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.)

 

[James Gasik]

No, it's just that Druids have taken a spiritual oath not to wear the stuff.

It's like how Paladins also take oaths of conduct as well.

Of course, WotC didn't bother to ever actually say this in the Druid class description, which is what some people take umbrage with.

 

[TheSword]

Finally, the worst official D&D book ever penned, the Book of Vile Darkness, came out and declared undead creation is evil because it being Negative Energy from the Negative Energy Plane (canonically a Neutral plane in the MotP and 3.5 SRD) into the world.

Wow. Just Wow. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but I am surprised. The Book of Vile Darkness (and to a lesser extent it’s sister book for good) is generally regarded as one of the best books for 3e if not the best book. You can do a google search and see over and over again ranked really highly. I when I sold my 3e books on eBay it was the second highest selling book (after FR campaign setting). Probably one of the best combinations of fluff and crunch in the game I’ve ever seen, and lays the groundwork for about a dozen other books to come.

 

[James Gasik]

I own both Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, and I...never had much use for either of them. Feats that required you to be "gooder than good, beyond even a Paladin" to use. "poisons" and "diseases" that we don't call those things so good guys can use them (they only work against evil guys, so it's ok!). Feats that require you to be the worst scum in the multiverse to use. Super evil true damage that can't be resisted by anything. The ability to willingly carve your body up to get advantages. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think the only thing I ever actually used out of either book were the Coure Eladrin (I really like the Ghaele, but they were too powerful for any of my campaigns).

 

[TheSword]

I own both Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, and I...never had much use for either of them. Feats that required you to be "gooder than good, beyond even a Paladin" to use. "poisons" and "diseases" that we don't call those things so good guys can use them (they only work against evil guys, so it's ok!). Feats that require you to be the worst scum in the multiverse to use. Super evil true damage that can't be resisted by anything. The ability to willingly carve your body up to get advantages. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think the only thing I ever actually used out of either book were the Coure Eladrin (I really like the Ghaele, but they were too powerful for any of my campaigns).

Well I think it’s more aimed at villains rather than players, in the 3e days where creating a villain was a mechanical exercise as much as a creative one.

Statted lords of the nine hells and demon lords, evil magic ingredients, evil spells (a lot), some pretty nasty villainous prestige classes, advice on running evil in game. New evil races.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course.

 

[Cadence]

No one on our side is suggesting that it would be okay to have a druid start prancing around in plate.

If they want to, why not?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think what the other side wants to prevent is min-max optimizers who rules-lawyery their way to make a full plate druid without actually any character concept other than a higher AC. Some of them have probably have had their share of such players just don't want to deal with the things that could lead to such nonsense. I'm quite sure IRL, if you had a cool concept of a metal-weating Druid - most of here would be on board. We would just want to hear it out first.

Right, I'm always willing to discuss whether rules makes sense and override them in weird edge case situations or even amend them on permanent basis. It's just that a player declaring that the rules are not rules so they don't need to follow them is an utterly dysfunctional manner to approach the issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the game world I run, [rape, murder, torture, inflicting harm on others when not reasonably necessary in self defence or the defence of others and in a proportionate manner, selling or destroying a soul, necromancy etc]

Notice how necromancy is not like the others. All others directly harm other people, necromancy doesn't.

are evil acts. [Altruism, kindness, self sacrifice, charity and mercy] are good acts.

Altruism and kindness, like in using animate dead to save people? Self sacrifice like risking your immortal soul in order to help others with your necromancy?

 

[Oofta]

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.

Why are you eating the fries? Because they were part of a Happy Meal? Because if you don't someone will blow up the local orphanage? If it's the former, you aren't taking your oath/taboo seriously and I have an issue with that. The latter will never happen in a game that I DM.

I don't put players into no win situations. I'm not going to set up a scenario where a druid is forced to wear metal armor. I also think you're making light of religious edicts and taboos, there are people that would die before they violate their beliefs. Just because I don't understand why my friend won't eat pork, or what that taboo means to them, it doesn't mean I'm going to sneak bacon into a dish just to prove them wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

Notice how necromancy is not like the others. All others directly harm other people, necromancy doesn't.

It creates a creature that is worse than a serial killer, by disrespecting the dignity of the dead by imbuing the corpse with unholy black magic in a process akin to (but worse than) necrophilia.

There was a shark attack recently in Australia where I'm from, captured on film. I didnt watch the video out of respect for the dignity of the poor bastard that was eaten alive. I dont know him, but he deserves that.

Ditto with raping someones corpse by filling it with unholy black magic, turning it into a baby killing murder machine. While it doesnt physically harm them person (as in inflict any pain on them) it still harms the dignity of the person, and potentially seriously harms others if the monster gets out of control and goes on a murderous rampage.

 

[Flamestrike]

Of course, WotC didn't bother to ever actually say this in the Druid class description, which is what some people take umbrage with.

There is no need to take umbrage though. If you want to run a game where Druids can skirt that restriction, go for it.

Some DMs dont. Dont play in those games if you want to be a Druid that wears metal armor.