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.)

 

[lingual]

You can repeat it if you want, but doing so doesn’t make “not good” mean “inherently evil.”

Which are judgments, not game rules.

I agree! In-character judgments are indeed irrelevant, which is why I say statements like “necromancy is foul” are also irrelevant. There are no actual game mechanics that tie any action, much less any spell, to any alignment.

Can you cite where the rules say so?

And yet, a Good character can cast them and nothing will happen. The spells are therefore not inherently evil by the rules.

That is incorrect. No rule exists that says casting necromancy spells (or any other spells… or any other action…) can result in your alignment changing.

Then you are house ruling. A reasonable house rule to make, if you want certain actions to be inherently connected with certain alignments.

Are you arguing that there are no mechanics for stuff like this?

There's also no mechanics for killing kids in the game either. Such characters are still evil.

This is an argument about almost nothing at this point.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

And where is the rule that gives you the authority to say what my character’s alignment is?

 

[Charlaquin]

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…

Right, so as I said, characters might have opinions about the evilness of an action, and act accordingly. But there are no rules tying any given action to a particular alignment.

… 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.

Perfectly valid, but part of the social contract, not the rules of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Well, the thread is tagged 5e, so I answered in the context of 5e, and in 5e there are no rules tying spells to alignments. Again, characters may have opinions and act accordingly.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then your good god will cut you off and you'll have to find an evil one if you want to keep casting cleric spells.

Fine as a house rule, but not written anywhere in the game rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Are you arguing that there are no mechanics for stuff like this?

Yes.

There's also no mechanics for killing kids in the game either. Such characters are still evil.

No rule says they are.

This is an argument about almost nothing at this point.

It’s an argument about whether or not spells (or any actions, for that matter) are “inherently evil” (or inherently any alignment). Alignment is ostensibly objective in D&D, yet no rules exist linking any given action to any given alignment. The only logically valid way for both of these things to be true is if actions do not have inherent alignments.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, the thread is tagged 5e, so I answered in the context of 5e, and in 5e there are no rules tying spells to alignments. Again, characters may have opinions and act accordingly.

Damn, I didn't see the tag (thought it was about alignment in general)

 

[Seramus]

The only mechanical teeth I can think of are some magic items working/not working depending on alignment, and going to the plane that corresponds with your alignment on death if you, for some reason, don't like unhappy endings for your character.

I suppose you could count the fluff about animate dead constituting a "rule" about shifting you to neutral, and then eventually evil if you keep casting it. But it gives no specific numbers.

Deck of many things changes your alignment, but that's less teeth and more buyer beware.

 

[Charlaquin]

Damn, I didn't see the tag (thought it was about alignment in general)

Threads in the D&D subforum are pretty much always about 5e now that there’s a separate subforum for older editions.

 

[Maxperson]

And where is the rule that gives you the authority to say what my character’s alignment is?

I'm not determining your alignment at all. I'm simply determining how the planes react to your actions, which is 100% DM purview. Write down anything you want on your sheet and play your PC however you like.