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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

So you're interpreting this:

''Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.''

As:

''If you use animate dead frequently, you are not likely a good NPC.''

No, I interpret it as “the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act” (that part is literally consistent with my interpretation that spells are not inherently tied to alignments), and an unenforceable statement about what characters “will” do, which is why I used the druid armor comparison. It is inarguable that the player of a good PC can choose for their character to cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently. Since this statement indicates no consequences for doing so, I can only conclude that good PCs can in fact cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently. Of course, a character who does cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently is most likely not both good and an NPC, since the text in question indicates that good characters don’t do that. Much like how a character wearing metal armor is probably not both a druid and an NPC.

In which case, never study law. 'Likely' has nothing to do with it, and neither does 'NPC'. The prohibition is absolute, and it applies to every spell caster.

It’s not a prohibition. It doesn’t say good characters can’t cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently, it says only evil characters do cast them frequently, which is just demonstrably untrue when it comes to PCs. Same as Druids and metal armor.

The rules clearly state that ONLY EVIL spell casters (PC and NPC, there is no distinction) animate the dead frequently with necromancy spells,

Except, a non-evil PC absolutely can. Nothing stops them from doing so, and the text in question indicates no consequences if they do.

and that animating them via that magic is NOT A GOOD ACT.

I agree, it’s not a good act.

Ergo, if a spellcaster (PC or NPC) animates the dead with necromancy magic, they are:
1) NOT performing a Good act,

Obviously.

and
2) If they do so regularly, they are NOT Good (or Neutral); they are Evil.

But the player decides their character’s alignment, the player decides what their character does, and the rules do not contain any provision for the DM to change a PC’s alignment. Ergo, the statement that only evil characters use such spells frequently cannot be true of PCs.

There is literally no other way to parse that sentence as anything else. You can choose to ignore than sentence if you want (great, good for you) but there is literally no room for semantics here. The act itself is NOT GOOD

Again, I don’t disagree that it isn’t good.

and ONLY EVIL creatures do it frequently.

Which is demonstrably untrue when it comes to PCs.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Some of the most profound human taboos surround the subject of death, and the treatment of the bodies of the dead. How we deal with our dead is foundational to culture.

The literary depiction of necromancy is clear: it is invariably represented as evil and unnatural, and/or fraught with risk which outweighs its benefits: whether it's Necromancy in Naat, Frankenstein, Pet Sematary or the antics of Sauron.

If you want to swim against the tide of human culture and literature because of a rules omission in 5e - intentional or not - then that's fine. It might make for an interesting game.

 

[Flamestrike]

No, I interpret it as “the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act” (that part is literally consistent with my interpretation that spells are not inherently tied to alignments),

No. Its inconsistent with that statement.

You're literally quoting text that inherently ties casting a spell (animate dead) with an alignment (not a Good act).

It is inarguable that the player of a good PC can choose for their character to cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently.

In that case, they're not a Good PC.

A Good PC can also choose for their PC to rape, enslave, murder and torture people.

They're not a Good PC.

It’s not a prohibition. It doesn’t say good characters can’t cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently, it says only evil characters do cast them frequently,

It says ONLY Evil PCs cast them regularly. That's a prohibition.

If I have a Law that states 'Only women can enter the Female restrooms' then that Law prohibits any other gender from entry.

which is just demonstrably untrue when it comes to PCs. Same as Druids and metal armor.

If a Druid wears metal armor, it's entirely up to the DM what happens.

Being cast out of the Druid order, being prohibited from casting spells, dying on the spot. Whatever.

The prohibition (on wearing metal armor) doesn't include a specific punishment if the prohibition is violated, but that doesn't mean the prohibition does not exist.

Except, a non-evil PC absolutely can. Nothing stops them from doing so, and the text in question indicates no consequences if they do.

So it's up to the DM to determine what the consequences for breaking the prohibition is.

In this case, I would (after stern words from the DM) alter the PCs alignment to 'Evil' and tell them that thier use of 'dark, unholy and black magic' has stained their soul.

Or I'd boot them from the game. Either works.

But the player decides their character’s alignment, the player decides what their character does, and the rules do not contain any provision for the DM to change a PC’s alignment.

The rules don't provide a prohibition on the DM doing so. Ergo, the DM can do what the DW wants, up to (and including) refusing to DM that player, or having rocks fall on his PCs head.

Thats because the Rules do contain a prohibition on Good (or Neutral) aligned PCs from frequently casting animate dead, and this player (against that prohibition) has choosen to violate that rule.

From then onwards, its' up to the DM how to handle that problem player.

