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]

I believe the druid restriction is a rule, but it's only an implied rule. That is to say, it's not a good rule, because it has no justification for it's existence. At all. Nor does it say what happens if you disobey it. Just "no, you don't do that".

Now for those of us who played in previous editions, we get this, it's druid stuff, and has been forever. But a new player? Who just got into D&D?

This is bad design. They're told "no, just no, we don't have to explain it."

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

How is it not a rule?

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

Looks like a rule to me. This is in the rule section of the class and not in the flavor text portion earlier. Should have been written "Druids are considered non-proficient with metal armor and shields.", but, hey, next edition.

Yes, the character could choose to override the taboo in extremis, much like a wizard could. For consequences the shortest route would be to look at Proficiencies.

Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.

Then whatever paladins have to deal with.

I mean, this doesn't seem to be that hard. I'm not tremendously familiar with 5e but this solution is pretty straight-forward. It is not lined out step by step, but it doesn't seem analogous with the discussion on the dangers of or the corrupting nature of necromancy.

 

[James Gasik]

No no, we established being raised from the dead is evil, Mort, nobody should have any expectation of that!

 

[Willie the Duck]

How is it not a rule?

Looks like a rule to me.

Can we please not re-do the debate over which words printed in the books are rules or not? That was like 5-10 pages in this exact thread. It's in the book, it has not no teeth, and most people agree that it does the unsavory bit of making a character's decisions for them (instead of letting the player do so). The whole 'rule' distinction is largely irrelevant (would it piss people off less if it were a 'flibertygibbit' instead of a 'rule?

Should have been written "Druids are considered non-proficient with metal armor and shields.", but, hey, next edition.

Yes. That would have prevented a lot of gnashing of teeth and tilting at windmills.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Technically, if you're being raised or reincarnated, it's not an afterlife. It's just life.

Secondly, nothing at all says this is religious, so nothing by RAW would affect any afterlife.

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

Maybe, maybe not. It's up to the individual, though.

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.

"Unless" is inherent to "won't." Won't is a choice, not an inability. "Unless" is a part of every won't out there. You won't kick a dog.........................unless someone has a gun to your head and will kill you if you don't. Then I guarantee you will kick it.

 

[abirdcall]

I believe the druid restriction is a rule, but it's only an implied rule. That is to say, it's not a good rule, because it has no justification for it's existence. At all. Nor does it say what happens if you disobey it. Just "no, you don't do that".

Now for those of us who played in previous editions, we get this, it's druid stuff, and has been forever. But a new player? Who just got into D&D?

This is bad design. They're told "no, just no, we don't have to explain it."

The rules don't say what happens if you disobey the rule "roll to determine success." If I disobey the rule and declare that I have rolled 20 when I didn't what happens?

The game doesn't say so it isn't a real rule?

If a player declares their druid to wear metal armour then the consequence is that they don't play the game anymore.

 

[TheSword]

~Casts Dominate Person~

~Casts Fireball~

~Casts Dissonant Whispers~

From the Enchantment school section…

Some enchanters are peacemakers who bewitch the violent to lay down their arms and charm the cruel into showing mercy. Others are tyrants who magically bind the unwilling into their service

It’s pretty clear the designers have identified that enchantment absolutely can be evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ugh.

This is not the DM's place.

Teaching the game. Its definitely the role of the DM. One of many.

 

[Maxperson]

How is it not a rule?

Because it's a choice. Plain and simple. A choice is not a rule.

Looks like a rule to me. This is in the rule section of the class and not in the flavor text portion earlier. Should have been written "Druids are considered non-proficient with metal armor and shields.", but, hey, next edition.

I've already pointed out a bunch of fluff in various rules portions of classes and races. The fluff portions are not rules. If they were, forest gnomes wouldn't have darkvision. The gnome rules section says that they get darkvision from living underground, which forest gnomes don't.

Yes, the character could choose to override the taboo in extremis, much like a wizard could. For consequences the shortest route would be to look at Proficiencies.

Why would I need proficiency to override the taboo? One does not need to be proficient in armor to wear it. It just takes the choice.

 

[nevin]

Ugh.

This is not the DM's place.

Definitely the DM's place to make sure consequences to actions occur. Now I'll agree DM shouldn't be actively looking for ways to punish player characters. But if your saying DM's shouldn't add consequences to bad decisions and evil actions to the game they are running. I disagree.