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]

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.

Dont get me wrong, I like the idea of societies and cultures that embrace the undead. Those societies just accept their evil nature and continue on their way. It's explored in the Paizo setting Golarion. From the Gods perspective, its not universal. Some fully support necromancy, and others despise it.

Whether you want raising undead to be evil or not, I still like the idea of cultures being on opposite sides of the issue as opposed to nobody caring because of logic.

 

[Zaukrie]

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.

Sure, but we also can't animate dead to fight in wars or clean sewers, etc. You 100% know if we could have back in the day, we would have. Heck, our oligarch overlords would be doing it now.....I think it is easy to see how morality would be very different in a world where necromancy was real.

 

[Umbran]

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

Well, there are many reasons for why it should be:

Most relevant - because the culture around us is swimming in centuries to milennia worth of stories and mythology about how the dead hanging around is BAD.

 

[Oofta]

Would you recognize the skeleton of your wife? I don't mean this in a skeptical way, I mean this in a plainly curious way. I don't believe I've ever met someone who could recognize someone (even a loved one) by their skeleton alone. Or did you mean (in your scenario) that the necromancer pointed out which one was your wife/kid ext?

That's kind of like asking if murder is evil or not if you murder someone I care about. It's not whether or not I will have a reaction, someone will or could. Someone hears about a necromancer raising the bones of the dead, goes to the cemetery and sees they're loved one's grave has been disturbed? Doesn't matter if they see the skeleton or could somehow identify it, they know the body has been desecrated.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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 think that if one wants necromancy to be 'evil' in the setting it might be good idea to add such spiritual and metaphysical connotations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's kind of like asking if murder is evil or not if you murder someone I care about. It's not whether or not I will have a reaction, someone will or could. Someone hears about a necromancer raising the bones of the dead, goes to the cemetery and sees they're loved one's grave has been disturbed? Doesn't matter if they see the skeleton or could somehow identify it, they know the body has been desecrated.

But what if the loved one had donated their bones to necromancy? What if they made a contract that a part of the profits of their undead labour went to support their still living relatives? Or what if the bones were from some ancient centuries old burial cite? After all, we display such stuff in museums, and most people don't seem to mind.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

That's kind of like asking if murder is evil or not if you murder someone I care about. It's not whether or not I will have a reaction, someone will or could. Someone hears about a necromancer raising the bones of the dead, goes to the cemetery and sees they're loved one's grave has been disturbed? Doesn't matter if they see the skeleton or could somehow identify it, they know the body has been desecrated.

That escalated insanely fast. Mate, we already established that said loved ones sold their bodies so that when they die their bodies would be animated. There is a huge difference between selling your corps for cheap labor and murdering someone. A difference I don't believe I need to explain.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

Dont get me wrong, I like the idea of societies and cultures that embrace the undead. Those societies just accept their evil nature and continue on their way. It's explored in the Paizo setting Golarion. From the Gods perspective, its not universal. Some fully support necromancy, and others despise it.

Whether you want raising undead to be evil or not, I still like the idea of cultures being on opposite sides of the issue as opposed to nobody caring because of logic.

I don't believe it would be evil at all though. If their relatives are ok with the use of the corps no one would be hurt. Also, we have established that there would be procedures put in place to prevent any skeletal uprisings or mass murders.

 

[Greg Benage]

I can think of many where corpses are considered generally ritually unclean and so the opposite of sacred.

In which traditions is "unclean" the opposite of sacred? In Jewish tradition, the remains of the dead are impure ("ritually impure" as opposed to "morally impure") and tahara is the ritual of purification that prepares them for burial, during which you "watch over" and honor them.

 

[payn]

I don't believe it would be evil at all though. If their relatives are ok with the use of the corps no one would be hurt. Also, we have established that there would be procedures put in place to prevent any skeletal uprisings or mass murders.

We have procedures to stop nuclear power plants form melting down, but it still happens. Some folks see it as a necessity for the future, and others work against it being used at all.