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]

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

Cool. I'm talking about 1e onward. The EDITIONS of the game

1e PHB: "The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their wider range of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)."

They tell us what the mechanical penalty is if they put it on anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

Is there even a way in 5e to lose control of your raised undead chumps without being straight up killed?

Yes. Animate them, leave them where they are, walk away, and keep going.

24 hours later those undead are out of your control but you're many miles away, safe from their predations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually my 1e PHB says this:

OD&D and 1st Ed AD&D both sound like "can't " to me.

 

[Lanefan]

You don't have to intend the situation to happen, though. Take the example I gave earlier of the tower guarded by lots of plate wearing bad guys. You didn't intend to force me into wearing plate, but we must get inside in order to save the day/find the macguffin, etc. WE determine that the best way to accomplish that is to sneak in wearing the plate as a disguise. Other ways are in our opinion much more likely to fail and we have to succeed. My druid decides that wearing armor this once in order to accomplish the goal, as distasteful as it is to him, is something he will do.

Or plan B: the Druid stays outside and guards the escape route while the others don their plate and pull off the mission. Not player-at-table friendly, to be sure; but true to character.

 

[James Gasik]

And surprisingly, nothing stated about why. There might have been an article in The Strategic Review or early Dragon, but I have no idea where to start looking. Still, it does seem that WotC is just aping early D&D here, where restrictions such as these probably stood out less.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. Animate them, leave them where they are, walk away, and keep going.

24 hours later those undead are out of your control but you're many miles away, safe from their predations.

And that would be pretty evil. But one doesn't need to do that, just like one doesn't need to blast kindergarten with a fireball.

 

[Mort]

And that would be pretty evil. But one doesn't need to do that, just like one doesn't need to blast kindergarten with a fireball.

But all it takes is 1 day where you've blown through your 3rd level+ slots (and if you're 5th level you get exactly 1) and a long rest would put you over 24 hours - woops uncontrolled undead!

And if you've lost sight of them, even destroying them might be a bit of a task. Bit harder to predict/control than a fireball!

 

[Lanefan]

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!"

We solved this ages ago in 1e: Druids ARE Nature Clerics.

 

[Iry]

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

You have to go back even further! To ancient texts that talk of druids using shields rimmed with metal and transforming into animals partially made of iron. Nothing more recent than several hundred years ago will suffice!

Keith Baker and his metal wildshape not withstanding.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But all it takes is 1 day where you've blown through your 3rd level+ slots (and if you're 5th level you get exactly 1) and a long rest would put you over 24 hours - woops uncontrolled undead!

And if you've lost sight of them, even destroying them might be a bit of a task. Bit harder to predict/control than a fireball!

Don't leave your zombies unattended! Seriously, it is not hard to destroy them if you don't want or can't reapply the spell. I feel people apply completely unreasonable standard of safety here. It is mildly risky, sure, but hardly to a degree that you could reasonably call the thing obviously evil based on this. If they were funny looking artificer's bots with the exact same rules no one would be arguing that it is somehow inherently evil.