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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst I agree that 5e could be better written, I don't have an issue with the natural language per se, and definitely prefer it over the dry and technical tone of 4e. That being said, inconsistent rules bug me, as do unintuitive use of language. An attack and an attack action are different things and so are a melee attack with a weapon and a melee weapon attack. This is not intuitive natural language! And the druid armour rule is good example of a weirdly inconsistent rule that doesn't seem to match how these things are generally presented in the game. That being said, most of the things people here vigorously argue about are rarely issues in practice. People just shrug and move on with the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One person's "actual concise wording" is another person's techno-babble geek speak.

Which is still better than the grandpa ramble some of 5e's stuff becomes.

 

[Maxperson]

The evokers power effecting every missile. I believe it was later erated

I especially loved his recent See Invisibility doesn't actually let you see invisible creatures ruling. It just kinda makes them like the Predator and they still get the benefits of being invisible. LOL

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have for a while though that Crawford just uses Sage Advice to troll people who he think's are asking stupid question by giving the most inane answers possible.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Fluff is fluff man. There's nothing about the choice not to wear armor that is anything other than fluff, just like the rest of the fluff in the various rules portions of classes and races.

The druid can violate his taboo and suffer whatever consequences come, just like paladins and their oaths. Hell, an oath is stronger than a taboo and paladins can break those without many people batting an eyelash.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have for a while though that Crawford just uses Sage Advice to troll people who he think's are asking stupid question by giving the most inane answers possible.

That's been Sage advise tradition since I've been playing the game and reading the dumb things whoever is the sage at the time thinks.

I will never forgive the rogue light weapon thing from 3.5.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Fluff is fluff man. There's nothing about the choice not to wear armor that is anything other than fluff, just like the rest of the fluff in the various rules portions of classes and races.

The druid can violate his taboo and suffer whatever consequences come, just like paladins and their oaths. Hell, an oath is stronger than a taboo and paladins can break those without many people batting an eyelash.

So your argument is that there are no consequences for the druid or that the consequences are not defined and up to the DM?

Forgive me. I have trouble parsing sarcasm in text. It makes forum posting difficult at times.

 

[Maxperson]

I will never forgive the rogue light weapon thing from 3.5.

Care to elaborate? I didn't look at the 3.5 rulings very often.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except all those things are wrong!

"Don't worry guys, I only burrow into the brain and destroy the agency of bad people! That's what makes me a hero!"

Are you saying that compromising the agency of anyone is evil? The various law enforcement and criminal justice systems of the world would like a word with you...

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Are you saying that compromising the agency of anyone is evil? The various law enforcement and criminal justice systems of the world would like a word with you...

There is a big difference between material/practical agency and existential agency.