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.)

 

[Maxperson]

That’s not just a setting decision though. Sure, the DM can decide that the people, the gods, etc. consider an action evil, that’s setting information. What they can’t do (without house ruling) is say, “your character’s alignment has changed to evil as a result of performing this action.” And if actions can’t change the alignment of the character that performs them, it isn’t meaningful to say that action is “inherently evil.”

It's 100% a setting decision. Whether alignment is subjective or objective and what that means is purely setting decision.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, in Ravenloft, which is what I would likely be running, you'd get a powers check. If it were a home-brew setting, it would depend on the details, but I think one possible in game consequence of you casting a spell deemed evil is, if you were a cleric, you could lose your clerical powers or receive some rebuke from your god. Or it might lead to an alignment change if it is a consistent thing

Yeah, so no rule in 5e allows this. It’s a perfectly valid house rule, by by the RAW there is no mechanism by which the DM can remove a cleric’s powers. I don’t believe there is one for them to force an alignment change either but again, if someone can cite one, I’ll concede that point.

Curse of Strahd specifically (and possibly some other adventures) does have some magic items, the use of which can explicitly cause a character’s alignment to change. This would, in my understanding, constitute a specific rule overriding the general rule that a player decides what their character thinks, says, and does.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's 100% a setting decision. Whether alignment is subjective or objective and what that means is purely setting decision.

Great, so you as DM make the setting decision that Animate Dead is “inherently evil.” But what does that actually mean in practice? What happens if my Lawful Good character goes around casting Animate Dead all the time?

 

[Maxperson]

Great, so you as DM make the setting decision that Animate Dead is “inherently evil.” But what does that actually mean in practice? What happens if my Lawful Good character goes around casting Animate Dead all the time?

He's not LG, even though he might think he is.

 

[Voadam]

Just a point of clarify for the current edition: In 5E the GM can't change the player's alignment based on their actions in game?

The 5e rules don't address that the same way they don't address a DM adjusting a PC's int, wis, or cha stats based on how they are roleplaying them.

Alignment does not even have an entry in the DMG index.

There is a bunch of flavor descriptions about alignments and such and a few mechanical elements like some magic items only being able to be attuned by someone with a compatible alignment. The traditional cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment is not in the 5e DMG.

Here is the 5e PH page 122 on alignment:

Spoiler: Alignment

ALIGNMENT
A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.
These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
ALIGNMENT IN THE MULTIVERSE
For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos. According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery.
The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an ore chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil. Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments-they are unaligned. Such a creature is incapable of making a moral or ethical choice and acts according to its bestial nature. Sharks are savage predators, for example, but they are not evil; they have no alignment.

 

[TheSword]

Great, so you as DM make the setting decision that Animate Dead is “inherently evil.” But what does that actually mean in practice? What happens if my Lawful Good character goes around casting Animate Dead all the time?

Good folks would react to him the way good folks would react to other evil creatures doing evil acts. Several lynch mobs, decent folk become reluctant to trade or assist him. Inn keepers refuse to serve him. The king sets several bounty hunters on his trail…

… or more likely I as DM have an out of game conversation with them to say, sorry mate, no evil at my table. Change his outlook/modus operandi; retire him and make another character that isn’t evil; or sit this one out.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, so no rule in 5e allows this. It’s a perfectly valid house rule, by by the RAW there is no mechanism by which the DM can remove a cleric’s powers. I don’t believe there is one for them to force an alignment change either but again, if someone can cite one, I’ll concede that point.

Curse of Strahd specifically (and possibly some other adventures) does have some magic items, the use of which can explicitly cause a character’s alignment to change. This would, in my understanding, constitute a specific rule overriding the general rule that a player decides what their character thinks, says, and does.

I don’t play 5E. So I can’t comment there. But this just reinforces my impression that they might have removed too many teeth from the alignment system for my taste

 

[Maxperson]

Good folks would react to him the way good folks would react to other evil creatures doing evil acts. Several lynch mobs, decent folk become reluctant to trade or assist him. Inn keepers refuse to serve him. The king sets several bounty hunters on his trail…

This.

… or more likely I as DM have an out of game conversation with them to say, sorry mate, no evil at my table. Change his outlook/modus operandi; retire him and make another character that isn’t evil; or sit this one out.

I don't mind evil, so long as it isn't disrupting the campaign. Animating the dead from a barroom fight would be disruptive. Animating the dead in a dungeon to help out with the dungeon wouldn't be. If he wants to be an evil paladin who raises the dead, go for it. Don't derail everyone else's fun in the process, though.

 

[TheSword]

I don’t play 5E. So I can’t comment there. But this just reinforces my impression that they might have removed too many teeth from the alignment system for my taste

The teeth of the alignment system can often be part of the social contract of the game table. No evil or CN is a relatively common expectation set out in gaming groups. Social contract teeth bite far harder than any game mechanic would.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t play 5E. So I can’t comment there. But this just reinforces my impression that they might have removed too many teeth from the alignment system for my taste

For the most part it's a descriptor now, something you can use or ignore. I find it handy for monsters and NPCs, especially when I only expect them to have 5 minutes of existence in the campaign and the PCs interact with them in a way I hadn't anticipated.

Something can be good or evil without the use of alignment. Is my concept of good and evil biased? Abso-frickin'-lutely and I don't care. Everyone I actually sit down with at the table with will be close enough that it doesn't matter.

But ... do we really need another alignment thread? Really?