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.)

 

[payn]

Yeah but you could do that before. I thought every DM has a six pages of house rules for their setting, don't you?

Nope. I dont have my own setting even. It's never stopped me before, but I like the encouragement from 5E. Gaming shouldn't be like accounting. YMMV.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Now, one thing they could do in 5.5/6 that they probably won't, but should that would make the game simpler is go to the action system that pathfinder 2e uses.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Maybe it's doing something right, for some people. Just saying.

Well, yes, obviously. It has its charms.

 

[Oofta]

Do you really thing actual concise wording would create a barrier to play?

One person's "actual concise wording" is another person's techno-babble geek speak. Previous editions had a lot of words and phrases that meant something very specific in context of the game that led to a barrier to entry.

You're always going to have some phraseology that gets in the way but 5E has cut way back on it. There is no such thing as a perfect set of rules, but in this case I think the proof is in the pudding and 5E is wildly successful.

 

[James Gasik]

Huh, well, more power to you, payn! The only time I felt discouraged from tinkering was in 2e, where every rule I touched had another rule dependent on it. But even then, I could make my own races and worlds, it was just the "rules rules" that caused issues.

I took a lot of effort to try and understand the Tao of Game Design after that, so I could figure out what works and what doesn't (still make mistakes, but hey, I'm not exactly doing this for money).

 

[payn]

Now, one thing they could do in 5.5/6 that they probably won't, but should that would make the game simpler is go to the action system that pathfinder 2e uses.

There isnt a ton I like about PF2, but the action economy is at the top of the list of stuff I do.

 

[James Gasik]

Except for shields. Please don't bring those rules anywhere near me.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

There isnt a ton I like about PF2, but the action economy is at the top of the list of stuff I do.

I like the D&D brand so much more than the Pathfinder brand, so I'm effectively being held hostage by the 3 action economy. If 5e adopted that I would literally give all my PF2e books away.

 

[payn]

I like the D&D brand so much more than the Pathfinder brand, so I'm effectively being held hostage by the 3 action economy. If 5e adopted that I would literally give all my PF2e books away.

Im the opposite, I actually really dig the cut of Paizo's jib. I just prefer PF1, the crazy mess that it is, to PF2 system.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Then you agree that [various rule interpretations].

It's consistent with every prior edition of D&D. Your new interpretation that a druid simply cannot do it is the new and strange one. Starting with 1e druids could do it, which is why mechanical penalties for druids wearing metal armor existed.

I don't think proficiency is relevant.

Because of the rule that they live underground. Break that rule and the trait goes away.

No. Your examples are absurd. Unless you think that gnomes that don't live underground cease to be gnomes because darkvision is in common to all gnomes. What is your actual point of view or side you are arguing on? I've lost track in the last 25 pages of argument.

As I said, proficiency is only referentially relevant as a resource to resolve the question.