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.)

 

[Oofta]

Do most weapons have a good chance of falling into the wrong hands eventually? Are they not evil because it would be the wrong hands doing the act and they're just a tool? Does inventing AI have potential issues (is it inevitable that it will take over?).

Except it's more like using plutonium to power your weapon knowing that if the containment unit fails people will start dying of radiation sickness. Oh, and you (and only you) have to refresh the containment unit every 24 hours.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And you can guarantee that nothing will ever happen to interrupt that plan?

Can you guarantee that no nuclear plant will ever leak radiation, can you guarantee that no airplane will ever crash, can you guarantee that no vaccine will ever cause adverse effects?

 

[Charlaquin]

If ONLY evil beings create undead frequently, there must be evil attached to the act or that wouldn't be an absolute.

And because players decide what their characters alignments are and what their characters do, it cannot be absolute, ergo it must not be an evil act.

Yes. ONLY evil. As in no one BUT evil. It is not demonstrably untrue when it comes to PCs,

It is. A good PC can do it. They just can, nothing stops them.

since we know from that statement that there is evil attached to the casting or it wouldn't be true.

Ergo it must not be true, since a good PC can do it.

Also, it's a False Equivalence to compare the druid choice not to wear armor to a spell that must have evil attached to it.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. Both are declarative statements about what characters will do, with no actual prohibition against characters doing it. Druids “won’t” wear metal armor, but what happens if a druid PC does? Absolutely nothing. Only evil creatures cast necromancy spells frequently, but what happens if a good or neutral PC does? Again, absolutely nothing. Therefore, it cannot be an inherently evil act.

 

[Charlaquin]

You don't need alignment to do it, either.

Indeed, I don’t, that is my position.

Alignment gets blamed for a lot of things that really don't have anything to do with alignment.

I’m not blaming alignment for anything, I’m just pointing out that it serves no purpose any more.

 

[Charlaquin]

Like the guy that plays the untrustworthy a-hole that steals from the party and then blames it on his character being CN? It's not a problem with alignment buddy, it's you.

Right, take alignment away and the underlying behavior is the same. Alignment isn’t “to blame,” it’s just useless.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you guarantee that no nuclear plant will ever leak radiation, can you guarantee that no airplane will ever crash, can you guarantee that no vaccine will ever cause adverse effects?

And that question proves my point. No plan is guaranteed, but unlike undead, nuclear power plants and vaccines are not inherently evil murder machines that desire to do evil things. Only one of those three things is an evil act, because only one adds evil to the world.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m not blaming alignment for anything, I’m just pointing out that it serves no purpose any more.

You can only say that for you, though. You don't get to declare for all of us for whom it still does in fact, and it is a fact, serve a purpose that it no longer does. When you apply it to others like you are in the bold above, you are wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

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?

I have zero problem with that. I often play Evil PCs who think they're good people (but really are not).

As I've repeatedly said, most Evil people think they're Good people. In fact nearly all of them do. Right up to (and including) Hitler.

There is no change to how the player portrays that PC. Other than a few in game effects (the damage dealt by their spirit guardians spell, the effects a Unicorns lair has on them, becoming a Blackguard etc) and the metaphysical effects (they wind up in Hell and not Heaven on death etc) it's not relevant to much in game.

You want to play a Necromancer who think's he's a 'Good guy'. Go crazy, but you're not really a Good guy; you're Evil. You go to Hell on death, and your Spirit Guardians damage is necrotic.

 

[Charlaquin]

can you guarantee that no vaccine will ever cause adverse effects?

The adverse effects of any vaccine that passes the approval procedures are less severe than the adverse effects of the disease they protect against. A properly tested vaccine is always, always a net positive, otherwise it wouldn’t get approval.

I agree with your general point, but for this specific example I think it’s important to emphasize the efficacy of vaccines given the tide of undue hesitancy surrounding them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s not a false equivalence at all. Both are declarative statements about what characters will do, with no actual prohibition against characters doing it. Druids “won’t” wear metal armor, but what happens if a druid PC does? Absolutely nothing. Only evil creatures cast necromancy spells frequently, but what happens if a good or neutral PC does? Again, absolutely nothing. Therefore, it cannot be an inherently evil act.

I actually have to disagree with you here. If the rules say something won't happen, then it happening is not a state allowed by the rules. Does it make sense? Not really, but rules don't need to make sense, it's just preferable that they would. Also, unlike with the druid armour where the action that won't happen is at least clearly defined, 'frequent' use of a spell is super nebulous, so I have hard time seeing how such a rule could be coherently enforced. Furthermore, as the alignment doesn't actually do anything, it is immaterial what someone's' alignment is.