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.)

 

[nevin]

That is a bit odd. I guess worshipping society instead of nature, so druids as non-god worshippers is the concept and connection?

I'd

However, fans of Critical Role might think of someone that gives themself wholly to Predathos, without a deal but out of a desire to see Predathos do what Predathos does, and is granted power not via a deal but to further the charge of Predathos, might be an anti-cleric.All of that is true, but it is a sidestep away from my point.

The druid is all about the natural balance. The original AD&D PHB druid was shades closer to the Celtic origins than the current version - but contained no reference to an opposition to undead. The same is true of 2nd edition. However, those of us that played in that era often interpreted that druids should oppose undead heavily as it was against the natural order. For many, the druid stance against undead is obvious, prominent, and significant - not because someone told us, but because it just makes so much sense.

And as this is an RPG, and RPGs work best with good storytelling, and good storytelling often relies upon conflict ... it feels like a gap to not have that oppositional anti-druid that turned their back on the ideals of the druids for some reason and aligns with the exact oppositie.

Yes, I can do this role with an evil cleric, an evil paladin, an evil sorcerer, an evil warlock, an evil necromancer wizard, etc... but it seems like a gap in the design that we don't have this obvious opposition in the core RPG after all of these years. It even plays into some believed Celtic Druid beliefs - beliving that the soul passed from body to body at death rather than passing on to another place. Where do those druidic beliefs and liches overlap on a ven diagram? That depends upon your interporetation of liches ... or shadows ... or wwaiths and wights ...

The original celtic druid didn't know about undead. The 1st edition celtic druid was all about Life and death. Not Undeath. this is an incredibly amount of energy to twist that completely opposite it's intended role. A 1st edition druid could kill anyone, ressurrect anyone and still be within ethos. Preventing soul from passing on and putting it in a dead body complete violation of the natural order. 1st edition druids were all about preserving the natural order above all.


t will be noted that the spells usable by druids are more attuned to nature
and the outdoors than are the spells of other clerics or magic-users.
20
CHARACTER CLASSES (DRUID)
Nonetheless, druids serve to strengthen, protect, and revitalize as the
usual cleric does. 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 must speak or read spells aloud.
Due to their involvement with living, growing things, druids have no
power to turn or control undead, demons, or devils.
Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic
sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest.
They hold trees (particularly oak and ash), the sun, and the moon as
deities. Mistletoe is the holy symbol of druids, and it gives power to their
spells. They have an obligation to protect trees and wild plants, crops, and
to a lesser extent, their human followers and animals. Thus, druids will
never destroy woodlands or crops no matter what the circumstances. Even
though a woods, for example, were evilly hostile, druids would not destroy
it, although nothing would prevent them from changing the nature of the
place if the desire and wherewithal existed. In similar fashion, they avoid
slaying wild animals or even domestic ones except as necessary for self-
preservation and sustenance.
If druids observe any creature destroying their charges, the druids are
unlikely to risk their lives to prevent the destruction. Rather, it is probable
that the druids will seek retribution and revenge at a later date as

 

[Tonguez]

They have an obligation to protect trees and wild plants, crops, and
to a lesser extent, their human followers and animals. Thus, druids will
never destroy woodlands or crops no matter what the circumstances. Even
though a woods, for example, were evilly hostile, druids would not destroy
it, although nothing would prevent them from changing the nature of the
place if the desire and wherewithal existed. In similar fashion, they avoid
slaying wild animals or even domestic ones except as necessary for self-
preservation and sustenance.

the hippy druid idea never made sense to me. Predation and disease are natural so I see no reason why a druid would avoid killing animals, especially as predators help to increase biodiversity.
Equally forest fires are also a natural phenomena, especially in Mediterranean type climates, some plants are entirely dependent on fire for them to thrive, as such I have no issue with Druids intentionally setting fire to woodlands and wtching while flame consumes the undergrowth and other debris.

 

[Umbran]

However, fans of Critical Role might think of someone that gives themself wholly to Predathos, without a deal but out of a desire to see Predathos do what Predathos does, and is granted power not via a deal but to further the charge of Predathos, might be an anti-cleric.All of that is true, but it is a sidestep away from my point.

