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.)

 

[Dausuul]

I think he'd simply point out that it's forbidden, and such an action is a violation of the character, a decision they made by playing a druid.

And the player says, "I think my character would do it anyway in this scenario, because XYZ."

Now what?

 

[Maxperson]

And the player says, "I think my character would do it anyway in this scenario, because XYZ."

Now what?

This is exactly the point. Nobody is saying that it's okay for a druid to just walk into the store, buy a nice new shiny suit of mail, and then go out for a night on the town. We're talking about special exceptions for reasons, similar to reasons why a vegetarian might eat meat on rare occasions.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, it depends on your DMing style, but this is one of those "rulings not rules" moments. The DM could say you don't, and that's final at my table. The DM could make your character burst into flames. The DM could have NOTHING HAPPEN AT ALL, and keep you wondering when the other shoe is going to drop.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, it depends on your DMing style, but this is one of those "rulings not rules" moments. The DM could say you don't, and that's final at my table. The DM could make your character burst into flames. The DM could have NOTHING HAPPEN AT ALL, and keep you wondering when the other shoe is going to drop.

According to the rules, the other shoe never drops, because there are no consequences, and most players are not going to accept "because I said so" as a reason not to do something they are perfectly capable of doing.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah but that's a stated design goal of 5e. We don't make all the rules so you're free to do what you want!*

*Now as to why you'd pay WotC money for a system where you do all the work for them is another question entirely, but it's worked for Bethesda for decades!

 

[Oofta]

So if a druid player says to you, "I'm going to put on this chain shirt", you just tell they can't?

If someone says they're going to run a druid I will reiterate that druids will not wear metal armor. I'll also try to Work with them to get better armor if they care.

It has never come up, but if I've confirmed how I run things and they refuse to accept it then I'm not the right DM for them.

 

[James Gasik]

And that's a perfectly valid, and even admirable approach- it's a fantasy world, and there are creatures with super dense hides, strong bones, and armored carapaces. One of my favorite things about AD&D was how the Monster Manual will say things like "the hide of the Aurumvorax can be turned into armor, this is how you do it, and this is what it does". Who played Baldur's Gate and remembered why you lugged around all that Ankheg chitin?

 

[Mort]

Except since this is an analogy for alignment in 5e, no, it doesn’t. Alignment in 5e has no meaning or context. No rules dictate what a character of any given alignment can or can’t do, or provide any consequence for a character of any given alignment taking any given action. It’s literally a meaningless two words or letters written on a piece of paper that affects nothing.

Apologies if this has been covered by the 10 pages I haven't gotten to yet, that said. With that:

This paragraph is simply untrue. While alignment consequences have been significantly reduced in 5e, they absolutely exist!

For example:

Let's say your "good" necromancer (who had been constantly raising the dead a non good act) finds a white robe of the archmagi. He's elated and tries to atune to it - but whoops he can't. Alignment is descriptive, the DM rules he hasn't been what's described as good.

But there are perks: the "good" necromancer happens upon a demi lich lair and walks in. Had he actually been good? 3d10 necrotic damage! But he doesn't take it.

There are quite a few other examples. Certainly more than enough to refute the 0 consequences claimed. And also plenty enough to provide any DM who's interested examples for more consequences.

 

[James Gasik]

Personally, I always hated those kinds of effects. This may be a unique point of view, but bear with me. Most of my characters are good. They do good things. They may be sarcastic, but ultimately, they are heroes, because to me, D&D is a game about heroes.

Then I get blasted by an Unholy Word and I grumble to myself that I'm being punished for my alignment, and I'd have been better off Annoying Neutral.

Basically, I've seen too many of the penalties for Alignment, and not nearly enough of the rewards.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I always hated those kinds of effects. This may be a unique point of view, but bear with me. Most of my characters are good. They do good things. They may be sarcastic, but ultimately, they are heroes, because to me, D&D is a game about heroes.

Then I get blasted by an Unholy Word and I grumble to myself that I'm being punished for my alignment, and I'd have been better off Annoying Neutral.

Basically, I've seen too many of the penalties for Alignment, and not nearly enough of the rewards.

Would you feel better if Unholy Word just blasted you regardless of alignment?