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.)

 

[Voadam]

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.

In 3e all spells that created undead were given an alignment descriptor of [Evil] which meant they interacted with alignment functions as evil, such as the aura of the magic showing up as evil for a detect evil spell or paladin detect evil power.

Undead also had a distinction of always showing up as evil for the detect evil spell even though undead like ghosts could be non-evil alignments.

The way I viewed it was that there is cosmic [EVIL] which is supernatural evil and shows up in powering undead and is present in some magic. You can use such supernatural evil for morally evil purposes, morally neutral purposes, or moral ends, but the supernatural evil does not change based on use.

This is different conception from the use of the spell being inherently morally evil.

In 1e and 2e AD&D undead were generally powered by negative energy which necromancy taps into. AD&D did not have descriptors like 3e, but 3e continued with the negative energy association of undead.

In 4e this was termed necrotic.

This continues a little into 5e.

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.)

Skeletons and Zombies are not simply corpses that are animated by magic. They are undead which have all sorts of different aspects to them.

You can use an animate object spell on bones or a corpse and get a non-undead creature. Such an animate object would not use necrotic energy or involve necromancy or have the supernatural characteristics of undead although it would look similar to an undead skeleton or zombie. A cleric could not channel divinity to turn an animated body or bones as undead.

 

[payn]

However, I did forget to mention that the workforce would be made in specific formations, to maximize productivity and minimize threats.

Sure, you can do whatever you like now. Im just talking about past editions and description to answer the question.

For me, I like creating undead to be evil because its an action somebody is taking. Its not an evil just because they are an orc. Also, I like there being strange horror elements that mortals cant truly grasp. Nasty cosmic stuff that has consequences. Finally, something in the game has to be evil (my opinion of course).

 

[Vaalingrade]

It was not the case in all editions,. In particular 3e had neutral "mindless" undead like skeletons and zombies, and animating these was not considered inherently evil.

So 3e have mindless undead as neutral because it actually followed its own rules for how monster alignment worked.

But then the actual Animate Dead spell had the [Evil] tag, which allowed it to interact with things like the Evil domain and certain magic items. Some people decided that having the tag made the spell an act of that tag (So Fireball is a Fire act and should move your alignment toward Fire, you see).

There were many arguments about this and on the WotC boards, some handsome and dashing individual called out a designer on this (without knowing they were a designer at the time). Then magically 3.5 came out and mindless undead were evil despite being mindless and thus neutral by the rules still in the 3.5 MM.

Finally, the worst official D&D book ever penned, the Book of Vile Darkness, came out and declared undead creation is evil because it being Negative Energy from the Negative Energy Plane (canonically a Neutral plane in the MotP and 3.5 SRD) into the world.

So in short, Go home, D&D, you're drunk.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It has always made me question what good even is if those things are not evil?

Good is about picking your targets carefully so society is okay with your psychopathy. Like the Punisher.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

Imagine someone you love dies. It's heart rending and you don't know how you'll go on. You go through the death rituals we've devised over millennia of mourning and laying the body to rest. It helps you move on.

Then you see the corpse of your dearly beloved shambling down the road. For a moment there's a spark of hope that maybe they're still alive only to realize that someone took the last remnants, the last reminder of someone you would do practically anything to get back, is being used without thought or concern. They've turned all of your rituals, your love, into a mockery.

It's that pain that you can cause that is evil. Desecration of the dead in most cultures is considered evil because even though the spirit is gone the person was a spirit and the form, the body.

A bit melodramatic don't you think?

I and several others have touched on this in previous posts. There are several actions you could take to prevent such sad circumstances. 1: make them skeletons (almost unrecognizable), 2: buy corpses or ask for donations, you could also look for a body no one will come looking for.

 

[Zaukrie]

Great question. Not sure it should be. Now, in some fantasy cultures, it would be, but others? Not.

Like, why does protection from good and evil work like it does?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Great question. Not sure it should be. Now, in some fantasy cultures, it would be, but others? Not.

Like, why does protection from good and evil work like it does?

Because "good" and "evil" in D&D are objective properties that a thing can have, such as mass, charge, location, etc.

 

[Oofta]

A bit melodramatic don't you think?

I and several others have touched on this in previous posts. There are several actions you could take to prevent such sad circumstances. 1: make them skeletons (almost unrecognizable), 2: buy corpses or ask for donations, you could also look for a body no one will come looking for.

Have you ever had anyone close to you die? It may not be logical but if I saw the corpse of a lost loved one - even a skeleton of one if I knew whose it was - I would have a visceral negative reaction to it. Desecrating corpses has long been taboo unless it's done as punishment or warning to others in most cultures. Paying for the corpse doesn't make it less evil from that perspective.

But you do you. I'm simply explaining why people think it's evil even if you don't "get" it.

 

[Gradine]

Oh hey, I found the Karrnathi

 

[Voadam]

Skeletons and zombies have had a dichotomy throughout D&D.

Skeletons and zombies in 1e-3.0 were neutral. In 3.5 to 5e they are evil.

The animated dead spells generally make them mindless undead robots which would generally indicate neutral if they did nothing but what they are commanded to do. If all they are commanded to do is manual labor to create hospitals then most would not say evil.

However they are also often depicted as wandering monsters who attack people on sight with no indication of a command to do so. This would tend to indicate that uncontrolled mindless undead naturally move to cause harm to people. Also animate dead is not the only way a skeleton or zombie can be created. You can argue that mindless assault and murder machines are not evil because they are mindless, but the default act to actively cause harm for no reason can generally fall under D&D evil.