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'll go you one better, Oofta! Have it simply say "Druids are not proficient with metal armors".

That would actually be infinitely preferable to the current wording because it would be a clear rule. Why can’t Druids wear metal armor? They lack proficiency. What happens if the player decides to put it on anyway? Same thing that happens when anyone tries to wear armor they aren’t proficient with - IIRC, it’s disadvantage on Strength and Dexterity checks and you can’t cast spells.

 

[Mort]

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

???

If I propose a 5e game, I can throw a rock in any direction and get a table together easily.

If I want to instead propose a RIFTS or Savage Worlds game - getting enough players for even one table is HARD.

I would say system here matters quite a bit.

 

[Charlaquin]

SIDE NOTE: I have an example of a Crawford "ruling" that made me quit DMing because it was so ridiculous my brain melted. But I'll only share if someone is morbidly curious- I think I've derailed this conversation quite enough.

o/

 

[Maxperson]

I once had a DM rule my Ring of Free Action wouldn't protect me from a paralysis poison. Magic? Supernatural effects? Hold Person? All fine. But a poison running through your veins? SHENANIGANS!

So I looked at the spell and it doesn't say that water does not impede. It says that they can move and attack normally while underwater, so ignore that last by me about Freedom of Movement in 3.5. The PC wouldn't fall and take damage. Wording matters.

That said, I wouldn't have let that poison affect you. The wording is that you get to move and attack normally, EVEN IF magic... It doesn't just stop magic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Bugbears are just as much evil than zombies and skeletons. Their statblock lists them as such, but the MM says that it is just a default and don't need to apply to every individual.

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

Yes. But the book doesn't say that making evil creatures is evil.

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.

But that's not what the rules say. Rules say the murderous slaadi are neutral. It may not be a satisfactory argument, but it's a sufficient one.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh wow! So bugbears having babies are doing evil?

Are they having them frequently?

 

[Mort]

But that's not what the rules say. Rules say the murderous slaadi are neutral. It may not be a satisfactory argument, but it's a sufficient one.

Actually I would argue that the rules Clearly say Slaad are CN - so that is sufficient.

The flavor description of their actions? that's contradictory and not really rules text. So RAW they are CN and should behave differently as a result.

My solution, forget RAW, they are CE.

 

[Maxperson]

That would actually be infinitely preferable to the current wording because it would be a clear rule. Why can’t Druids wear metal armor? They lack proficiency. What happens if the player decides to put it on anyway? Same thing that happens when anyone tries to wear armor they aren’t proficient with - IIRC, it’s disadvantage on Strength and Dexterity checks and you can’t cast spells.

Awesome! That's the way it should be. Let the druid put it on and then live with the consequences.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, you're not missing anything. Just checked my PHB, it's clearly stated as "Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

The only reason I've seen given is that there's no reason given for it and the penalty is left up to the DM if they care. I mean, most of the rules in the book don't really have a reason given either, but this time it's different. For reasons.

Rules like what dice to roll and what modifiers to add are rules about the player’s behavior. The armor thing, if read as a rule, is one about the character’s behavior. That’s what’s different about it. I can’t just add +50 to my roll because I feel like it, because there are rules informing me what I’m supposed to add to my rolls. Why can’t I declare that my character puts on metal armor? Well, because my character apparently won’t do that. I’m sorry, last I checked the premise of the game is that I decide what my character will and won’t do. Saying my character won’t do something is nonsense, either tell me my character can’t do it or tell me what happens to them if they do. Otherwise you’re just spitting on player agency,

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Humans are evil. QED.