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 remember that...

That came about when Living City: Raven's Bluff was a thing (AL in the 90s). A ring of free action was in a module and then a small but significant number of characters had one. It was explained to me about the "logical consequences" of the magic, but I also know that this was made to have some kind of downside to the ring. Too many characters were able to ignore certain traps, webs, and the like.

I once had a DM rule my Ring of Free Action wouldn't protect me from a paralysis poison. Magic? Supernatural effects? Hold Person? All fine. But a poison running through your veins? SHENANIGANS!

 

[Vaalingrade]

And then came Essentials, AKA 'setting yourself on fire to impress people who hate you and have explicitly said they would sabotage you at every turn'.

 

[Oofta]

Oh man, the lance discussion. Closely related: the bastard sword and what the heck kind of weapon is it anyways?

Well, when a mommy sword and a daddy sword love each other very much but aren't married to each other ... hmm, on the other hand this site has a strict PG rating policy. You'll have to use your imagination for the rest.

 

[James Gasik]

Aw, I was setting my Warlock on fire to trigger Hellish Rebuke long before Essentials. But yeah, while some of the Essentials content was ok, it really felt strange for them to dumb down their own game for people who didn't like it and ignore the people that did.

Of course, their eventual decision to not just stop supporting the game, but basically kill it by taking down the online resources it was dependent on, then take years to slowly build a new game with their crowdsourced playtesting was even crazier to me.

Who does that? Could you imagine if GW said "hey, EVERYONE STOP PLAYING WARHAMMER WHILE WE CRANK OUT A NEW EDITION INSTEAD OF DOING IT PIECEMEAL BY DROPPING A NEW CODEX TWICE A YEAR!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

And then came Essentials, AKA 'setting yourself on fire to impress people who hate you and have explicitly said they would sabotage you at every turn'.

Should they have just given up and started 5e prep early?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And then came Essentials, AKA 'setting yourself on fire to impress people who hate you and have explicitly said they would sabotage you at every turn'.

I liked Essentials! Granted, they took simplification a bit too far with some classes.

 

[James Gasik]

Let me just say, Oofta, if I never hear an argument about "what does the term wield mean?", or "if a weapon is treated as another weapon, does it stop being the previous weapon?" I'll die a happy man.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let me just say, Oofta, if I never hear an argument about "what does the term wield mean?", or "if a weapon is treated as another weapon, does it stop being the previous weapon?" I'll die a happy man.

I have never heard either of these arguments before...

 

[James Gasik]

Oh you fortunate soul! Here's one from the lance debate. A lance is a two handed weapon, but it can be wielded in one hand when on horseback. Since it's classified as a two handed weapon in the equipment chapter, does this mean I still get the increased Strength bonus to damage and favorable Power Attack bonus?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Should they have just given up and started 5e prep early?

They should have not stunted their own product line chasing something that was never coming to them.