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.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

We need to stop normalizing using the word 'logic' for 'agrees with me'.

 

[Maxperson]

The rule is "X won't do Y". If you say your X will do Y, you're not following the rule. That's it. This is not hard.

You have yet to prove that an explicit in-fiction taboo is a game rule. You've made the claim. Back it up. Then you have to prove why 5e is different from every other edition where druids were allowed to put metal armor on anyway.

 

[Flamestrike]

Meaning that you would use your GM powers to contrive adverse effects so that you could punish the player for not taking the alignment nonsense as seriously as you do.

Yes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You have yet to prove that an explicit in-fiction taboo is a game rule. You've made the claim. Back it up.

Prove that any feature that says 'you cannot use this feature again until you have taken a short or long rest' is a rule and not just an in game taboo! Your position is nonsensical. We don't need to 'prove' that text written in the rule section of the game is rules! Also, no rulebook says nothing about in-game taboo, it merely is a supplementary designer explanation for why the rule exists in the first place. Fictional reason for monks dealing more damage with their bare hands is that they have practiced martial arts. This fictional explanation existing in no way or form stops their increased damage from being a rule!

Then you have to prove why 5e is different from every other edition where druids were allowed to put metal armor on anyway.

No, I don't. What some other edition or Monopoly says about druid armour really doesn't affect 5e rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes.

And this is one of the major reasons why people hate the alignment. The GM using it as bludgeon to force their personal morals on the players.

 

[Maxperson]

Prove that any feature that says 'you cannot use this feature again until you have taken a short or long rest' is a rule and not just an in game taboo! Your position is nonsensical.

If your counterargument is yet another fallacy, you've lost your position. Stop with the False Equivalences.

We don't need to 'prove' that text written in the rule section of the game is rules! Also, no rulebook says nothing about in-game taboo, it merely is a supplementary designer explanation for why the rule exists in the first place. Fictional reason for monks dealing more damage with their bare hands is that they have practiced martial arts. This fictional explanation existing in no way or form stops their increased damage from being a rule!

It doesn't say "can't" it says "won't," which is a CHOICE. Nothing you can argue will alter that it's a CHOICE. One that they can CHOOSE to break. There is literally no rule that prevents a druid from putting on metal armor.

 

[Maxperson]

And this is one of the major reasons why people hate the alignment. The GM using it as bludgeon to force their personal morals on the players.

What bludgeon?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We need to stop normalizing using the word 'logic' for 'agrees with me'.

I mean I really think that animating dead being defined as evil is hella stupid, but I'm still arguing in the favour of the rules saying that it is, because that is the logical reading of the rules*. Logic is not tied to my personal preference.

*Granted, the exact same box that gives the rule for animating dead being evil also says that the spell schools themselves have no rules, making the thing somewhat dubious...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If your counterargument is yet another fallacy, you've lost your position. Stop with the False Equivalences.

There is no fallacy. I don't need to prove that a text in middle of rules section of the book among other rules is a rule. It obviously is. We can't read rulebook with assumption that we need to prove that every paragraph of rules is actually rules. That's lunacy.

It doesn't say "can't" it says "won't," which is a CHOICE. Nothing you can argue will alter that it's a CHOICE. One that they can CHOOSE to break. There is literally no rule that prevents a druid from putting on metal armor.

They can't choose that. Because that would be breaking the clear rule of 'druids won't wear metal armour.'

 

[Maxperson]

I mean I really think that animating dead being defined as evil is hella stupid, but I'm still arguing in the favour of the rules saying that it is, because that is the logical reading of the rules*. Logic is not tied to my personal preference.

*Granted, the exact same box that gives the rule for animating dead being evil also says that the spell schools themselves have no rules, making the thing somewhat dubious...

It's not a rule of the school, though. It's just mentioned in the school sidebar. The evil nature of casting those spells has nothing to do with the spell being part of the necromancy school and everything to do with raising evil undead murdering monsters and adding them to the world knowing that they can and will if given the opportunity(and undeath finds a way) to kill people.