D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

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.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
Moral ontology and epistemology are fun. Are you suggesting "objective alignment" causes or creates demons, devils, celestials and planes? Like, they're made of some kind of "alignment matter" or something?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Moral ontology and epistemology are fun. Are you suggesting "objective alignment" causes or creates demons, devils, celestials and planes? Like, they're made of some kind of "alignment matter" or something?
That's basically what they are. Demons are literally pieces of the Abyss, which is literally the CE of the universe.

"The Outer Planes are realms of spirituality and thought. They are the spheres where celestials, fiends, and deities exist. The plane of Elysium, for example, isn't merely a place where good creatures dwell, and not even simply the place where spirits of good creatures go when they die. It is the plane of goodness, a spiritual realm where evil can't flourish."

"A plane's alignment is its essence, and a character whose alignment doesn't match the plane's experiences a profound sense of dissonance there."
 

That's basically what they are. Demons are literally pieces of the Abyss, which is literally the CE of the universe.

"The Outer Planes are realms of spirituality and thought. They are the spheres where celestials, fiends, and deities exist. The plane of Elysium, for example, isn't merely a place where good creatures dwell, and not even simply the place where spirits of good creatures go when they die. It is the plane of goodness, a spiritual realm where evil can't flourish."
That's interesting. How can we* verify or falsify the claim?

* By "we," I mean assuming we were people living in this universe.
 


Why not both?

Objective in the sense that alignment is determined by impossibly powerful forces far above the likes of gods or AO. Those forces have decided certain things are good and evil (angels, undead, etc). But arbitrary in the sense that the DM determines, in the overwhelming majority, where individual actions fall on the spectrum of good and evil (or law and chaos).
 

That's interesting. How can we* verify or falsify the claim?

* By "we," I mean assuming we were people living in this universe.
Commune, Contact Other Plane, other divinations. Visiting those planes and seeing what's up. It says straight out that if your alignment does not match the plane's alignment, there's a profound sense of dissonance.
 

I added another quote from the PHB that also supports what I've been saying. The first was from the DMG.
I guess I don't know what a "profound sense of dissonance" actually means. My CG character didn't care for Avernus because it was full of appalling stuff, but maybe he should have also been taking psychic damage every round?

I feel like everything you're saying could be true (because it's in the book) and still be impossible to verify or falsify for a person in the universe. Like, the authors can write "it is the plane of goodness" all they want, but what does that actually mean? Is there some way my character can measure its "goodness"? If I had the means, could I appropriate some of its volume of goodness and "ethoform" planes with less natural reserves of goodness?
 


Unless there is some metaphysical soul torturing horror related to animate dead (and the RAW doesn't imply this) then I don't think using the spell is obviously evil to this degree. It is dangerous and it may in many circumstances go against social taboos. But it also allows you to create minions that you can use to in situations that may be very dangerous, thus not having to send actual living people into harm's way. Skeleton soldiers, firefighter etc all could save human(oid) lives. I think it could reasonably argued that saving actual lives is more important than social taboos, and of course a society that has practiced this sort of thing for a long time probably wouldn't have such taboos in the first place.

Keep in mind, the post of mine you quoted, was about how I think alignment systems should be made, not about how I think D&D does or ought to handle animate dead

On animate dead the rules aren't hugely far, at least in 1E, from where you are. It describes it as evil, yes, but it also says a good cleric would need to think before using the spell (so its implied there are situations like saving lives, where it is more important than concerns about the problem of animating a corpse: I don't think the text sees it as mere social taboo though-----more like being the lesser of two evils in that case).

And I am not saying your argument is wrong. "But why?" is a perfectly valid response to "You ought not animate the dead in this world".

In terms of whether or not there are cosmological reasons in D&D for not doing this: I am not so sure. Part of the issue is D&D has many different worlds and those don't always align (especially across editions) and the other problem is a lot of this stuff is often glossed over. I don't know for sure that there isn't a religious commandment against desecrating the dead. I do know that they included it in the list of evil acts worthy of a powers check (both animating dead but also desecrating the dead) when they enumerated the rules (again something I think took away from the system personally). There were, I think, heavily implied cosmological reasons for that. A lot of it is I think, like real world physics that aren't clearly laid out in D&D, a lot of real world cosmology is just assumed. And I think violating the resting place of the dead, violating the bodies of the dead, is assumed to be morally bad in most D&D universes. Also, in Ravenloft at least, using any kind of necromantic magic was considered to be something that could attract the attention of things like the dark powers. So it was a bit like playing with fire. This is also one of those cases where I suspect people could pour through the monster manual, the DMG and other books and find implied cosmological reasons in some entries for why animating dead is evil or dangerous. Again, much of that might also depend on the edition.

But I think the more important reason for why something like this is labeled evil in D&D, is simply because Gary assumed most people reading the book would think animating a dead corpse would be an evil thing for a PC to do (or at least have a lot of potential evil in it). That doesn't mean people get angry when it happens in a game, or rebuke a player personally who does so, but they might think it is a little odd for a character who is Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good to go around animating corpses without any thought put into the act. And I think if you play with a broad cross-section of people, the majority reaction to it is going to be 'this seems evil'. I can easily imagine if it hadn't been labeled as such, you'd probably have a number of people commenting on it.

Now I get that we are dealing with cosmologies and those can serve as thought experiments. If D&D were a more niche game, it could easily play through all the moral thought experiments implied by its cosmology....but generally speaking it doesn't. Things are usually framed in terms of real world morality. I think that is just because it doesn't assume most players will have an easy time separating their own views on something like desecration and the views that ought to exist inside a cosmology where desecration wouldn't be a problem.

Now full disclosure, personally I don't see this stuff as mere social taboo either. So maybe my own biases are creeping in. I think there are reasons beyond social convention that we a respectful of the dead.
 

Remove ads

Top