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]

I apologize for my vagueness, I mean to say do you believe (knowing exactly how the spell works) that using it is immoral. I do not mean specific uses, I mean the action itself. Think of the fireball spell, it is not considered immoral, casting it is fine but it can be used to kill someone which in many cases is considered immoral. I am not talking about the fireball hitting someone or lighting a fire, I'm talking about the simple inherent properties of the spell. I'm not sure if this is the best way to explain it but it can suffice for now.

I know this is one for Bill, but a fireball can be used to kill people, or no people at all. Animate undead makes undead which is considered evil. You could argue that you are raising the dead to simply carry your stuff, but if they ever get out of your control, they will go around killing things. A lot of this is narrative driven, and not logic driven, which is why comparing evocation spells to necromancy isnt a slam dunk argument.

 

[Greg Benage]

However, broadly speaking, it has negative connotations because death matters to people

Are there any human cultures that don't consider the remains of the(ir) dead to be sacred? Many, many ways of expressing that in culture and religion, of course, but it seems near-universal.

So anyway, not evil in game mechanics terms, just unholy, profane desecration.

 

[Umbran]

Something can have sentients but not life. Well, I suppose this is a similar dilemma with AI.

You also seem to be viewing this from a naturalistic perspective, which probably isn't really appropriate. Undead are distinctly supernatural creatures, and their spiritual implications are at least as relevant as their physical ones.

For example, in prior editions (iirc) if you turned a person's corpse into undead, that could prevent their soul from reaching their final rest in the afterlife. In addition, doing so would mean that Raise Dead could not be used to bring the person back to life. We currently don't have such rules, but they speak a bit to the intent applied previously.

 

[Nebulous]

If I had to guess, it's because OG golems in cultural mythology, I don't think, worked that way? And that the whole 'elemental spirit' thing was added later to give some plausibility of how golems worked beyond just magic.

Regardless of why, it's definitely glossed over in it's representation/ramifications in the D&D lore.

From the Wiki:

[According to the Jewish tradition, golem was usually made of clay, moulded to roughly the human shape. To endow him with life, the so-called Shem was necessary, which in reality was not a thing, but the Word – Godʼs Name, written in the right way on a piece of parchment or paper, which had to be placed in golemʼs mouth. If it was removed, golem lost his life.]

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late 16th century rabbi of Prague, also known as the Maharal, who reportedly "created a golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava River and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations to defend the Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks" and pogroms.[17][18] Depending on the version of the legend, the Jews in Prague were to be either expelled or killed under the rule of Rudolf II, the Holy Roman Emperor. The Golem was called Josef and was known as Yossele. It was said that he could make himself invisible and summon spirits from the dead.[18] Rabbi Loew deactivated the Golem on Friday evenings by removing the shem before the Sabbath (Saturday) began,[7] so as to let it rest on Sabbath.[7]

One Friday evening, Rabbi Loew forgot to remove the shem, and feared that the Golem would desecrate the Sabbath.[7] A different story tells of a golem that fell in love, and when rejected, became the violent monster seen in most accounts. Some versions have the golem eventually going on a murderous rampage.[18] The rabbi then managed to pull the shem from his mouth and immobilize him[7] in front of the synagogue, whereupon the golem fell in pieces.[7] The Golem's body was stored in the attic genizah of the Old New Synagogue,[18] where it would be restored to life again if needed.[19] Rabbi Loew then forbade anyone except his successors from going into the attic. Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, a successor of Rabbi Loew, reportedly wanted to go up the steps to the attic when he was Chief Rabbi of Prague to verify the tradition. Rabbi Landau fasted and immersed himself in a mikveh, wrapped himself in phylacteries and a prayer-shawl and started ascending the steps. At the top of the steps, he hesitated and then came immediately back down, trembling and frightened. He then re-enacted Rabbi Loew's original warning.[20]

According to legend, the body of Rabbi Loew's Golem still lies in the synagogue's attic.[7][18] When the attic was renovated in 1883, no evidence of the Golem was found.[21] Some versions of the tale state that the Golem was stolen from the genizah and entombed in a graveyard in Prague's Žižkov district, where the Žižkov Television Tower now stands. A recent legend tells of a Nazi agent ascending to the synagogue attic, but he died instead under suspicious circumstances.[22] The attic is not open to the general public.[23]

 

[p_johnston]

So the short answer is in your game creating Undead is as evil/neutral/good as you want. If your player want's to play a Necromancer and not be stoned to death then probably don't treat it as evil.

In broader terms I generally default to creating undead as an evil act for a few reasons.
1) The basic undead (skeletons/zombies) will mindlessly try and kill all living creatures until destroyed unless they are controlled. While you can work around this creating a mindless murder machine is generally not a great thing.
2) Generally creating undead involves actually infusing a dead creature with negative energy, not just magic. To my mind this means you are activly drawing more negative energy into the material plane which is in and off itself a bad thing. This isn't strictly RAW though.
3) as others have pointed out desecrating the remains of sentient creatures is generally frowned upon by most cultures.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I know this is one for Bill, but a fireball can be used to kill people, or no people at all. Animate undead makes undead which is considered evil. You could argue that you are raising the dead to simply carry your stuff, but if they ever get out of your control, they will go around killing things. A lot of this is narrative driven, and not logic driven, which is why comparing evocation spells to necromancy isnt a slam dunk argument.

Yes, your second point is completely true. When I thought of a little town powered by necromancy I was mostly thinking of things like a bucket with skeletal legs. The idea that the dead could turn against us is something that would be put into account. There would likely be contingency plans set in place on the off chance that they lost control of the skeletons. The skeletal machines would be made with the purpose of efficient labor and minimal threat.

 

[Zaukrie]

In 5e?

From the 5e MM page 272:

"When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation."

that to me tells me that in 5e, yup, undead are evil.

Not in Eberron, of course....but most everywhere else.

I don't see a reason why it should be.....but it is.

 

[Voadam]

Are there any human cultures that don't consider the remains of the(ir) dead to be sacred? Many, many ways of expressing that in culture and religion, of course, but it seems near-universal.

So anyway, not evil in game mechanics terms, just unholy, profane desecration.

I would not classify most cultures as thinking of corpses as sacred. I can think of many where corpses are considered generally ritually unclean and so the opposite of sacred.

And there are many cultures where it is OK to use corpses for utilitarian purposes such as medical school training or organ donation.

 

[Umbran]

Are there any human cultures that don't consider the remains of the(ir) dead to be sacred?

I am not an anthropologist, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The remains of the dead are at least representational of the living. And certainly ritual burial of the dead is one of the first signs we see of culture developing in humans.

It does not help that keeping dead bodies near people is decidedly unhealthy. Early on, corpses attract predators, and later they rot and can be a source for disease.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

You also seem to be viewing this from a naturalistic perspective, which probably isn't really appropriate. Undead are distinctly supernatural creatures, and their spiritual implications are at least as relevant as their physical ones.

For example, in prior editions (iirc) if you turned a person's corpse into undead, that could prevent their soul from reaching their final rest in the afterlife. In addition, doing so would mean that Raise Dead could not be used to bring the person back to life. We currently don't have such rules, but they speak a bit to the intent applied previously.

I certainly do not mean unded in the sense of a soul trapped in a rotting corps. When I heard mimicry of life I thought "This is a fake "soul" that will inhabit the body and perform my commands."