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.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

It says a lot the we always think the dead will want to hurt us if they rose.

Because our fiction is geared toward forcing acceptance of death as always the correct choice without examining how murdering death is the big project humans have been working on for our entire existence. Nope: longevity, transhumanism and by extension necromancy are evil because coping mechanisms are more thematically interesting than progress.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Depends in part on the undead and their specific lore.

Usually there is plenty of room for Buffy the Vampire Slayer style undead where evil spirits animate dead bodies without the former souls, or for bodies and former brains to be powered by negative/necrotic energy without the former soul being involved at all. A lot of spawned undead are created with none of their former abilities or knowledge of their former lives.

5e Seems to go both ways with different undead.

The 5e shadow for example says:

"As a shadow drains its victim's strength and physical form, the victim's shadow darkens and begins to move of its own volition. In death, the creature's shadow breaks free, becoming a new undead shadow hungry for more life to consume.
If a creature from which a shadow has been created somehow returns to life, its undead shadow senses the return. The shadow might seek its "parent" to vex or slay."

So the 5e shadow seems to be separate from the creature it is spawned from and its soul.

The 5e MM entry for ghosts however says that "A ghost is the soul of a once-living creature, bound to haunt a specific location, creature, or object that held significance to it in its life."

So someone who turns into a 5e ghost, it seems fair to say their soul is bound in the world and not in an afterlife.

Different undead and in different editions vary in this type of specific lore.

 

[Zaukrie]

It says a lot the we always think the dead will want to hurt us if they rose.

Because our fiction is geared toward forcing acceptance of death as always the correct choice without examining how murdering death is the big project humans have been working on for our entire existence. Nope: longevity, transhumanism and by extension necromancy are evil because coping mechanisms are more thematically interesting than progress.

Right? If people could animate their bodies and keep their memories and live forever, a lot more would be doing it. And they wouldn't all be evil.

to me, it seems fairly obvious that in a world where you can animate remains that are clearly separate from their soul, you would. Especially in times of war, where people would volunteer for their bodies to be used that way. Or in a world where things undead are immune to are more common than here.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Right? If people could animate their bodies and keep their memories and live forever, a lot more would be doing it. And they wouldn't all be evil.

to me, it seems fairly obvious that in a world where you can animate remains that are clearly separate from their soul, you would. Especially in times of war, where people would volunteer for their bodies to be used that way. Or in a world where things undead are immune to are more common than here.

Which brings us to the other reason for this trope: restricting implication.

If you have a world where you can cheaply animate corpse bots into a viable manual labor force, society would be drastically changed by that. The living would become an artisan class, the world would be in the midst of an industrial revolution, knowledge would never be lost, but also traditions would never be broken, leading to an odd sort of progressive stagnation.

And speaking as an author, authors don't want to put in that much work. So there has to be a reason that if this is possible people don't do it. Sometimes there's drawbacks, sometimes there's costs. And for the ultimate in lazy writing techniques... you just say it's dark and forbidden. Good enough for a pulp novel. Done and dusted.

 

[tomBitonti]

Right? If people could animate their bodies and keep their memories and live forever, a lot more would be doing it. And they wouldn't all be evil.

to me, it seems fairly obvious that in a world where you can animate remains that are clearly separate from their soul, you would. Especially in times of war, where people would volunteer for their bodies to be used that way. Or in a world where things undead are immune to are more common than here.

And there are likely any number of evil kingdoms where this is done. There is probably a great temptation to do so, for defense, or for extra labor. A common trope is a crazed person animating a deceased loved one whom they cannot accept as being dead. This always turns out to be a bad idea.

Saying that the risen would not be evil begs the question.

A more interesting case is the undead who has risen to right a terrible injustice. Think High Plains Drifter. This is another common trope. Sometimes, the risen are indiscriminate in wreaking violence. Other times, they are very judicious and specific.

TomB

 

[Jackdaw McGraw]

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

D&D cribs from, and is inspired by, fantasy literature that often does uses aspects of medieval society. My point - and the point many posters have made - is the OP's question is best answered in the context of culture, not RAW.

 

[Voadam]

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.
View attachment 153205

I found it decent, but I found the treatment of the Necromancer government fairly unsatisfying.

I did not buy that the necromancers who formed a research haven to practice their magical art would personally devote so much continuous time and effort in the total top levels of their government down to a necromancer hearing every civil court action appeal among the non-magical populace. Similarly for the perspective that since they are smart academics, they come up with and implement enlightened efficient and effective systems for administration and politically ruling people that work, things that seem specifically outside their expertise and skill sets.

I think a lot of it is great, but the law and political system and huge page count devoted to them rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Voadam]

Liches are kind of interesting in D&D's progression.

They are typically evil immortally undead spellcasters. But they originally did not require any predatory maintenance like a vampire or draining hunger like a wight, so they mostly were underground doing their research or were just powerful undying bad guys doing their individual thing.

This sort of led to different trends in D&D, making good versions and making them necessarily more evil.

If they are non-predatory immortals the question becomes why necessarily be evil, sounds like a good way for a good or neutral wizard to continue past a normal lifespan.

You get things like the Forgotten Realms Baelnorns where these non-predatory liches are actually good immortal magical defenders of things elven. In Eberron you get the positive energy deathless elves as well.

Alternately you get development of liches to be evil. So the ritual of creating them when fleshed out in a dragon article requires evil actions and icky components to explain the evil alignment and to back up the genre tropes. Sometimes this gets developed in D&D to require evil sacrifices.

This trend eventually leads to the 5e lich requiring regular sacrifices of souls to power their state with failure to do so leading to devolution into a demilich state.

An AD&D lich could be technically evil but someone who just putters around now developing magical stuff in their lair. A party could encounter one in a dungeon and it be essentially just a magical weirdo.

In 5e if you encounter a lich out of the MM they are definitely an active villain, they have sacrificed souls and will continue to do so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends in part on the undead and their specific lore.

Usually there is plenty of room for Buffy the Vampire Slayer style undead where evil spirits animate dead bodies without the former souls, or for bodies and former brains to be powered by negative/necrotic energy without the former soul being involved at all. A lot of spawned undead are created with none of their former abilities or knowledge of their former lives.

5e Seems to go both ways with different undead.

The 5e shadow for example says:

"As a shadow drains its victim's strength and physical form, the victim's shadow darkens and begins to move of its own volition. In death, the creature's shadow breaks free, becoming a new undead shadow hungry for more life to consume.
If a creature from which a shadow has been created somehow returns to life, its undead shadow senses the return. The shadow might seek its "parent" to vex or slay."

So the 5e shadow seems to be separate from the creature it is spawned from and its soul.

The 5e MM entry for ghosts however says that "A ghost is the soul of a once-living creature, bound to haunt a specific location, creature, or object that held significance to it in its life."

So someone who turns into a 5e ghost, it seems fair to say their soul is bound in the world and not in an afterlife.

Different undead and in different editions vary in this type of specific lore.

But there's no spell that a PC can cast that directly creates ghosts. Animate Dead directly creates skeletons and zombies, and their existence does not hinder the soul that used to live there unless someone tries to put them back together.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But there's no spell that a PC can cast that directly creates ghosts.

Indirectly though...

Imagine a setting where everyone who dies by violence comes back as a ghost of some flavor.