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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah there is. In the PHB it expressly states animating the dead with necromancy is an evil act, and no good person does so regularly.

That’s not what the quote says.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Well, good and evil are based on societal norms in many philosophies. What D&D considers is moral is mostly based on western European/American cultures, mixed with mythology and folklore.

 

[aco175]

In 3e there was Hollowfaust City of Necromancers in the OGL Scarred Lands setting where a society of LN necromancers used only non-predatory animated dead to protect their research haven which flourished into a thriving city where the citizenry voluntarily give up their bodies at death for the mutual defense of the city from the many violent enemies that threaten it.

I was going to bring this one up. I thought it was a decent supplement and made a decent case on why they have undead roaming the city. I could also see a land like Thay, that is ruled by a lich, have more of this.

During the American Civil War there was something of a crisis in regards to the wounds and what it meant for the afterlife. If a soldier had his leg amputated, did this mean he would be missing a leg come the resurrection? We might think it a silly question today but this caused some anxiety back in the 1860s. That was also one of the more controversial aspects of cremation. How can you take part in the resurrection when your body has been destroyed?

Now, I'm picturing an undead swarm of soldier legs attacking the party.


In general there is lots of ways to argue something to get a 'good' point about it. Undead slaves are better than alive slaves. We're not using human bodies- what kind of monsters do you think we are. It is what GiGi wanted. I need to pay my bills somehow. It is society's fault for not understanding us.

I can see other problems that corollate with a cheap labor force. Underbidding contracts, labor problems with alive people not getting work, and clashes with guilds over quality of work. A few beneficial things may be that the army is already dead and fighting another dead army may lead to a more civilized battle where people come and watch like a picnic. You could sacrificial bomb an undead instead of having the orc Olympic torch guy from LotR. You have less logistics with supply trains when you bring your army to attack your neighbor since the food cost is less.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has gotten pretty obtuse. Lets look at it this way, if raising undead is as common as driving a car or shopping online, what makes having it in the game at all interesting?

Because in real life, raising undead is impossible, and that's the perspective we all come from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Might be the 'kill people if unattended' part. Creating a bunch of serial killers, even if organized efficiently into a labor force, is still a human error or two away from something unpleasant happening.

It begs the question "why not use non-serial killers?"

You have to pay non-serial killers, for one.

 

[steeldragons]

Desecration of a corpse -interfering with a spirit's "peaceful rest," conjuring negative energy (i.e. undead, an abomination that is not "alive," but not allowed to be/stay "dead" either, are Evil), or "consorting" with wicked disembodied spirits, and all of that- is kind of a big deal and "bad thing" innnn...pretty much all cultures. Particularly if you're talking about using corpses or skeletons that are "properly buried/interned" with whatever religious rites that culture uses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Resurrection, short of true resurrection, is blocked by undeath.

This to me means tmubdeath shackles the creature's soul.

Which in turn would explain why it is evil.

In this interpretation, animating undead is not forming a flesh golem. Rather, it is grabbing the soul associated with the corpse, wiring it back to the body with necrotic energy, and making a tortured puppet out of the entire mess.

A rather evil act.

All I see that doing is preventing the soul from being put back in the body. Unless someone is trying to raise you, your soul is kicking it in the afterlife just like normal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Imagine a necromancer trying to explain to horrified villagers that a deceased's soul always makes a clean separation from the body - thus making postmortem animation a morally neutral enterprise - because a spellbook told him so.

"No no, good villagers, there's no need to drag the town cleric into this debate. The undead's famous fear of confidently presented holy symbols, or their tendency to crumble under the flashing blade of a paladin, shouldn't be misconstrued as a moral position taken by the gods or their most faithful champions.

It's merely a clash of disharmonious energies, vibrating at different wavelengths. Yes, one is classically represented as "dark" - like the lovely robes I'm wearing - and "light", but these are merely metaphors for elemental forces that have no more will or malevolence than, say, oil and water.

People. Please listen to reason. I'm a good necromancer. We're much more common than you think. And none of use would dare animate a pinky if we thought there was an iota of a chance that your loved ones' souls hadn't departed swiftly to the hereafter the moment they perished. Poof and they're gone.

I think we can all agree that what happens to us after we die is one of the most well understood aspects of the mortal experience. Completely precise, knowable and not at all fraught, mysterious or in need of protective taboos. The whole ritual of grieving and preparing the body for a "sacred" burial seems a tad bit silly when you think about it, now doesn't it? Reverence for meat? I mean...

...dammit, I've said too much.

Don't come any closer, you soulbots!"

D&D doesn't depict a medieval society though. You might be able to get some traction by explaining logically.

 

[Maxperson]

You have to pay non-serial killers, for one.

And then they start asking for a minimum wage! This is how you get unions people. Do you think the king wants unions?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Because in real life, raising undead is impossible, and that's the perspective we all come from.

However the fear of the dead rising was all too common, and there were many methods and rituals to prevent it throughout the world. So the concept is not outside the concerns of the real world.