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]

~Casts Dominate Person~

Existence =/= okay.

~Casts Fireball~

Depends on what you do with it. It doesn't enslave anyone.

~Casts Dissonant Whispers~

I'm not sure what that is, but it's probably being similarly misconstrued as "okay" by the game.

Evil things are in the game. Don't use them if you don't want to be evil. Fireball is in the game. Don't use it to cause anguish if you don't want to. Existence =/= the game considers it to be okay.

 

[Maxperson]

I try not to make light of religious beliefs. Setting up a scenario that forces the druid to wear metal armor is IMHO making light of religious beliefs. In your soldier scenario* I would invent some alternative if I hadn't thought of it ahead of time, I improvise things all the time I don't see this as any different.

*Which I have never seen anything even close in decades of play.

Nothing says it's religious. As written it's at least as likely to be something like being a vegetarian is religious.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, I guess they can, and they suggest what the DM could do about that. Weird that this sidebar exists, but not a peep about Clerics, Druids, or Warlocks who offend their patrons.

Yeah, it is weirdly inconsistent.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Druids have been able to wear metal armor since 1e. There were just mechanical consequences for it in the older editions. 5e? Not so much. No mechanical consequences at all for violating the voluntary taboo.

Looking at the Druid write up, it seems like the rule is behavioral. So if they player says they want to wear metal armor the RAW consequence is "no, you don't. It says right here that druids refuse to do that. Make another choice." I don't know if there is any other rule that specifically overrides player choice in this manner non-adversarially. (Like, charm person, command, &c.) Well, paladins I guess. Their behavior restrictions have opened up vastly with their oaths.

In general 5e is fairly consequence-light when it comes to character behaviors, which is probably from the near elimination of alignment in this edition. Necromancy, charm, and some summoning spells may be grim or unsavory, but there is nothing truly evil (or good) in the game rules-wise.

NB: Thinking about it, if this taboo is an "oath" I would probably reference the paladin's code for guidance.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing says it's religious. As written it's at least as likely to be something like being a vegetarian is religious.

I disagree, but it also doesn't matter. I don't make light of other people's strongly held beliefs whether I agree with them or not. I also won't ever make a player choose between doing something they don't want to do and something else they don't want to do because it goes against core identity. I'll never set up a situation where the good cleric of light has to choose between a demon and a devil.

But I've said how I handle it in my game. I'll work with the player to get their PC better non-metallic armor if it's an issue, but druids will not willingly wear metal armor if they wan to continue being druids.

 

[Maxperson]

I REALLY dislike that! If the taboo can be discarded for mere expediency (which this sure seems like) it's too weak.

It's not expediency. If you are likely to fail unless you do it and many are likely to die, be enslaved or whatever, you may need to break the taboo. That's not expediency.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is there a Fireball variant in the books that makes being set the hell on fire painless? What is the use case of fireball that doesn't cause anguish?

 

[Maxperson]

Looking at the Druid write up, it seems like the rule is behavioral. So if they player says they want to wear metal armor the RAW consequence is "no, you don't. It says right here that druids refuse to do that. Make another choice." I don't know if there is any other rule that specifically overrides player choice in this manner non-adversarially. (Like, charm person, command, &c.) Well, paladins I guess. Their behavior restrictions have opened up vastly with their oaths.

1. It's not a rule.
2. It doesn't overrule player choice. If they can choose not to wear armor, they can choose to break the taboo in an emergency.
3. It's exactly like paladins. Paladins can choose to break their oaths and take the consequences.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Is there a Fireball variant in the books that makes being set the hell on fire painless? What is the use case of fireball that doesn't cause anguish?

If you need to start a large fire somewhere very quickly. Maybe for a controlled burn of a prairie or something like that. Or if you need to melt some ice.

 

[Mort]

It's not expediency. If you are likely to fail unless you do it and many are likely to die, be enslaved or whatever, you may need to break the taboo. That's not expediency.

Sure it is. Especially for a group that believes in an afterlife, being able to be raised from the dead AND reincarnation.

If, I might die, or even others might die is really all it takes it's a weak taboo.

It says "won't wear metal armor" not won't unless he'd prefer to! And it's not suggestion text, it's right there with the proficiencies as an exception.

It's something that really needs to be discussed right away between the druid player and DM and make sure they are both on the same page.