D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

Tolerable Tyrant · Mar 10, 2022

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.)

Oofta · Mar 15, 2022

Maxperson said:
And rules preventing druids from being able to put on metal armor, which they have been able to do since 1e.

Has there ever been a reason given in the PHB for any edition of why they won't wear metal armor? A quick glance at my old AD&D book just says they don't, just that they're prohibited. The 3.5 one is the only one that says that if they do what they can't do.

Was it wrong back then as well?

Oofta · Mar 15, 2022

Charlaquin said:
No, I got that, and I’ve pretty much given up on arguing about it. But you said “because reasons” like it’s a totally arbitrary distinction I and others are drawing. I was just pointing out where the distinction lies - rules that govern player behavior vs. “rules” that govern character behavior.

I just posted, but has there ever been a reason given?

Charlaquin · Mar 15, 2022

Crimson Longinus said:
Unless there is a more specific rule which says otherwise. And in this case there is.

The sticking point for me is, what you’re interpreting as a more specific rule dictates character behavior, while the rule you’re interpreting it as more specific than dictates player behavior. If the rule said “players can’t choose to play Druids who would be willing to wear metal armor,” or even just “Druids can’t wear metal armor,” I would agree with you. As it’s written though, it’s saying what the character will and won’t do instead of what the player can and can’t do.

Crimson Longinus said:
Yes, this would definitely be much better way to handle it than the current bizarre agency shattering rule.

At least that, we can agree on.

Crimson Longinus said:
Granted, in practice it doesn't matter. In both cases 99.9% of the players would just shrug and not try to equip their druid with a metal armour, so the outcome is the same. System aesthetically the way they did it bugs me, but it really is not an actual problem.

True. I only brought it up in the first place as an analogy for the “only evil characters animate the dead” (IMO non-)rule, because I thought it was a clear example of something that isn’t a rule. A naïve mistake, in retrospect.

Charlaquin · Mar 15, 2022

Oofta said:
I just posted, but has there ever been a reason given?

I don’t see how it matters. 5e is 5e, and other editions aren’t. I don’t care what other editions say any more than I care what Monopoly says.

Vaalingrade · Mar 15, 2022

Maxperson said:
Is the glass ever half full?

Efficiency?

Oofta · Mar 15, 2022

Charlaquin said:
I don’t see how it matters. 5e is 5e, and other editions aren’t. I don’t care what other editions say any more than I care what Monopoly says.

I agree it's arbitrary. It's always been arbitrary. Most of the game design is arbitrary. I don't see why this one is any different is all.

Maxperson · Mar 15, 2022

Oofta said:
Has there ever been a reason given in the PHB for any edition of why they won't wear metal armor? A quick glance at my old AD&D book just says they don't, just that they're prohibited. The 3.5 one is the only one that says that if they do what they can't do.

Yes. Look at 1e druids. It says that their magical powers don't work. Seems like a very good reason to me.

James Gasik · Mar 15, 2022

Well I went back to the very beginning, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry and this is what is says:

James Gasik · Mar 15, 2022

Actually my 1e PHB says this:

doctorbadwolf · Mar 15, 2022

Gradine said:
Oh hey, I found the Karrnathi

Karrnath, and particularly the Blood of Vol faith as practiced by the average Seeker, is a great example of the inherently morally grey nature of necromancy.

One could argue that it strengthens the bonds between Eberron and Mabar, which seems probably bad, and especially that the Odalkyr Rites are extra bad because the undead they create is especially malignant, but animating grandma’s bones to help with the harvest is pretty dang neutral.

Animating her bones to protect the sheep from wolves leans, IMO, more toward Good.

D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

Tolerable Tyrant

Villager

Oofta

Legend

Oofta

Legend

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Vaalingrade

Legend

Oofta

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Attachments

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Attachments

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex