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]

I googled it and found some discussions of it, but couldn't bring myself to watch the video.

Glad to see A5e does the (I think) obvious and starts the description condition with " An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense (it gains no benefits from this condition against creatures still able to see it)."

The invisible condition doesn't say the () there.

"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.

Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."

His argument was that you see the invisible creature, but it still gets the benefits of invisibility since the See Invisibility spell doesn't say that it doesn't.

Then he went on to say that he now has to justify how that could be, and came up with it being like seeing the predator. You see the invisible creature, BUT NOT REALLY!

 

[Mort]

The invisible condition doesn't say the () there.

"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.

Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."

His argument was that you see the invisible creature, but it still gets the benefits of invisibility since the See Invisibility spell doesn't say that it doesn't.

Then he went on to say that he now has to justify how that could be, and came up with it being like seeing the predator. You see the invisible creature, BUT NOT REALLY!

Usually I can see at least some justification for his rulings (even if I disagree) - but the invisibility one is just a massive headscratcher!

See invisibility says "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" there is just NO ambiguity at all. And his "predator" thing does EXACTLY what he strives not do (and has said he strives not to do) it adds text and interpretation nowhere in the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Usually I can see at least some justification for his rulings (even if I disagree) - but the invisibility one is just a massive headscratcher!

See invisibility says "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" there is just NO ambiguity at all. And his "predator" thing does EXACTLY what he strives not do (and has said he strives not to do) it adds text and interpretation nowhere in the rules.

Like pretty much everyone I've seen talk here about this ruling, I totally agree with you.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm glad this ruling didn't come out until after I stopped playing AL, my Robe of Eyes would have gotten a serious nerf!

 

[Cadence]

The invisible condition doesn't say the () there.

"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.

Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."

His argument was that you see the invisible creature, but it still gets the benefits of invisibility since the See Invisibility spell doesn't say that it doesn't.

Then he went on to say that he now has to justify how that could be, and came up with it being like seeing the predator. You see the invisible creature, BUT NOT REALLY!

Right, I was quoting Morrus's A5e rules as being, mercifully, different.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, I was quoting Morrus's A5e rules as being, mercifully, different.

Aha! I didn't get that.

 

[Iry]

Like pretty much everyone I've seen talk here about this ruling, I totally agree with you.

100%, his ruling about See Invisibility is quite silly. I actually go the opposite direction. You can see them so clearly you might not even know they are invisible to other people unless something clues you off. I mean, if you're casting the spell you are obviously suspecting it, but I have had a few funny scenes with a player not immediately realizing it.

 

[James Gasik]

Oof, that reminds me of how many DM's think my eyes should be blown out of my head for casting Detect Magic.

 

[Mort]

100%, his ruling about See Invisibility is quite silly. I actually go the opposite direction. You can see them so clearly you might not even know they are invisible to other people unless something clues you off. I mean, if you're casting the spell you are obviously suspecting it, but I have had a few funny scenes with a player not immediately realizing it.

A bit harsh, but certainly follows the spell wording: see them as if they were visible. Basically, everyone looks visible so you can't even tell they're trying to be invisible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oof, that reminds me of how many DM's think my eyes should be blown out of my head for casting Detect Magic.

And then question why you don't use detect magic later on.