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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean you don't really have an argument. You just declare that you're not going to follow a rule.

No, I have an argument, which is that the text in question logically cannot constitute a rule.

Doesn't matter. X doing Y is an illegal gamestate in either case.

And how is this enforced? Again, nothing prevents a character from attempting to put on armor or cast a spell, and nothing instructs the DM of what outcome should occur in place of success when the character belongs to a category that it says “won’t” do that thing.

Except if more specific rule instructs otherwise. And in this case it does.

The rule absolutely does not say a player can’t declare that their character attempts to don armor or cast a spell.

Then you are breaking a rule. The DM informs that you're doing so. Then you hopefully will instead declare something that is not breaking the rules. Or to be specific, you can declare that your character wants to put on metal armour. But they still won't do it.

So your answer is to override player agency? When I say “I try to put the armor on,” you’d say “no you don’t?” I mean, alright I guess.

The rules do not give reason for why a druid won't wear metal armour. But the rules is that they won't. Why this won't happen is fluff. The player and the GM should work out a satisfactory reason for why the druid won't wear metal armour.

And if the player isn’t willing to concede that point, your only recourse seems to be to ban them from attempting the action. Of course, that would make the rule “can’t” rather than “won’t,” but at this point it’s clear that you don’t care about that distinction, so whatever.

 

[Charlaquin]

The DM says per RAW that is not something you as a druid will do.

Right, so it’s not really true that I won’t. I actually can’t, because the DM says so.

Same as if they were charmed and said they acted in violation of the charmed conditions.

General rule for 5e is that players choose what their characters think and do.

Specific rule overriding the general rule in 5e is that druids will not wear metal armor or shields.

“Will not” isn’t a meaningful rule when the character’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are up to the player.

How this goes about in effect is a DM call, maybe the druid wants to but will not actually wear the armor. Maybe they are magically prohibited from wearing the armor. The play loop picks up at that point where the desire is made but the action is prevented.

Maybe to effect the "will not wear" rule the druid does not actually want to wear it and that is where play loop picks up again.

Maybe the DM houserules this and allows it to happen but imposes consequences. Maybe the DM houserules this and imposes no consequences.

Any ruling the DM makes on what happens is a house rule, since the rule doesn’t say what happens.

 

[Voadam]

That's not Occam's Razor!

You're talking about how to respond to the issue, rather than which is the simplest explanation of what they said.

Actual application of Occam's Razor to 5e as a whole is that the sidebar is descriptive text that is not an actual rule and so the DM does not need to sweat a PC's alignment unless an alignment mechanic comes up, and then the DM checks with the PCs for the chosen alignments of their characters.

The only time a 5e DM is instructed to change a PC's alignment is when a mechanic tells them to, such as the optional Hell planar mechanic.

This is a change from prior editions.

There are only very limited circumstances where PC alignment would come up. Going to an outer plane. If said "LG" paladin who ran around constantly increasing the amount of evil in the world by frequently animating the dead ended up in an upper plane, he would get the heebie jeebies as he experienced the dissonance of being evil on a good plane. I wouldn't even bother with his alignment until he hit something in the game that required me to look. Until then, the world would simply react to his evil as appropriate for the world. Said paladin would also take 8d6 radiant damage if he ever picked up a Talisman of Pure Good.

Agreed, very few circumstances in 5e. Most of them involve specific magic items and planes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I have an argument, which is that the text in question logically cannot constitute a rule.

Players don't get to decide that rules are not rules.

And how is this enforced?

In the same way that is ensured that any rules are followed. So via a social contract that the players agree to follow the rules. Generally people who cannot do that are no longer welcome to the game.

So your answer is to override player agency? When I say “I try to put the armor on,” you’d say “no you don’t?” I mean, alright I guess.

I mean that literally is the rule. I might house rule something else, as it is kinda silly, but that's another matter.

 

[Voadam]

Right, so it’s not really true that I won’t. I actually can’t, because the DM says so.

Druid character won't. Player can't have the character choose to do it.

That seems consistent with a rule saying druids won't.

“Will not” isn’t a meaningful rule when the character’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are up to the player.

Specific druid rule overriding the general "thoughts, feelings, and actions are up to the player" rule.

Similar to specific charms overriding that rule.

A druid geas against it that is taken on when you pick up a level in the class works great as an on-point thematic narrative explanation.

Any ruling the DM makes on what happens is a house rule, since the rule doesn’t say what happens.

Aren't house rules generally different from the RAW and contradict at least one RAW? It seems that whatever ruling is consistent with RAW would not be a house rule, just a campaign specific explanation or method for executing the RAW.

 

[nevin]

Fine as a house rule, but not written anywhere in the game rules.

true but if there are no consequences for breaking your gods ethos then everyone would worship them to get spells and then use them for thier own purposes. But you are correct there is no actual hard rule in any edition that spells that out.

 

[nevin]

Yes.

No rule says they are.

It’s an argument about whether or not spells (or any actions, for that matter) are “inherently evil” (or inherently any alignment). Alignment is ostensibly objective in D&D, yet no rules exist linking any given action to any given alignment. The only logically valid way for both of these things to be true is if actions do not have inherent alignments.

if your character doesn't worship a god or power then there are only societal consequences. If your character worships anything then the rules are layed down by your worship. thus DM gets to decide. But trying to tell me that actions can't be inherently evil because someone didn't make a rule is absolutely silly. If we have characters on an island with no government and my character boils yours alive eats him or her and then animates the bones as a body guard simply for protection, it doesn't matter if my only intent was to survive. It's still evil. And nothing in the rules states that specifically. I imagine the developers never thought they'd have to argue that morals didn't exist if they didn't write them down.

 

[Voadam]

true but if there are no consequences for breaking your gods ethos then everyone would worship them to get spells and then use them for thier own purposes. But you are correct there is no actual hard rule in any edition that spells that out.

That would also depend on the specific god's ethos. Undead blasting sun god? Probably does not want you animating undead. The god of victory? Maybe, maybe not. Does the specific sky god care one way or the other? Wee Jaas, Greyhawk Lawful Neutral Goddess of Death and Magic?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mechanical consequences are just a cost for getting around the prohibition. A 3e druid can wear metal armor, there is just a specific consequence.

Magic-Users can't wear armor or use most weapons, period.* No specified consequences, they just can't.

* (OD&D elves, B/X elves, and AD&D multiclass elves excepted).

But they don't say "can't" anymore. They say "don't", which immediately makes the "rule" meaningless.

 

[Seramus]

Great, that’s a perfectly fine way to house rule it. It isn’t what the rules actually say to do though (because the rules don’t say anything on the matter).

The rules are incapable of running a game of D&D. All games are house ruled. None are RAW. If you try to run a game of D&D without arbitration, you utterly fail. I don't mean because a person has to speak, I mean because huge chunks of rules necessary to run the game without filling in the gaps yourself simply don't exist.