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.)

 

[Lanefan]

If I could remember the exact issue of Dragon, I'd happily share the reasoning, but I'm pretty sure the key words was intentional movement. You have to want to move in a direction to be hindered?

Sorry, but <facepalm>...

That, and IME Rings of Free Action need all the drawbacks they can get!

 

[Iry]

Which raises a question someone here can answer: if an undead is met in the wild, whether already under someone's control or not, are there any mechanisms in 5e for taking (or taking over) control of it?

Control Undead, a much higher level spell.
A friendly Death Tyrant, possibly controlled by the spell above.
Basically, there are options. But they are rarer and less likely to be commonplace even in a society where an abundance of Animate Dead casting people might exist. But a Tippyverse wouldn't have issues.

 

[Lanefan]

Ring of No Friction Whatsoever?
The world is your Slip'N'Slide!

Not quite, but anything that you can move through you will, without impediment. You can't move through a solid thing, but as you can move through liquid you will do so as if it's not there, and anything that tries to restrain or grab you will automatically fail.

Gray areas are things like thick mud, snow, lava, and the like.

 

[James Gasik]

I found this on Dragonsfoot, still trying to track down the exact issue:

Q. Would a ring of free action negate thieving penalties for wearing heavy armour? Would it allow a wizard to cast spells while wearing armour? Would it allow an armoured character to move at full (12) rate? Can the wearer swim?

A. A ring of free action protects its wearer from magical effects that hinder or immobilize, and allows the wearer to function underwater without hindrance due to water resistance. It does not negate encumbrance penalties, nor does it allow characters to ignore armour restrictions due to character class (not even thieves). It is important to note that magic in the AD&D game is specific and specialised; collateral effects, even those suggested by logic, usually do not occur. While a character wearing a ring of free action can ignore the effects of an entangle spell, the wearer is not granted the ability to freely move through underbrush as can a druid. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the wearer cannot float or swim in water. (On the other hand, individual DMs might rule that this is the case, and thus give the character a new problem to think about while adventuring in or near the water.) The wearer of a ring of free action would be immune to attacks from a rope of entanglement, but could be physically restrained and bound with any normal rope. Note that the ring also does not empower the wearer to ignore barriers such as normal walls or a force cage spell.

EDIT: Dragon Issue 166.

SECOND EDIT: this isn't quite the debate I recall, but it's been a long time, so I may have conflated it with another discussion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Control Undead, a much higher level spell.
A friendly Death Tyrant, possibly controlled by the spell above.
Basically, there are options. But they are rarer and less likely to be commonplace even in a society where an abundance of Animate Dead casting people might exist. But a Tippyverse wouldn't have issues.

Since they're apparently not mindless now, just slap them and tell them you're in charge.

 

[Maxperson]

Or plan B: the Druid stays outside and guards the escape route while the others don their plate and pull off the mission. Not player-at-table friendly, to be sure; but true to character.

That's definitely an option, but I'd be okay with him putting on the armor and taking the consequences if he decided to go. If enough was on the line, his staying back could also cause the failure of the group and he might be willing to don the armor to ensure that doesn't happen. Up to the player whether to break the taboo or not.

 

[Maxperson]

But all it takes is 1 day where you've blown through your 3rd level+ slots (and if you're 5th level you get exactly 1) and a long rest would put you over 24 hours - woops uncontrolled undead!

One sabotage by an enemy. One trap that teleports the PC or strips spell slots. There are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong, and something eventually will. Someone who casts a lot of animate dead spells is dooming people to die at the hands of evil undead.

 

[Maxperson]

Don't leave your zombies unattended! Seriously, it is not hard to destroy them if you don't want or can't reapply the spell. I feel people apply completely unreasonable standard of safety here. It is mildly risky, sure, but hardly to a degree that you could reasonably call the thing obviously evil based on this. If they were funny looking artificer's bots with the exact same rules no one would be arguing that it is somehow inherently evil.

That's wrong. If evil murderous artificer bots had to have control reasserted daily, I would in fact be calling it evil to create those, too.

 

[Maxperson]

But you can still have Lawful Good ghosts!

And CG Baelnorns.

 

[Maxperson]

Which raises a question someone here can answer: if an undead is met in the wild, whether already under someone's control or not, are there any mechanisms in 5e for taking (or taking over) control of it?

14th level necromancers can try to take control of undead.