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]

The setting has universal morals because in D&D there's elements that need such in order to exist and-or be playable; those being the outer planes.

Those do not require universal morals at all. You can easily have gods and other extraplanars hanging out on planes without universal morals.

It does, but they're all still subject to the underlying morality that runs the universe; meaning that while tey can still argue all they like some of those varying and contradicting opinions (often by random chance, and unknowingly) are in fact going to be correct while others will be wrong.

All it means that some gods may disagree with them. And if some god or overgod thinks that saving kittens using zombies is evil, then I will just disagree with such blatantly evil kitten haters.

 

[James Gasik]

So this is the section of the rules that causes so much confusion. Note that it doesn't say cannot. Or that you will burn in radioactive fire if you wear metal armor. Just that Druids "will not".

 

[Maxperson]

Malevolence requires intention.

But not necessarily intelligence. Horror movies sometimes have malevolent forces that have no real thought behind them. They are just forces of evil that do evil stuff.

 

[Oofta]

So this is the section of the rules that causes so much confusion. Note that it doesn't say cannot. Or that you will burn in radioactive fire if you wear metal armor. Just that Druids "will not".

Which seems pretty clear. Druids will not wear metal armor so there is no need for a universal mechanical penalty because it won't happen. How do I know it won't happen? Because a druid will not wear metal armor.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, now I'm confused: people are saying there's no mechanical consequences for this in 5e, yet loss of abilities looks like a pretty big mechaniical consequence to me. Which is it?

The loss is gone by default. I have returned it, because I think there should be some sort of reason for the taboo and as others have noted, metals are natural so there's no real reason for the taboo to exist if there's no penalty.

And if 5e has removed that mechanical consequence then all that's left to enforce the no-metal rule is fluff, which is why it's phrased as a forced choice "will not" rather than an external "can not".

It has always been will not. 1e said the can't wear metal armor, but it wasn't an inability even then. They could in fact put it on, which is why the druid class let the players know that doing so would cause the loss of magical ability while wearing it. The "can't" of 1e was just that they couldn't wear the metal armor and still function as druids.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which seems pretty clear. Druids will not wear metal armor so there is no need for a universal mechanical penalty because it won't happen. How do I know it won't happen? Because a druid will not wear metal armor.

Except if they do, since nothing stops them.

 

[James Gasik]

My personal belief as to why it's so vague- many players feel Druid armor restrictions don't make sense. There's nothing unnatural about metal. Certainly, they can use metal weapons or tools or anything else just fine.

You can't even say that it's worked metal that's a problem.

Nothing stopped WotC from explaining that this was the result of some agreement or pact with the powers of nature to grant them their powers- perhaps Druids can use weapons because they lack talons, claws, or fangs, but they can't use armor because no natural animal has a hide made of steel?

But rather than do that, again, a halfway measure. We won't say why it's wrong, so that those who feel the restriction is silly (especially in light of Nature Clerics in plate armor) can just ignore it.

We won't get rid of it entirely, so those who want it to be a thing won't accuse 5e of "not being D&D" for excluding it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And also because ~Natural Language~ is oh so important to keeping the only real rule as 'DM May I'.

 

[Maxperson]

And also because ~Natural Language~ is oh so important to keeping the only real rule as 'DM May I'.

My side isn't the side threating to kick people out of the game over this.

 

[Vaalingrade]

My side isn't the side threating to kick people out of the game over this.

Say what now?

I have no idea how what I said has anything to do with either of your sides. No matter who wins, we all lose.