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]

Do you promise??

All you can do is hit the surveys and voice about being annoyed by inconsistency in the rules. A lot of folks like that empowerment to forge their own path though so guess we will see how it goes.

 

[TheSword]

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

The evokers power effecting every missile. I believe it was later erated

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

All you can do is hit the surveys and voice about being annoyed by inconsistency in the rules. A lot of folks like that empowerment to forge their own path though so guess we will see how it goes.

There's too much money in catering to low-investment players; I would be absolutely floored if WotC ever went back to a more technical rules set. 5e prints money because the barrier to entry/play is so low. Now, do I think thats a good thing? Personally, no, I don't. But if WotC is primarily concerned about making the most money and appealing to the most people, why would they change course?

 

[payn]

There's too much money in catering to low-investment players; I would be absolutely floored if WotC ever went back to a more technical rules set. 5e prints money because the barrier to entry/play is so low. Now, do I think thats a good thing? Personally, no, I don't. But if WotC is primarily concerned about making the most money and appealing to the most people, why would they change course?

There was a time, about 20 years ago I'd be right with ya. I've learned to embrace the ambiguity. I tasted the empowerment, and I like it. Though, I do get where you are coming from.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm always confused by DM's saying they feel empowered by 5e. When did the DM ever lose their power? It's absolute until your players walk out on you, it's been that way in EVERY edition!

 

[payn]

I'm always confused by DM's saying they feel empowered by 5e. When did the DM ever lose their power? It's absolute until your players walk out on you, it's been that way in EVERY edition!

Empowered to make my own rulings. Like creating undead not being evil. Not having to pour through an index every time somebody tries something new in combat.

 

[Oofta]

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?

No, you're not missing anything. Just checked my PHB, it's clearly stated as "Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

The only reason I've seen given is that there's no reason given for it and the penalty is left up to the DM if they care. I mean, most of the rules in the book don't really have a reason given either, but this time it's different. For reasons.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's too much money in catering to low-investment players; I would be absolutely floored if WotC ever went back to a more technical rules set. 5e prints money because the barrier to entry/play is so low. Now, do I think thats a good thing? Personally, no, I don't. But if WotC is primarily concerned about making the most money and appealing to the most people, why would they change course?

Do you really thing actual concise wording would create a barrier to play?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Do you really thing actual concise wording would create a barrier to play?

No, I think I had more in mind that just cleaning up the language. I absolutely think that the language could be tightened up, clarified, etc without increasing the complexity of the game one whit. Arguably this would make the game easier to learn and play.

 

[James Gasik]

Empowered to make my own rulings. Like creating undead not being evil. Not having to pour through an index every time somebody tries something new in combat.

Yeah but you could do that before. I thought every DM has a six pages of house rules for their setting, don't you?