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.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Care to elaborate? I didn't look at the 3.5 rulings very often.

Out of nowhere in one of the Dragon Articles, the Sage declares that you can only sneak attack with light weapons despite that not being a thing in 3.5 or its errata. DMs subsequently remove fun from rogues.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Are you saying that compromising the agency of anyone is evil? The various law enforcement and criminal justice systems of the world would like a word with you...

Yeah, I'm sure they would.

 

[payn]

Out of nowhere in one of the Dragon Articles, the Sage declares that you can only sneak attack with light weapons despite that not being a thing in 3.5 or its errata. DMs subsequently remove fun from rogues.

Wasnt that just the offhand?

 

[James Gasik]

Hm, hey let's do that! Next time you see a sleeping Druid, put metal armor on him to see what happens!

As for crazy rulings, I vaguely recall a discussion on Freedom of Movement where someone asked if a person under it's effect jumped in a pool of water if they would immediately sink to the bottom and take falling damage because water does not hinder your movement under the effect of the spell!

 

[James Gasik]

Is that where that nonsense came from!? I had to put up with DM's saying I couldn't sneak attack with two handed weapons when nothing in the ability said I couldn't! I just assumed they were being idjits.

Related: discussions in 3e/Pathfinder about how "it would be broken if Rogues could Sneak Attack more than once a turn".

 

[Maxperson]

Hm, hey let's do that! Next time you see a sleeping Druid, put metal armor on him to see what happens!

As for crazy rulings, I vaguely recall a discussion on Freedom of Movement where someone asked if a person under it's effect jumped in a pool of water if they would immediately sink to the bottom and take falling damage because water does not hinder your movement under the effect of the spell!

LOL I would actually say yes. It's magic and that's one of the designed functions of that spell. Not that it ever came up in the 19 years we played that edition.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wasnt that just the offhand?

Nope. At all.

Guess who was on a three moth old bastard sword rogue build when this dropped? Guess who had to explain how a really long knife could still perforate a liver?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Yeah, I'm sure they would.

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of law enforcement/cop-esque D&D characters

 

[payn]

Hm, hey let's do that! Next time you see a sleeping Druid, put metal armor on him to see what happens!

As for crazy rulings, I vaguely recall a discussion on Freedom of Movement where someone asked if a person under it's effect jumped in a pool of water if they would immediately sink to the bottom and take falling damage because water does not hinder your movement under the effect of the spell!

Or that a lance was a two handed weapon, except when riding a horse. Which obviously means you can dual wield them while mounted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is still better than the grandpa ramble some of 5e's stuff becomes.

Depends on the person. I found 4e's presentation extremely tedious.