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.)

 

[Maxperson]

So your argument is that there are no consequences for the druid or that the consequences are not defined and up to the DM?

There are no default mechanical consequences for breaking the taboo any longer. In 1e, 2e and 3e the druids lost some of their abilities, like spellcasting and wild shape. Not sure about 4e. 5e took those away, but I put them back for my game. At no point(I doubt 4e was different), though, has there been an edition where it wasn't possible for the druid to put on metal armor if they wanted to accept the consequences of that action.

There are also in-fiction consequences that could result from such a violation. Those are much more interesting.

 

[lingual]

An evil faction of heavy iron wearing Druids who use their powers to dominate nature and enslave elementals, fey would be pretty cool.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have for a while though that Crawford just uses Sage Advice to troll people who he think's are asking stupid question by giving the most inane answers possible.

From the very first Sage Advice, Dragon #31:

Question: In ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, how much damage do bows do?

Answer: None. Bows do not do damage, arrows do. However, if you hit someone with a bow, I’d say it would probably do 1-4 points of damage and thereafter render the bow completely useless for firing arrows. What the bows do is allow a greater variety of ranges; all the damage done by arrows is the same.

RIP Jean Wells- she did have that wit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!"

If they wanted it to be a choice, they could have said, "most" or "some" druids. As has been said, it is poorly written.

 

[Baron Opal II]

There are no default mechanical consequences for breaking the taboo any longer. In 1e, 2e and 3e the druids lost some of their abilities, like spellcasting and wild shape. Not sure about 4e. 5e took those away, but I put them back for my game. At no point(I doubt 4e was different), though, has there been an edition where it wasn't possible for the druid to put on metal armor if they wanted to accept the consequences of that action.

There are also in-fiction consequences that could result from such a violation. Those are much more interesting.

Well, yes. Of course.

Okay. I guess I don't understand how the discussion evolved. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I have for a while though that Crawford just uses Sage Advice to troll people who he think's are asking stupid question by giving the most inane answers possible.

Wherever he can, he just reads the book back to you. I believe it's because there are just too many people nit-picking the rules.

I've told the story before, but I once found a thread on Twitter where someone was complaining to Jeremy that he still hadn't responded to his question. The question was: whether or not "finishing a long rest" and "benefiting from a long rest" were the same thing or if they were intended to have different functionality.

I couldn't do it. I could not answer that kind of question day in and day out and not turn homicidal.

So he favors just reading the book back to people because that means he has extremely clear and literal justification. And it's the only thing that makes people go away. These people don't want an explanation. They want an answer they can point to. It doesn't matter what it is (especially because good DMs ignore it when it's nonsense anyways). It just has to be an answer. The more justifiable by the literal text the better.

So he just reads the book back to you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

As a 4e fan, I understand why you would feel that way. But a lot of us prefer the game to not read like an engineering manual.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. I guess I don't understand how the discussion evolved.

Some people saying that it's simply not possible for a druid to put on metal armor, because of what the 5e rules say.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I couldn't do it. I could not answer that kind of question day in and day out and not turn homicidal.

1.) Ya, that is very dumb and obviously they are supposed to be the same thing, but...
2.) If they hadn't used different terms this question would never have arisen

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

As a 4e fan, I understand why you would feel that way. But a lot of us prefer the game to not read like an engineering manual.

I loved the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM precisely because it felt like reading a text book. Like this was real serious naughty word. It felt cool and official. The game took itself seriously.