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.)

 

[Seramus]

I was going to, but you were busy.

Busy being evil.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Busy being evil.

If I had KNOWN it was evil I would have definitely never admitted it.

 

[jgsugden]

In the real world, many elements of morality/good/evil are handed down from religion. In my setting, the same is true - the Gods and their rules form the foundation of moral discussion. However, many, if not most, of my storylines challenge these moral beliefs.

As an example, if you ask Asmodeus whether he is the ultimate evil, he'll tell you that evil and good are fabrications designed to deny him his due. He took on the task of fighting the Blood War to protect all reality, and he was promised the resources (in the form of souls) necessary to wage that war. As the Gods didn't live up to their end of the bargain, and denied him what he was promised (and what the multiverse needs to survive) he does everything in his rightful power to get those resources to fight that never ending war.

That is a very precise statement - everything in his rightful power. He doesn't cheat. He never lies. He is the most technically honest being in all existence, and he demands honesty and fair play from all those in his service. However, his idea of fair is not the same as others. Technicalities, omitted facts, etc... are something both parties need to be responsible for knowing, and your own ignorance resulting in you making a bad deal - well, you're responsible for that deal if you made it. Nobody will force you to do it. He and his servants will come to you when his deal is the best option you have, or when you have not been responsible enough to realize the risks you should be considering. If you ask the right questions, you should get clear and unambiguous answers to them that reveal the truth.

You may call him evil, but you live in a world with a Blood War in Avernus, and that Blood War has to be fought with the souls of mortals. Who's gonna do it? Heroes? Demigods? He has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for the souls twisted into Devils, Rakshasa and Night Hags. You curse the Baatezu that rise to fight. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of ignoring what Asmodeus can't: That the corruption of those souls - while tragic - saves the universe on a daily basis! And his role - while groteque and incomprehensible to the heroes of the lands - saves that universe! These heroes don't want to face that truth, because deep down in places they fear to talk about in their churches, those heroes want Asmodeus fighting the Blood War. They need him fighting the Blood War. Devils use words like "duty", "contracts" and "enslavement". They use those words as the backbone of an eternal service defending everything from destruction. Heroes use them as hyperbole while preaching to followers that are not free to choose their own beliefs! Asmodeus has all the time in the universe, and honestly enjoys forcing heroes to face the reality of the situation. Those heroes rise and sleep under the shield of souls that Asmodus leads and then curses the Baatezu for the manner in which that service is provided! He doesn't need your thanks. He learned that you won't give it, despite your very existence being made possible by that horrible service. So, unless you're ready to sign a deal that makes your life better now, and that protects everything you ever loved when you die, he would rather leave you to your meaningless labels of Good and Evil so that he can get back to the only thing that really matters.

Most people think of Asmodeus as the ultimate evil. That is not how he sees himself. And when the heroes, fighting deep into the gates of the 9 Hells, stand face to face with him and he gives them every opportunity to strike him down ... and they understand the stakes ... it gets interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

Or it could be a neutral act and much like gluttony, sloth, and other things that get put under the blanket of evil are evil when not done in moderation. Making a few undead here or there might be a neutral act, much like eating a meal. Making a huge number of undead could be an evil act in the same way that stuffing yourself with food while others go hungry is an evil act.

Why would the creation of Chaotic Evil ghouls with the Create Undead spell and the creation of Neutral Evil zombies and Lawful Evil skeletons with the animate dead spell ever be anything but evil? You are deliberately adding evil to the world.

Edit: what the warning is doing is telling you that the casting is an evil act, but done infrequently isn't enough to make the caster evil.

 

[the Jester]

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.

It doesn't matter how you cover up an evil act, it's still an evil act. "But it doesn't look evil if nobody notices" is no defense at all.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah but it’s a cleric spell for a reason. Only those wise enough to know testing it out on babies is an absolute no no will be granted this awesome power. Given a chance you KNOW Wizards are gonna try it just to see if it works, those wacky baby murderers

3e Evil wizards can use the summon monster spell to summon angels, turning the spell [Good]. They can then command the [Good] angels to do evil. Evil clerics can't because of the alignment descriptors and cleric class alignment interactions with spells.

In 3e if you want to be truly evil and use supernatural [Good] to do evil, don't be an evil priest., be an arcane caster.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

3e Evil wizards can use the summon monster spell to summon angels, turning the spell [Good]. They can then command the [Good] angels to do evil. Evil clerics can't because of the alignment descriptors and cleric class alignment interactions with spells.

In 3e if you want to be truly evil and use supernatural [Good] to do evil, don't be an evil priest., be an arcane caster

anyone remember the prestige class from 3e from Complete Mage I think it was that was all about summoning demons and making them do good things cause like screw them? That was a great prestige class.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

It doesn't matter how you cover up an evil act, it's still an evil act. "But it doesn't look evil if nobody notices" is no defense at all.

It is in the case where the only problem is that it is noticed. If someone sings a contract exclaiming their body can be "necromanced" and used for labor after death the moral question is taken out of the mix. The only problem left is that relatives might see their dead bodies and be grieved by the sight. So all you need to do is make the body unrecognizable.

 

[the Jester]

It is in the case where the only problem is that it is noticed. If someone sings a contract exclaiming their body can be "necromanced" and used for labor after death the moral question is taken out of the mix. The only problem left is that relatives might see their dead bodies and be grieved by the sight. So all you need to do is make the body unrecognizable.

But that's not the only problem. You are literally creating an evil monster that wants to extinguish the living. Even if I don't know it's Aunt Sally's body, and even if you keep it under control, you have created an evil monster that wants to kill. That is why it's evil (IMHO).

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

But that's not the only problem. You are literally creating an evil monster that wants to extinguish the living. Even if I don't know it's Aunt Sally's body, and even if you keep it under control, you have created an evil monster that wants to kill. That is why it's evil (IMHO).

I will say this for about the fifth time. There would be procedures to prevent the skeletons from rebelling in the worst-case scenario. I've covered everything you have said in previous posts. But in summary, the undead wouldn't be big ol skeletons. They would be optimized for work, not battle. Like a bucket with skeletal legs or a pair of arms that pulls on a rope. Before you ask, yes this is possible with the reanimate undead spell.