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.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

If your counterargument is yet another fallacy, you've lost your position. Stop with the False Equivalences.

It doesn't say "can't" it says "won't," which is a CHOICE. Nothing you can argue will alter that it's a CHOICE. One that they can CHOOSE to break. There is literally no rule that prevents a druid from putting on metal armor.

And no consequences for doing so.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no fallacy. I don't need to prove that a text in middle of rules section of the book among other rules is a rule. It obviously is. We can't read rulebook with assumption that we need to prove that every paragraph of rules is actually rules. That's lunacy.

Fluff exists within rule sections.

Dwarf: "Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

According to you, the bold part is a rule since it's found in a rule section. That means that if my dwarf is born above ground and lives there for his entire life, he cannot have darkvision.

Elf: "Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

The bold is a rule since it is found in the rules section. My elf born underground and spending his entire life there cannot have darkvision, since the rule is that I get it from twilit forests and the night sky.

Forest gnomes can't have darkvision since gnomes get their darkvision from living underground. Not a lot of underground forests.

Barbarians can't attack recklessly unless they are desperate or if they have even a very small concern for their safety.

Yada yada. There is a lot of fluff mixed into the rules of races and classes, as well as in other portions of the rules.

You are trying to declare the druid fluff a rule and failing. It's says "won't" not "can't."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And no consequences for doing so.

Same consequences than failing to follow any other rule.

 

[Maxperson]

And no consequences for doing so.

I've added back in the consequences. They can still wear it like in all prior editions. They will just be unable to use their magical abilities while doing so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same consequences than failing to follow any other rule.

Nothing mechanical though. As I said above, it's not "can't", it's "won't".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nothing mechanical though. As I said above, it's not "can't", it's "won't".

There is no mechanical penalty for adding sneak attack damage several times per turn either. It simply is something that the rules won't allow. Breaking the rules unintentionally is a mistake which a player hopefully corrects once informed, or if it is intentional it cheating.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fluff exists within rule sections.

Dwarf: "Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

According to you, the bold part is a rule since it's found in a rule section. That means that if my dwarf is born above ground and lives there for his entire life, he cannot have darkvision.

Elf: "Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

The bold is a rule since it is found in the rules section. My elf born underground and spending his entire life there cannot have darkvision, since the rule is that I get it from twilit forests and the night sky.

Forest gnomes can't have darkvision since gnomes get their darkvision from living underground. Not a lot of underground forests.

According to the rules your gnome is accustomed to living underground regardless of whether they ever lived underground. And they have dark vision. That's the rules.

And of course this 'fluff' part of the rules is similar to your taboo explanation (except it is actually printed in the book) It doesn't actually affect the functioning of the rule. Having fictional reason for a rule doesn't stop it being a rule. Also note that the are where the armour restriction appears is proficiency summary. Hardly a place to insert fluff text.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no mechanical penalty for adding sneak attack damage several times per turn either. It simply is something that the rules won't allow. Breaking the rules unintentionally is a mistake which a player hopefully corrects once informed, or if it is intentional it cheating.

Good God man! Stop the freaking fallacies. A mechanical rule is not the same as a fluff blurb in the mechanics section. Sneak attack has mechanics associated with it. The druid taboo does not. They are not equivalent.

 

[Maxperson]

According to the rules your gnome is accustomed to living underground regardless of whether they ever lived underground. And they have dark vision. That's the rules.

No. It's not. It's pure fluff. A gnome who has never lived underground cannot be accustomed to living there.

And of course this 'fluff' part of the rules is similar to your taboo explanation (except it is actually printed in the book) It doesn't actually affect the functioning of the rule. Having fictional reason for a rule doesn't stop it being a rule. Also note that the are where the armour restriction appears is proficiency summary. Hardly a place to insert fluff text.

The fluff druid taboo is PURE FLUFF. There is no rule attached to it like darkvision.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good God man! Stop the freaking fallacies. A mechanical rule is not the same as a fluff blurb in the mechanics section. Sneak attack has mechanics associated with it. The druid taboo does not. They are not equivalent.

"Druids won't wear metal armour." Super clear mechanics and a druid wearing metal armour would clearly be breaking that rule.