It's no different to an ostensibly 'LG' PC who starts raping and murdering NPCs frequently and on a whim.

That character is not LG.

If you agree that character is not LG, are you suggesting the DM lacks the power to alter the alignment of that PC, or to otherwise sanction or intervene here?

And if not, do the special effects of a Unicorns lair for Good aligned people, work on a serial killing rapist, simply because they have LG written on their character sheet in your games?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A Good PC can also choose for their PC to rape, enslave, murder and torture people.

And an evil PC can choose to not do those things, and instead choose to combat villains, save the world, sacrifice there lives for others, and help little old ladies across the road.

Are you going to change their alignment? What if they combat villains, save the world, sacrifice there lives for others, help little old ladies across the road and animate the dead?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This thread has really made me want to play a good necromancer!

 

[Flamestrike]

And an evil PC can choose to not do those things, and instead choose to combat villains, save the world, sacrifice there lives for others, and help little old ladies across the road.

They could and they would no longer be evil.

Are you going to change their alignment?

If that's what it takes, yes.

What if they combat villains, save the world, sacrifice there lives for others, help little old ladies across the road and frequently animated the dead?

They're evil.

For the sake of consistent ruling, if they combatted villains, saved the world, sacrificed their lives for others, helped little old ladies across the road and frequently raped people....

Also evil.

 

[TheSword]

The amount of jiggery pokery in this thread to try and maintain that animating corpses isn’t evil in 5e is quite funny.

The only possibly response to which is to say “Ok, you do you.”

It’s pretty clear to me that the writers didn’t want a single use of the spell to force alignment change conversations so said it was ‘not good’ instead of an out right evil act. But added the caveat of “it’s only frequently done by evil characters” to make sure it doesn’t become the norm. I struggle to see why this is this controversial.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Interesting thread ... for varying definitions of interesting.

Three basic points.

1. Is animating the dead "evil" under 5e?

Yes. While I appreciate (to quote @TheSword ) the creative "jiggery pokery" that tries to read away multiple references in the base rules to reach a contrary conclusion, under the assumptions within 5e animating the dead is an evil act. Necromancy? Not good, Bob.


2. Why is animating the dead evil?

That's the question in the OP. I think a lot of people have answered this adequately. However, I'd state that it comes down to two primary forks for justifications- those based on the real world, and those based on the assumed game world. In the real world, most cultures have taboos about desecrating the dead, messing with the dead, and there is a long and rich cultural history and vein of stories of the perils of bringing people back to life. As a general rule, I think it's hard to find any positive examples of people who bring back corpses for their own use that are portrayed positively - not impossible, but for reasons of bodily integrity, taboo, consent, and so on ... necromancy is portrayed as evil for a reason.

Game reasons can be "create mindless automatons that will attack the living" and/or "something something negative plane" or whatever.


3. So what?

This is really there crux- if you really, really care about this issue, just discuss it at the table, and determine an appropriate way to handle it. Using rules as batons to knock each other about (or, just as bad if not worse, creatively reading rules to wish them away) does no good for anyone. If you want to play and justify a "good necromancer," then sell the concept. If you want to build a world that relies on happy undead toiling away for the good of humanity (ugh, but still) then make your world as the DM. Have fun - the game is supposed to be your servant, not the other way around.

 

[Seramus]

3. So what?

This is really there crux- if you really, really care about this issue, just discuss it at the table, and determine an appropriate way to handle it. Using rules as batons to knock each other about (or, just as bad if not worse, creatively reading rules to wish them away) does no good for anyone. If you want to play and justify a "good necromancer," then sell the concept. If you want to build a world that relies on happy undead toiling away for the good of humanity (ugh, but still) then make your world as the DM. Have fun - the game is supposed to be your servant, not the other way around.

Oh definitely! If I wanted to play a "Good Necromancer" that also animated dead frequently, I would go around doing all the good things in the world while still animating the dead (probably with permission from the deceased, or just dungeon monsters) and not care one iota what my alignment flag said. I might hope (as a player) that my good actions outweigh my bad actions, but the DM will do whatever they want to do and I'm going to roll with it.

Of course, if my animating undead is causing the party to be repeatedly attacked by townsfolk despite my best efforts to be a cool team player, that's an OOC conversation waiting to happen. Or one that should have already happened during Session Zero.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If that's what it takes, yes.

But what if the player doesn't care what it it says on their character sheet and goes on playing them as someone who believes they are doing the right thing? You talk like changing a character sheet is a punishment for playing "wrong", but it actually has no effect whatsoever.