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.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again D&D has very little grasp on morality.

1. D&D has a world with devils, demons, and outerplanes that correspond to true good and evil.

2. If you are learning your real-world morality from a mass-market game made by Hasbro, I would suggest ... well, maybe you're not doing it right. The morality thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Where are you getting that from. None of those is okay as far as the game cares.

~Casts Dominate Person~

~Casts Fireball~

~Casts Dissonant Whispers~

 

[Oofta]

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.

You didn't set it up as some sort of Kobayashi Maru test, but it still came about and is a lot more than just munching on some fries in a happy meal because fries are good.

I try not to make light of religious beliefs. Setting up a scenario that forces the druid to wear metal armor is IMHO making light of religious beliefs. In your soldier scenario* I would invent some alternative if I hadn't thought of it ahead of time, I improvise things all the time I don't see this as any different.

*Which I have never seen anything even close in decades of play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not a religious belief. The game never explains what the hell it's supposed to be besides useless nostalgia bait.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Alignment is the reason this thread and the stupid 'kill everything' line exists in corpse robots.

Therefore it is evil and it is okay to kill it.

1. D&D has a world with devils, demons, and outerplanes that correspond to true good and evil.

2. If you are learning your real-world morality from a mass-market game made by Hasbro, I would suggest ... well, maybe you're not doing it right. The morality thing.

I mean, in the end, that's it. The game is not meant to be an ethics course, it is a game where violent vigilantes* forcefully end hopefully-mostly-bad-guys** and do so using general fantasy tropes. The game has devils, demons, zombies, and skeletons and so-forth and those are supposed to stay over in side bad guy. The guy that walks around with an army of zombies is wearing a sign saying 'PCs come get me.' Full Stop. The end. That's all it is. Pulling it apart will only reveal that it is held together with vaguery straws and tropish chewing gum. It, along with the druid armor thing, are a well-meaning but ultimately poor strategy to give DMs encouragement to modify the situation if it doesn't fit their campaign premise.
*Leading to all sorts of 'how is this violent tool more evil than the ones you use' debates, and no there are no simple answers.
**Or at least when this is subverted and you are playing 'the bad guys,' it is deliberate and noted.

 

[James Gasik]

Now that's a fun idea. Run an evil game and try to decide what spells are "inherently good" and, if cast too much, will cause you to become good.

 

[Mort]

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.

I REALLY dislike that! If the taboo can be discarded for mere expediency (which this sure seems like) it's too weak.

I mean, you're a druid, why not just shift into a dog or a rat and accompany the "guards?" Probably better than you having to make deception or performance checks anyway!

Point is, there should almost always be another way. I generally detest DM "damned if you do, damned if you don't" setups.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, those always segue into "Paladin falls" discussions, where the DM puts the Paladin into a Catch-22 situation. At least that can't happen anymore. Actually, I need to check if Paladins CAN fall now- I know the Oathbreaker exists, but is that optional rules?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The question is who even wants to engage in this taboo in the first place?

It's one thing for a players to come up with their characters' ideals, then ignore them. It's another for there just to be a blur in the book saying 'characters of your type always wears shows on their head' and ignoring that.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, I guess they can, and they suggest what the DM could do about that. Weird that this sidebar exists, but not a peep about Clerics, Druids, or Warlocks who offend their patrons.

 

[Maxperson]

~Casts Dominate Person~

Existence =/= okay.

~Casts Fireball~

Depends on what you do with it. It doesn't enslave anyone.

~Casts Dissonant Whispers~

I'm not sure what that is, but it's probably being similarly misconstrued as "okay" by the game.

Evil things are in the game. Don't use them if you don't want to be evil. Fireball is in the game. Don't use it to cause anguish if you don't want to. Existence =/= the game considers it to be okay.

 

[Maxperson]

I try not to make light of religious beliefs. Setting up a scenario that forces the druid to wear metal armor is IMHO making light of religious beliefs. In your soldier scenario* I would invent some alternative if I hadn't thought of it ahead of time, I improvise things all the time I don't see this as any different.

*Which I have never seen anything even close in decades of play.

Nothing says it's religious. As written it's at least as likely to be something like being a vegetarian is religious.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, I guess they can, and they suggest what the DM could do about that. Weird that this sidebar exists, but not a peep about Clerics, Druids, or Warlocks who offend their patrons.

Yeah, it is weirdly inconsistent.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Druids have been able to wear metal armor since 1e. There were just mechanical consequences for it in the older editions. 5e? Not so much. No mechanical consequences at all for violating the voluntary taboo.

Looking at the Druid write up, it seems like the rule is behavioral. So if they player says they want to wear metal armor the RAW consequence is "no, you don't. It says right here that druids refuse to do that. Make another choice." I don't know if there is any other rule that specifically overrides player choice in this manner non-adversarially. (Like, charm person, command, &c.) Well, paladins I guess. Their behavior restrictions have opened up vastly with their oaths.

In general 5e is fairly consequence-light when it comes to character behaviors, which is probably from the near elimination of alignment in this edition. Necromancy, charm, and some summoning spells may be grim or unsavory, but there is nothing truly evil (or good) in the game rules-wise.

NB: Thinking about it, if this taboo is an "oath" I would probably reference the paladin's code for guidance.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing says it's religious. As written it's at least as likely to be something like being a vegetarian is religious.

I disagree, but it also doesn't matter. I don't make light of other people's strongly held beliefs whether I agree with them or not. I also won't ever make a player choose between doing something they don't want to do and something else they don't want to do because it goes against core identity. I'll never set up a situation where the good cleric of light has to choose between a demon and a devil.

But I've said how I handle it in my game. I'll work with the player to get their PC better non-metallic armor if it's an issue, but druids will not willingly wear metal armor if they wan to continue being druids.

 

[Maxperson]

I REALLY dislike that! If the taboo can be discarded for mere expediency (which this sure seems like) it's too weak.

It's not expediency. If you are likely to fail unless you do it and many are likely to die, be enslaved or whatever, you may need to break the taboo. That's not expediency.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is there a Fireball variant in the books that makes being set the hell on fire painless? What is the use case of fireball that doesn't cause anguish?

 

[Maxperson]

Looking at the Druid write up, it seems like the rule is behavioral. So if they player says they want to wear metal armor the RAW consequence is "no, you don't. It says right here that druids refuse to do that. Make another choice." I don't know if there is any other rule that specifically overrides player choice in this manner non-adversarially. (Like, charm person, command, &c.) Well, paladins I guess. Their behavior restrictions have opened up vastly with their oaths.

1. It's not a rule.
2. It doesn't overrule player choice. If they can choose not to wear armor, they can choose to break the taboo in an emergency.
3. It's exactly like paladins. Paladins can choose to break their oaths and take the consequences.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Is there a Fireball variant in the books that makes being set the hell on fire painless? What is the use case of fireball that doesn't cause anguish?

If you need to start a large fire somewhere very quickly. Maybe for a controlled burn of a prairie or something like that. Or if you need to melt some ice.

 

[Mort]

It's not expediency. If you are likely to fail unless you do it and many are likely to die, be enslaved or whatever, you may need to break the taboo. That's not expediency.

Sure it is. Especially for a group that believes in an afterlife, being able to be raised from the dead AND reincarnation.

If, I might die, or even others might die is really all it takes it's a weak taboo.

It says "won't wear metal armor" not won't unless he'd prefer to! And it's not suggestion text, it's right there with the proficiencies as an exception.

It's something that really needs to be discussed right away between the druid player and DM and make sure they are both on the same page.