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.)

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah but that's a stated design goal of 5e. We don't make all the rules so you're free to do what you want!*

*Now as to why you'd pay WotC money for a system where you do all the work for them is another question entirely, but it's worked for Bethesda for decades!

Abuse of DM power is not part of the design goal of 5e. There is literally nothing that is preventing my druid from putting on the armor. I decide when and what of my druids morals, oaths and taboos he is willing to break and when. Not the DM. He controls the rest of the game, not my PC. If he abuses his authority and power by telling me I can't do that, I'm walking out of the game. As far as I'm concerned, a DM who would abuse his authority like that isn't worth my time and effort.

 

[Maxperson]

If someone says they're going to run a druid I will reiterate that druids will not wear metal armor. I'll also try to Work with them to get better armor if they care.

There is literally no difference between that taboo/oath not to wear armor and an oath not to eat french fries that I wrote into my PC's background. Both are breakable if I think circumstances warrant it.

 

[James Gasik]

Would you feel better if Unholy Word just blasted you regardless of alignment?

It's hard to say. I feel a lot of flavor would be lost. I just wish I saw more carrot and less stick. I mean, what is the benefit of alignment? I would think that NPC's would tend to treat you better, than your fame as a hero would grow, that the knowledge of your deeds would spread far and wide- but in most of the games I'm in, it doesn't really seem to matter, as long as I go along with the adventure. If my Chaotic Good Fighter is no more heroic than the Neutral "Lone Wolf" Rogue, why is alignment?

 

[James Gasik]

Maxperson, I get what you're saying, I really do*. But it's not really an "abuse" of power. A DM has the right to say how things function in the game they are running. There is no system in 5e for a Cleric to lose their powers, yet I wouldn't bat an eye if a Priest of a supposedly Good deity started running around causing havoc. Now I wouldn't personally have bolts from the blue smite them- I'd have other members of their faith hear about this and confront the heretic, but it's ultimately the same thing.

It's like saying the Dark Powers have no right corrupting a character who behaves in an Evil manner. Now the player does have a recourse here- if they don't like what the DM is selling, they can get out. But saying no one has a right to say there IS a penalty because WotC did a half-baked job of explaining why Druids don't wear armor kind of goes against what the DM's role is- they present the world, they present the challenges, and they interpret the rules of the game.

*EDIT: well, not exactly, as it turns out.

 

[Jackdaw McGraw]

There is literally no difference between that taboo/oath not to wear armor and an oath not to eat french fries that I wrote into my PC's background. Both are breakable if I think circumstances warrant it.

Of course there's a difference. Think if the taboos in your own life that you consider inviolable, circumstances be damned. Death might be preferable. Now imagine, for a druid, it's floating around that level. It's going to seem silly, like "an oath not to eat french fries" to an outsider, but to druids it is probably a big deal.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you feel better if Unholy Word just blasted you regardless of alignment?

It actually blasted neutral the same as good, so...

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson, I get what you're saying, I really do. But it's not really an "abuse" of power. A DM has the right to say how things function in the game they are running. There is no system in 5e for a Cleric to lose their powers, yet I wouldn't bat an eye if a Priest of a supposedly Good deity started running around causing havoc. Now I wouldn't personally have bolts from the blue smite them- I'd have other members of their faith hear about this and confront the heretic, but it's ultimately the same thing.

And I wouldn't bat an eyelash if the other druids ostracized or even hunted my PC for breaking the taboo. It IS an abuse of power, though, to take control of my PC's actions without some sort of magic or other in game reason for it. I'm not suggesting that there be no consequence for the actions. It is an abuse of authority to refuse to let my druid violate his taboo if he feels that the reason is important enough, though. Just like my paladin can violate his oaths if he feels it's important enough.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course there's a difference. Think if the taboos in your own life that you consider inviolable, circumstances be damned. Death might be preferable.

That's true. But it would be MY choice to violate it or not. Not some other guy over there.

Now imagine, for a druid, it's floating around that level.

It is at that level, and my druid might die rather than wear metal armor. Or he might break his oath, just like my choice above.

It's going to seem silly, like "an oath not to eat french fries" to an outsider, but to druids it is probably a big deal.

I'm sure it is a big deal and I'm not suggesting they break it to avoid a sunburn. But there might be circumstances under which the druid will break it, and it's up to me the player to determine what those might be.

 

[James Gasik]

It actually blasted neutral the same as good, so...

Did it? I might be thinking of Unholy Blight or some other spell.

 

[Jackdaw McGraw]

That's true. But it would be MY choice to violate it or not. Not some other guy over there.

It is at that level, and my druid might die rather than wear metal armor. Or he might break his oath, just like my choice above.

I'm sure it is a big deal and I'm not suggesting they break it to avoid a sunburn. But there might be circumstances under which the druid will break it, and it's up to me the player to determine what those might be.

I think I generally agree with you. Your 'french fries' post made it seem like a flippant choice, but this post makes it seem more thoughtful. If it becomes an interesting aspect of the story, some shame the character has to carry with them until they atone for the immoral but necessary action - then I'm cool with it.