so.

 

[TheSword]

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.

This is a classic example of a PICNIC… Problem in Chair Not In Character. (The player’s chair that is)

If you don’t like what Jem has to say, just ignore it, sage advice tweets aren’t binding They’re just informative. The magic missile tweet is a good example of one I just ignore.

 

[James Gasik]

Rulings over rules is the way today. In another edition or two they will swing back to rules over rulings for you.

I don't want to go back to the byzantine rules of yesteryear, nor do I want to play a game that has rules for everything or thousands of pages of critical hit charts (I won't name the names, you probably know what I'm talking about). But this vagueness where two people can read the same text and come to two separate conclusions has contributed my hair loss, lol.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Rulings over rules is the way today. In another edition or two they will swing back to rules over rulings for you.

Do you promise??

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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!

Why not?

I mean ... not to minimize your thoughts and feelings. They are valid. D&D is not for you. It's not for everyone. That's fine! There is nothing that can appeal to everyone.

But D&D appeals to a lot of people for a reason. And this thing that I highlighted ... that's one of the reasons. Because it's so open-ended. What you see as a bug, it to many people a feature.

And it's why "D&D" and 5e encompasses-

A. The group that is using it with minis and a combat map and big, prepared combats, and additional rules for combat; and
B. The highschoolers getting together over lunch for quick, diceless sessions; and
C. The college kids trying it out with a starter set and trying to play it RAW; and
D. The old grognards that have adapted it to a 1e-style game so they can re-run all their favorite TSR modules; and
E. So much more.

But you're right- like classic (OD&D), it's closer to a toolkit than a complete set of rules for all occasions. I'm okay with that. If you're not, that's cool too!


ETA- if you think public play is difficult now, try the 70s and 80s ... heck, try imagining what the competitions were like when so many of the actual rules for 1e were not observed at competition tables!

 

[Maxperson]

This is a classic example of a PICNIC… Problem in Chair Not In Character. (The player’s chair that is)

If you don’t like what Jem has to say, just ignore it, sage advice tweets aren’t binding They’re just informative. The magic missile tweet is a good example of one I just ignore.

I ignore the whole, "A paladin smiting your with his fist can't actually smite you." ruling. What was the magic missile one?

 

[Maxperson]

But this vagueness where two people can read the same text and come to two separate conclusions has contributed my hair loss, lol.

Oh sweet summer child. What makes you think it's limited to two separate conclusions?

 

[James Gasik]

I mean obviously, if other people see this as a plus, I can't tell them it's a minus. Because even with mathematical scientific data, it doesn't matter. People like what they like (see New Coke vs. Old Coke). Why they like it is as much based on emotion as it is logic.

And if you like something, and it's not hurting anyone, enjoy! But I try to see the game from different directions- what does it do that I like? What does it do that I don't like? How does the game appear to a new player?

5e is very new player friendly. I think we can all agree on that. Decision points are few, it's easy to make a character and get rolling. You'll try out different classes, and maybe you'll start to tinker with the nuts and bolts a little.

But I don't think it's very new DM friendly. You have to make decisions on things without guidance, and without being informed on what the ramifications of those decisions are. I went though this process in the 90's, and I really think we could spare the kids of 20 years later the same learning curve.