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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

and choosing what my character thinks and does is something the rules allow me to do

Unless there is a more specific rule which says otherwise. And in this case there is.

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.

Yes, this would definitely be much better way to handle it than the current bizarre agency shattering rule.

Granted, in practice it doesn't matter. In both cases 99.9% of the players would just shrug and not try to equip their druid with a metal armour, so the outcome is the same. System aesthetically the way they did it bugs me, but it really is not an actual problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whilst I agree that 5e could be better written, I don't have an issue with the natural language per se, and definitely prefer it over the dry and technical tone of 4e. That being said, inconsistent rules bug me, as do unintuitive use of language. An attack and an attack action are different things and so are a melee attack with a weapon and a melee weapon attack. This is not intuitive natural language! And the druid armour rule is good example of a weirdly inconsistent rule that doesn't seem to match how these things are generally presented in the game. That being said, most of the things people here vigorously argue about are rarely issues in practice. People just shrug and move on with the game.

Yeah, this, in my opinion, is the real cause of 5e’s rules problems. It isn’t actually natural language at all, it’s technical language using natural-sounding terms in a very technical way. The melee weapon attack with a body part (which is not a weapon) thing is really very simple if you ignore what the words “melee weapon attack” mean in English and treat them as a piece of technical jargon with a specific game meaning. I prefer technical language over natural for its clarity, but if the game is going to use natural language, it should actually use natural language.

 

[Mort]

Humans are evil. QED.

Humans who teach their offspring to act evil are evil - yep. Just like bugbears. Pretty simple really.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Humans who teach their offspring to act evil are evil - yep. Just like bugbears. Pretty simple really.

Trust me, our offspring don't need teaching.

 

[Oofta]

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,

If I'm DM the PC decided they would not wear metal armor once they became a druid. It's part of the package. Do whatever you want when you DM, I think it's a clear and simple rule with about as much justification and reason as 80%* of the rules in the game.

*this percentage is completely made up as are 74% of all percentages.

 

[Maxperson]

Trust me, our offspring don't need teaching.

Is the glass ever half full?

 

[Maxperson]

*this percentage is completely made up as are 74% of all percentages.

And rules preventing druids from being able to put on metal armor, which they have been able to do since 1e.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

There’s a lot of daylight between being written technically and being written like 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

???

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.

I’d argue that has a lot more to do with brand recognition than system. Not that system is totally irrelevant, some players will absolutely be driven away by a system they don’t like. But I don’t think system is by any means the main driving force behind what games people prefer.

 

[Charlaquin]

If I'm DM the PC decided they would not wear metal armor once they became a druid. It's part of the package. Do whatever you want when you DM, I think it's a clear and simple rule with about as much justification and reason as 80%* of the rules in the game.

*this percentage is completely made up as are 74% of all percentages.

No, I got that, and I’ve pretty much given up on arguing about it. But you said “because reasons” like it’s a totally arbitrary distinction I and others are drawing. I was just pointing out where the distinction lies - rules that govern player behavior vs. “rules” that govern character behavior.