No. Its inconsistent with that statement.
You're literally quoting text that inherently ties casting a spell (animate dead) with an alignment (not a Good act).
That doesn’t tie it to an alignment, it specifies an alignment to which it is not tied: good.
In that case, they're not a Good PC.
Sure they are. It says good right there on the character sheet, and they did the thing. Now what happens? The rules don’t say.
A Good PC can also choose for their PC to rape, enslave, murder and torture people.
They're not a Good PC.
I don’t see a rule that says a good PC can’t do those things or what happens to them if they do.
It says ONLY Evil PCs cast them regularly. That's a prohibition.
If I have a Law that states 'Only women can enter the Female restrooms' then that Law prohibits any other gender from entry.
You’ve inserted the word “can” in there, which does not exist in the text in question. A proper analogy would be a “law” that says only women enter women’s restrooms, which isn’t a law at all, it’s just a factually incorrect statement.
If a Druid wears metal armor, it's entirely up to the DM what happens.
That’s neither RAW nor RAI. RAW just says they won’t, and doesn’t specify what happens to a PC who does anyway. RAI is nothing happens at all, it’s only meant as a statement informing the setting. It’s right there in Sage Advice.
Being cast out of the Druid order, being prohibited from casting spells, dying on the spot. Whatever.
Any of these things would be not-unreasonable house rules, if a DM wanted to enforce druid PCs conforming to the statement about the setting.
The prohibition (on wearing metal armor) doesn't include a specific punishment if the prohibition is violated, but that doesn't mean the prohibition does not exist.
The
“rule” doesn’t prohibit druids from wearing metal armor, or just says they won’t, which a druid PC can easily prove false.
So it's up to the DM to determine what the consequences for breaking the prohibition is.
In this case, I would (after stern words from the DM) alter the PCs alignment to 'Evil' and tell them that thier use of 'dark, unholy and black magic' has stained their soul.
Or I'd boot them from the game. Either works.
Fine and dandy as a house rule, but nowhere in the rules does it say to do either of those things.
The rules don't provide a prohibition on the DM doing so. Ergo, the DM can do what the DW wants, up to (and including) refusing to DM that player, or having rocks fall on his PCs head.
That’s not how the rules of D&D work. They’re exceptions-based, they say what you
can do, not what you
can’t do.
Thats because the Rules do contain a prohibition on Good (or Neutral) aligned PCs from frequently casting animate dead, and this player (against that prohibition) has choosen to violate that rule.
From then onwards, its' up to the DM how to handle that problem player.
The text in question does not contain any prohibitive language. It is a statement of what characters
do, which can easily be proven false.
It's no different to an ostensibly 'LG' PC who starts raping and murdering NPCs frequently and on a whim.
That character is not LG.
According to what rule?
If you agree that character is not LG, are you suggesting the DM lacks the power to alter the alignment of that PC, or to otherwise sanction or intervene here?
And if not, do the special effects of a Unicorns lair for Good aligned people, work on a serial killing rapist, simply because they have LG written on their character sheet in your games?
I mean, a player playing a serial rapist character would get kicked out of my game. But that’s part of the social contract, not the rules of the game. If one decided to allow a player to play this character though, no rule of the game says the effects of a unicorn’s lair wouldn’t affect them.
