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.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just an observation about alignment systems in general. When they do have teeth, such as powers checks or revoking class powers, I do find it is much easier to manage if it is reserved for black and white cases that most people at the table agree on or at least can easily see the logic of. When the Gm is left to defend a gray area, or an edge case that makes sense within a complex alignment system but can’t connect to something clear and obvious, it is a lot easier to devolve into debate and frustration

 

[Maxperson]

It just shows that certain divinities are despots that punish people arbitrarily according to their whims.

The gods have nothing to do with it. They don't dictate what is good and evil.

People don't need to agree with them.

Cool. The people will know for a fact, though, that their evil acts are evil. They won't have the excuse that their different view somehow makes the evil act a good act. They can disagree all they want and it won't change anything or make it so that the people don't know the factual truth.

In FR 'good' deities allow perfectly decent atheist to be tortured in the Wall of the Faithless, so I'd definitely wouldn't trust their opinion on what's 'good'!

You assume that they have any choice. Ao dictates things. Also, allowing someone to reap the consequences of their actions is appropriate for good gods. Atheism could very well be evil and a life of atheism earns you the wall.

Furthermore, I suspect most people in the setting do not commune with deities or visit underworlds, so this simply isn't relevant to them.

This is a Red Herring. Clerics, Wizards and adventurers absolutely do those things, so it would be well known to the common folk regardless of the fact that they don't personally do the communing or visiting of the lower planes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just an observation about alignment systems in general. When they do have teeth, such as powers checks or revoking class powers, I do find it is much easier to manage if it is reserved for black and white cases that most people at the table agree on or at least can easily see the logic of. When the Gm is left to defend a gray area, or an edge case that makes sense within a complex alignment system but can’t connect to something clear and obvious, it is a lot easier to devolve into debate and frustration

Agreed. For an alignment system to work, it needs clear, bright lines, and mechanical implications for crossing them. Which understandably is a bit unappealing to a lot of players. So I understand the decision to remove its teeth.

 

[Maxperson]

A sensible reason doesn’t matter.

Yes, yes it does. Alignment is not a mechanical thing, but is an OBJECTIVE thing, so it's important to know which things are good or evil.

Alignment is a mechanical construct and no mechanics ascribe alignment to any action.

It's not a mechanical construct. It's a RP construct with an objective game reality. An evil act is evil regardless of the viewpoints of any being in the game.

If we’re talking about sensible reasons an action might or might not be evil, we’re talking about subjective moral judgment, not the objective game mechanical construct of alignment.

Wrong. We are exactly talking about the objective game construct of alignment. The DM decides which things are objectively good or evil for the game, and he needs to make those decisions based on what is sensible and not some arbitrary, "The game didn't say that murdering 20 orphan babies in their sleep is evil, so it isn't."

It isn’t evil in a game mechanical sense though.

There is no mechanical sense. You need to go back to 3e for that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Agreed. For an alignment system to work, it needs clear, bright lines, and mechanical implications for crossing them. Which understandably is a bit unappealing to a lot of players. So I understand the decision to remove its teeth.

To be clear I am not saying the teeth should have been removed. I think the teeth were good. But I do think each edition is going to have its own design goals in that respect, and alignment that ilia purely descriptive with no teeth, doesn’t seem particularly useful (so if the teeth have been removed they probably need to either put them back in or jettison alignment).

The problem for me has more been some of the disputes around alignment, especially in later editions. I am not saying they need to lay down clear lines in the text: to an extend D&D did that but it laid down so many points for each alignment it can get confusing. I think either something real simple with broad but easy to grasp guidelines (I.e. Things like murdering an innocent are bad), or putting it to the table’s common sense. I think the key is it needs to be easy to grasp and probably should less about the morally complex areas (it is when you have to get legalistic about alignment I find you run into more disputes)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The gods have nothing to do with it. They don't dictate what is good and evil.

They manage the afterlives, thus enforce the punishments.

Cool. The people will know for a fact, though, that their evil acts are evil.

No they don't. They might know that some god thinks it is evil and will punish them for it. But perhaps that god just is judgemental jerk?

Atheism could very well be evil and a life of atheism earns you the wall.

And that is obviously unjust, so opposing it and gods who enforce the system, or at least appease the tyrant who demands such a system is definitely a good act!

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, yes it does. Alignment is not a mechanical thing, but is an OBJECTIVE thing, so it's important to know which things are good or evil.

It’s absolutely a mechanical thing. That’s the only way it can be objective.

It's not a mechanical construct. It's a RP construct with an objective game reality.

If it’s purely roleplay, it isn’t objective.

An evil act is evil regardless of the viewpoints of any being in the game.

Citation needed.

Wrong. We are exactly talking about the objective game construct of alignment. The DM decides which things are objectively good or evil for the game,

Citation needee

and he needs to make those decisions based on what is sensible and not some arbitrary, "The game didn't say that murdering 20 orphan babies in their sleep is evil, so it isn't."

There is no mechanical sense. You need to go back to 3e for that.

 

[Maxperson]

It’s absolutely a mechanical thing. That’s the only way it can be objective.

This is wrong. Objective just means factual. Alignment doesn't require a mechanic to be factual.

If it’s purely roleplay, it isn’t objective.

Again, wrong.

Citation needed.

I've already proven that. If alignment were subjective, demons, devils, celestials and all the aligned planes can't exist as they do. Only objective good and evil result in these things.

Citation needee

Really? You haven't seen enough quotes in enough threads about how the DM decides what is what for the game in 5e?

 

[Charlaquin]

To be clear I am not saying the teeth should have been removed. I think the teeth were good.

I agree, but I understand why WotC removed them.

But I do think each edition is going to have its own design goals in that respect, and alignment that ilia purely descriptive with no teeth, doesn’t seem particularly useful (so if the teeth have been removed they probably need to either put them back in or jettison alignment).

Hard agree. If it doesn’t have teeth, it isn’t useful. Might as well get rid of it.

The problem for me has more been some of the disputes around alignment, especially in later editions. I am not saying they need to lay down clear lines in the text: to an extend D&D did that but it laid down so many points for each alignment it can get confusing. I think either something real simple with broad but easy to grasp guidelines (I.e. Things like murdering an innocent are bad),

Well, “murdering an innocent is bad” is a hard line. One I think most people would agree with, but a hard line nonetheless.

or putting it to the table’s common sense.

I think that will only lead to arguments. Intuitive morality is too hairy to work as a game rule with meaningful mechanical implications.

I think the key is it needs to be easy to grasp and probably should less about the morally complex areas (it is when you have to get legalistic about alignment I find you run into more disputes)

Agreed.

 

[Maxperson]

They manage the afterlives, thus enforce the punishments.

They don't, really. Worshippers end up there and are eventually absorbed into them to augment their power.

No they don't. They might know that some god thinks it is evil and will punish them for it. But perhaps that god just is judgemental jerk?

Riiiiiiight, all gods are just judgmental jerks that their clerics aren't going to believe.

And that is obviously unjust, so opposing it and gods who enforce the system, or at least appease the tyrant who demands such a system is definitely a good act!

Punishment for evil acts is unjust?