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.)

 

[lingual]

One side is being inclusive. We are allowing the druids to have their voluntary taboo and to break it in a pinch if they need to. The other side is into One True Way, with some even going so far as to boot someone who tries from the group.

I think that's treating the other side unfairly. If someone in my group insisted on having their Druid prancing about in full plate (and even optimized their character to do so knowing that I would frown upon it) - then that person probably wouldn't be a welcome addition to any group. I think that's a far cry from a mountain/miner dwarf druid wearing breastplate or wearing metal armor in a pinch to help get out of a sticky situation.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m 95% in agreement. However, are there no limits? What if you had seriously vowed to never eat French fries, and had consistently role played that vow, but one day decided, heck, who cares, and started frying up some taters? In my games, there have been times when a player has “broken character” and began to ignore an important, established, part of their character’s story, until the DM interceded and asked for clarification, or simple said that the character wouldn’t do the stated action.

I personally wouldn't do that. And if a player at my table did it, I'd wonder about it and might talk to the player to see why the change happened. I wouldn't tell him no, though. It's not my place to play his character for him.

As long as the DM is clear on what the player is doing, and as long as the player is simply not being disruptive.)

I agree that the PC shouldn't be disruptive. Better to handle it out of game, though. If the player doesn't want to roleplay any longer and it's an issue, then perhaps another table is better for everyone involved.

 

[lingual]

And I wouldn't bat an eyelash if the other druids ostracized or even hunted my PC for breaking the taboo. It IS an abuse of power, though, to take control of my PC's actions without some sort of magic or other in game reason for it. I'm not suggesting that there be no consequence for the actions. It is an abuse of authority to refuse to let my druid violate his taboo if he feels that the reason is important enough, though. Just like my paladin can violate his oaths if he feels it's important enough.

I think what the other side wants to prevent is min-max optimizers who rules-lawyery their way to make a full plate druid without actually any character concept other than a higher AC. Some of them have probably have had their share of such players just don't want to deal with the things that could lead to such nonsense. I'm quite sure IRL, if you had a cool concept of a metal-weating Druid - most of here would be on board. We would just want to hear it out first.

 

[Flamestrike]

I’m 95% in agreement. However, are there no limits? What if you had seriously vowed to never eat French fries, and had consistently role played that vow, but one day decided, heck, who cares, and started frying up some taters? In my games, there have been times when a player has “broken character” and began to ignore an important, established, part of their character’s story, until the DM interceded and asked for clarification, or simple said that the character wouldn’t do the stated action.

A character is selling a piece of fiction. They have some responsibility for presenting a plausible story. (Note: There is still room for truly chaotic behavior, or for sly and subtle evil. As long as the DM is clear on what the player is doing, and as long as the player is simply not being disruptive.)

TomB

A LG PC could (when pushed, times are desperate, etc) certainly animate the dead. It's just not a Good act, and only evil PCs do so frequently.

It casts some doubt on his alignment, but it's not like he suddenly is 'capital E' evil.

Depends on the context.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think what the other side wants to prevent is min-max optimizers who rules-lawyery their way to make a full plate druid

No, it's just that Druids have taken a spiritual oath not to wear the stuff.

It's like how Paladins also take oaths of conduct as well.

 

[tomBitonti]

A LG PC could (when pushed, times are desperate, etc) certainly animate the dead. It's just not a Good act, and only evil PCs do so frequently.

It casts some doubt on his alignment, but it's not like he suddenly is 'capital E' evil.

Depends on the context.

Definitely. The times that I’m thinking of are the less desperate ones.

I guess, I’ve seen times when players ignore how they’ve written their characters for an in-game or meta advantage.

A player who isn’t a novice and who writes LG on their character sheet ought to make an attempt to play an LG character.

TomB

 

[Flamestrike]

I guess, I’ve seen times when players ignore how they’ve written their characters for an in-game or meta advantage.

They're the ones I punish. In an effort to help them become better players.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that's treating the other side unfairly. If someone in my group insisted on having their Druid prancing about in full plate (and even optimized their character to do so knowing that I would frown upon it) - then that person probably wouldn't be a welcome addition to any group. I think that's a far cry from a mountain/miner dwarf druid wearing breastplate or wearing metal armor in a pinch to help get out of a sticky situation.

No one on our side is suggesting that it would be okay to have a druid start prancing around in plate.

 

[Maxperson]

I think what the other side wants to prevent is min-max optimizers who rules-lawyery their way to make a full plate druid without actually any character concept other than a higher AC. Some of them have probably have had their share of such players just don't want to deal with the things that could lead to such nonsense. I'm quite sure IRL, if you had a cool concept of a metal-weating Druid - most of here would be on board. We would just want to hear it out first.

It's not even about a concept of a metal armor wearing druid. There might be outlier cases, though, that might get my druid to bend his principles. Maybe we need to sneak into a highly fortified and defended tower and capturing some full suits of armor from those guarding the place and going in disguised is how we have to save the day.

 

[Lanefan]

It's hard to say. I feel a lot of flavor would be lost. I just wish I saw more carrot and less stick. I mean, what is the benefit of alignment?

It's not supposed to be a benefit. If anything, the job of alignment is to add to the game's ability to challenge the PCs and thus by extension the players.