I watched a few episodes to get some understanding of what the fuss was about, but I don't follow Critical Role, so this is not meaningful to me. Sorry.

And as this is an RPG, and RPGs work best with good storytelling, and good storytelling often relies upon conflict ... it feels like a gap

And? I am not of the thought that all gaps must be filled. it is not a flaw to have gaps. It doesn't seem to me to be a weakness that there's one thing that doesn't have direct opposition - direct opposition falls too neatly into the simple Good/Evil (or Law/Chaos) dichotomy that's all over the place already. Indeed, lacking a simple opposition would be consistent with the 1e, "True Neutral" origins of the class. And why not allow something that stands a bit unique?

to not have that oppositional anti-druid that turned their back on the ideals of the druids for some reason and aligns with the exact oppositie.

That sounds like symmetry for the sake of symmetry, which has its limits as a storytelling tool. Diads are the most simple form of symmetry around, and we already have several of them to work with. I don't see as creating one more diad is really adding a whole lot of story possibilities you can't get elsewhere.

For druids, if we must have opposition defined, I'd find having a triad would be more thematically appropriate and compelling - a trio of things that complete a metaphysical whole, no two of which are in direct opposition to each other.

But, you know, as you will. Your game.

 

[nevin]

I never liked the idea of truly nuetral people. That's why I always run druidic orders in 3 (the magic number). ng the shepards, NE the dark druids, nature's wrath, and N the balance between the two where you'll usually have the Heirophant in charge. Maintaining nature's balance leaves plenty of room for druids to argue over what balance looks like and how to enforce it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

the hippy druid idea never made sense to me. Predation and disease are natural so I see no reason why a druid would avoid killing animals, especially as predators help to increase biodiversity.
Equally forest fires are also a natural phenomena, especially in Mediterranean type climates, some plants are entirely dependent on fire for them to thrive, as such I have no issue with Druids intentionalky setting fire to woodlands and wtching while flame consumes the undergrowth and other debris

Both actually work fine for me. A druid who is at one with the natural cycle is fine, a druid who is more hippyish or more about avoiding causing harm to living things, it all works for me. I can see both existing in the same setting as different schools of thought

 

[MGibster]

the hippy druid idea never made sense to me. Predation and disease are natural so I see no reason why a druid would avoid killing animals, especially as predators help to increase biodiversity.

At least as long as I've been playing it, D&D has always had a rather modern mindset. The good guys typically value things like freedom of religion, property rights, equality, etc., etc. i.e. We're just not encouraged to role play an individual with very different values from our own in D&D (which is fine). At some point, the Druid became a caricature of a radical environmentalist. Someone who sees nature as something separate and must be protected from man.

 

[nevin]

I've seen people play druids that way and if they want to it's fine. We can't even get senior members of churches in real life to agree with each other. Why can't druid be the same.

 

[James Gasik]

I always thought it was strange that, if Druids are opposed to undead, that they lack any direct anti-undead abilities. Druids don't turn undead or have an "anti-death shell" spell in their list. They have to use the same tools they use against anything else to destroy the undead.

Curiously, 3.5 supplements actually had stuff that aimed Druids at Aberrations more than undead.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I always thought it was strange that, if Druids are opposed to undead, that they lack any direct anti-undead abilities. Druids don't turn undead or have an "anti-death shell" spell in their list. They have to use the same tools they use against anything else to destroy the undead.

Curiously, 3.5 supplements actually had stuff that aimed Druids at Aberrations more than undead.

True, that is weird. It also is weird that every cleric comes equipped with the ability to turn undead regardless of whether that has anything to do with their domain or deity.

 

[Voadam]

Curiously, 3.5 supplements actually had stuff that aimed Druids at Aberrations more than undead.

Aberrations as unnatural and not of the natural world.

Eberron pushed that hard with their Ashbound and Gatekeeper druidic sects and the history of druidism in the setting being developed and taught specifically to fight a historical dimensional invasion of aberrations and to safeguard against future ones.

Undead already had a specialist divine caster class, the cleric (and to a lesser extent the paladin). So driving towards a different unnatural category that nobody has specific things against gave a different niche and flavor specialization.