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.)

 

[Lanefan]

People keep coming back to the 'uncontrolled killing spree' thing, but keep in mind that, again, this is a relatively new development created to justify undead being evil after the fact.

Not so sure on this - even 1e's mindlessly-neutral skeletons and zombies still defaulted to attacking the living if uncontrolled and the chance presented. The only difference between that and 5e is the alignment of the created undead; creating them is still essentially evil.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I kind of miss how 4E's Open Grave explained undead by saying that creatures have both an animating spirit (animus) and a soul, and that some undead are sustained solely by damanged and tainted animuses (wraiths, skeletons, zombies, even ghouls) while others retain their souls in addition to a tainted animus (ghosts, mummies, vampires, liches). The influence of the Shadowfell, demonic spirits, and even psionic energy were given as possible reasons for an animus to stick with a corpse and rise in undeath rather than dissipating. Most undead were described as hating the living and even memories of their own lives as it reminds them of things they've lost in undeath, and soulless undead in particular subconsciously attacked living creatures out of jealousy and a desire to claim a new soul. Soulless undead were even noted to crowd around the exterior of the Raven Queen's realm in the Shadowfell in hopes she would return their souls to them (though instead her followers destroy these undead petitioners).

As for 5E, there are a number of different spells and effects that give hints as to a separation of spirits and souls. Most notably, the spell Speak with Dead is described as returning the animating spirit, but not the soul. The spell also implies that, unlike spells that return a soul, the spirit of a creature can be returned no matter how long it's been dead. This implies that the animating spirits of everything that has ever lived may persist in the Ethereal Plane forever. Perhaps when a necromancer creates skeletons and zombies those immortal spirits are forced into their physical remains and distorted by the magic, and even after destruction and the spirits' release back to the Ethereal Plane they are forever tainted. In that way necromancy could taint the Ethereal Plane and attract the influence of the Negative Energy Plane, which might cause an increase in spontaneously generated undead.

 

[Zaukrie]

One of the big things that differentiates us mere mortals from the gods is that we die and they don't. You take away death and you take away what is a universal human experience.


This is true. But there are certainly other transhuman science fiction stories, right? The RPG Blue Planet features transhumanism and prolonged life through an alien substance mined off a distant planet.

Do we in DnD? We know for a fact that there is a so called after life in the DnD worlds. That's just a different kind of life.

I really think people aren't thinking about how different the standard DnD worlds are from ours.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Personally, I wouldn't want to spend months rotting away as a zombie, then eternity as a skeleton unable to eat things, smell things, pick things up with any sort of find motor control, unable to feel, and looking like a bunch of bones. That just doesn't seem like a quality life, let alone a quality eternity.

 

[Maxperson]

Indirectly though...

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

I don't have to. It was made for 3e.

 

[MGibster]

I really think people aren't thinking about how different the standard DnD worlds are from ours.

As Harrison Ford might say, "This ain't that kind of movie, kid." I like D&D, but it isn't exactly a game designed to encourage players to envision a fantastic world where people have a much different mindset from those of modern people. In D&D, the "good" most often aligns with modern western liberal values including individual rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, secularism, and even economic freedom. The truth is, despite the magic, in many ways D&D worlds are not presented as being very different from ours.

 

[Zaukrie]

Personally, I wouldn't want to spend months rotting away as a zombie, then eternity as a skeleton unable to eat things, smell things, pick things up with any sort of find motor control, unable to feel, and looking like a bunch of bones. That just doesn't seem like a quality life, let alone a quality eternity.

Well, in eberron there is an elven society with undead leaders and guards. Not rotting away. There are others examples too.... But I guess you could assume that's what I meant, rather than intelligent undead, which was what I meant. My bad for not being clear.

 

[Zaukrie]

As Harrison Ford might say, "This ain't that kind of movie, kid." I like D&D, but it isn't exactly a game designed to encourage players to envision a fantastic world where people have a much different mindset from those of modern people. In D&D, the "good" most often aligns with modern western liberal values including individual rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, secularism, and even economic freedom. The truth is, despite the magic, in many ways D&D worlds are not presented as being very different from ours.

Which is interesting. Few published worlds are different from ours, even in geography rules, than earth. I'm sure that is due to ease of use, as it were. It's hard to think about a really different world.

 

[lingual]

People keep coming back to the 'uncontrolled killing spree' thing, but keep in mind that, again, this is a relatively new development created to justify undead being evil after the fact.

It's like declaring whipped cream evil and a decade later coming back with a tweet saying it's because it left near babies it strangles them.

Saying it's inherently evil is different from ends justifies means.

Yeah it's an evil act. But "never let morals get in your way of doing the right thing". Or something like that (Salvor Hardin)

Creating zombies to help unclutter the garage? Sort of evil. But who cares...be an evil wizard then!

Creating a zombie to dump Sauron's Ring into Mount Doom? Of course!

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't have to. It was made for 3e.

View attachment 153248

As much as I crack on it, 3e had some sweet creative stuff in it between its Savage Species and ToXDs.

Ghostwalk, Bo9S, Stormwrack, Frostburn... Eberron! Eberron was so good at shedding the bad parts of it I sometimes forger Eberron was built for 3e.