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.)

 

[Mort]

I don't think that follows. Nothing says that creating evil creatures is evil. Is evil monsters having babies evil?

I would say if you bring something into the world that you know is evil and will cause death and mayhem from YOUR actions? Can't see how that's not evil. Certainly it is not a good act.

And besides, here, for this spell, it's REALLY simple; it's explicitly called out in the rules as evil if done too often.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would say if you bring something into the world that you know is evil and will cause death and mayhem from YOUR actions? Can't see how that's not evil. Certainly it is not a good act.

Oh wow! So bugbears having babies are doing evil? No wonder they want to murder all the judgemental 'good people'. I'd be livid too!

And besides, here, for this spell, it's REALLY simple; it's explicitly called out in the rules as evil if done too often.

Sure, but that's different argument.

Then again, we already know that what alignment thinks is evil and what is actually evil are not the same thing. Several people seemed to think that the murderous slaadi are evil, even though their alignment is neutral.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nah, they’re not. Forcing someone to drop their weapon and surrender is not evil. It’s a non-violent subdual. Surrender of agency is not the evil you seem to think it is. It happens every time someone is sent to prison.

Have you considered that maybe prisons are not good?

 

[Mort]

Oh wow! So bugbears having babies are doing evil? No wonder they want to murder all the judgemental 'good people'. I'd be livid too!

If bugbears are always evil then yes, having more bugbears who will always be evil is evil.

If bugbears are not always evil but these bugbears raise their babies to do evil things? Then yes, that's evil.

Sure, but that's different argument.

Not really, "because the book says so," may not be a satisfactory argument, but it's a sufficient one.

Then again, we already know that what alignment thinks is evil and what is actually evil are not the same thing. Several people seemed to think that the murderous slaadi are evil, even though their alignment is neutral.

No, we know that the writers LISTED the alignment as CN - which the Slaad have always been listed as, so it's likely a legacy thing. But then they went and added standard behaviors which seem clearly evil (particularly for an intelligent being). It's a weird disconnect. And since alignment (in 5e) is descriptive, behavior would win out - at least for me.

CN has generally been done REALLY poorly in D&D and the Slaad are a prime example of a weird misinterpretation of what it is. The writers REALLY could have done better.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the whole druid thing confuses me. Is he saying that even though you made your choice to be a druid and draw on the powers of nature and the fey, knowing up front that metal interferes with that power, that it's not your choice to be a druid and not wear metal armor?

You can be a druid and wear metal armor. People will probably confuse you with a Ranger because you won't be able to cast spells. Still your choice.

You have inserted the bolded part yourself, based on preexisting assumptions. The rules say no such thing. Literally the only thing the “rules” say on the matter is that Druid’s “won’t” wear metal armor. Which is nonsense because choosing to play a druid is a thing the rules allow me to do, and choosing what my character thinks and does is something the rules allow me to do, and putting on armor is something the rules allow me to do. Nothing says I can’t decide my druid character is going to put on metal armor, this passage just says they “won’t.”

If I understand the argument correctly it's like saying if I jump out of a plane without a parachute, and chose to hit the ground that it wasn't my choice to die when i did. That's not splitting hairs that's spitting atoms.

Except hitting the ground and dying are known consequences of jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Wearing metal armor has no such known consequences, it just says “no, you won’t do that.” The correct analogy would be, when someone asks “will I die if I jump without a parachute,” you answer “you won’t jump.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Compared too?

The natural language was a deliberate choice and a backtrack from the technical precise language of 4e. Clearly it's working with the wider audience!

Ehhhh… 5e is working with the wider audience, but is that because of or in spite of the sloppy language? My money would be on the latter.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've decided I have another thing to add to the wishlist for the anniversary edition: put the "no metal" restriction in the armor proficiency line for druids.

That’s where it is currently…

 

[Maxperson]

Oh man, the lance discussion. Closely related: the bastard sword and what the heck kind of weapon is it anyways?

One born out of wedlock.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's fun, isn't it?

It would seem that there are people that think 5e isn't a good system, or is an incomplete system, or even is a failure as a system.

And yet, despite the fact that so many people enjoy talking about what a dismal failure of a system 5e is, it is, by far, the most popular version of D&D to ever be released, and is responsible for the most popular time our hobby has ever seen (yes, even more than the early 80s).

Maybe it's doing something right, for some people. Just saying.

I mean, I think it’s pretty widely known that system isn’t terribly important to most players.

 

[Mort]

Ehhhh… 5e is working with the wider audience, but is that because of or in spite of the sloppy language? My money would be on the latter.

Mine wouldn't.

I liked 4e but I found reading it a bit of a slog. I much prefer the natural language of 5e and find it not that much less clear.

My understanding is this reaction is/was quite common. 5e is easier to read through - that accounts for something. Now if they would just organize and group the DMG better, with a much improved index - then we'd really be getting somewhere.