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

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.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I... don't even know what you're saying in this sentence.

It's just poorly written all around. For example by including the alignment stuff in the first place.
You're arguing bad writing that fits your theory, but ignoring bad writing that says it's evil. It's far more plausible that it's just bad writing saying it's evil with that sentence, since only evil casters use the spell a lot, than it is for it to be only evil people use it a lot because druids.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
You're arguing bad writing that fits your theory, but ignoring bad writing that says it's evil. It's far more plausible that it's just bad writing saying it's evil with that sentence, since only evil casters use the spell a lot, than it is for it to be only evil people use it a lot because druids.
I'm saying its bad writing all around. That's why I roped in the vague druid wording in the first place.
 

Mournblade94

Adventurer
I... don't even know what you're saying in this sentence.

It's just poorly written all around. For example by including the alignment stuff in the first place.
Alignment has been used to great effect by a great many people. Its a cosmology not a roleplaying shackle and that is what people mess up about it.

If I play D&D I'm using alignment, even in 5e. It works for the cosmology.
 






Zinnger

Explorer
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!
I know this is an old post but... I wanted to reply. I have to agree with your DM. In 5E the DMG states that the ring does basically only TWO things. (1) Difficult terrain doesn't cost extra movement and (2) MAGIC cannot reduce your speed or cause you to be paralyzed or restrained. MAGIC cannot cause this but POISON is not magic and therefore would still paralyze its victim. RAW. This means that even a roper can grapple and restrain a ring wearer who gets no advantage to get free. The ring works differently than the spell that it gets confused with so often.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top