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]

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.

You can apply that to every act. So according to your logic above, since I can choose LG and what my characters do, running around cutting down children, choking little old ladies to death to watch the light in their eyes fade, and burning strangers to death at random are not evil acts. Nothing in fact can ever be an evil act for my PC, since I have LG on my sheet. That's a load of horse hooey.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

This is just circular nonsense. I don't care about the idiotic alignment. I care whether the deed actually helps or harms people. And I argue that a good necromancer that use animate dead responsibly could help a lot of people, with a very low risk of causing any actual harm. Sure, it is somewhat risky tactic, but that doesn't make it evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

But the thing very clearly can happen, and the rule makes no provision for what to do if it does. If it said “only evil characters can cast necromancy spells frequently” (or “Druids can’t wear metal armor”) it would be a different story. As it is, it’s not a prohibition but a declarative statement that does nothing to prevent the counterfactual.

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.

True.

 

[Oofta]

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

For you, maybe. I find it a useful descriptor.

Also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can apply that to every act. So according to your logic above, since I can choose LG and what my characters do, running around cutting down children, choking little old ladies to death to watch the light in their eyes fade, and burning strangers to death at random are not evil acts. Nothing in fact can ever be an evil act for my PC, since I have LG on my sheet.

Yes, that is my argument. There are no rules which say otherwise. Though, your character will likely end up facing social consequences for such behavior - likely arrest and execution, or at least the warrant for such. Probably excommunication from any religious institution they’re a member of, etc. Also, I depending on your group, there’s a good chance this would violate the social contract and/or certain house rules, which could lead to real life social consequences, such as being asked to stop this behavior and possibly getting kicked out of the group if you refuse.

 

[Flamestrike]

That doesn’t tie it to an alignment, it specifies an alignment to which it is not tied: good.

No, it ISs tied to an alignment. It expressly precludes two alignments, and specifies one (ONLY Evil spell casters use animate dead frequently).

Sure they are. It says good right there on the character sheet, and they did the thing. Now what happens? The rules don’t say.

And that's where the DM steps in.

You're arguing an absurdity here. You're agreeing the prohibition exists (No Good spellcaster casts animate dead frequently), but then arguing that because the prohibition doesnt contain a penalty or specified consequence for breach, the prohibition doesnt really exist.

By analogy, imagine a player at your table with a (Diviner) Wizard gains enough XP to advance a level, and then takes a level in (Enchanter) Wizard.

You (the DM) point out to him he cant do that (the prohibition on multiclassing into the same class) and he (using your own logic) points out to you the lack of any prescribed penalty or consequences for doing it (there are not any consequences spelled out in the PHB) and just takes the levels anyway.

Because that's what you're arguing here. It's just as inane.

From the Rulebook: No Good creature uses animate dead frequently, and it is NOT a Good Act.

Ergo, logically, if you're playing a Good PC and you cast animate dead:

1) It is not a Good act,
2) You cannot cast it frequently, or if you do, you are not a Good PC.

How the DM chooses to enforce that prohibition (and what the consequences are), are entirely up to the DM.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes, that is my argument. There are no rules which say otherwise.

Yes there are. There is a rule that expressly states that animating the dead is NOT a Good Act and ONLY Evil creatures do so frequently.

I can cite the page in the rulebook where that is written if you want?

There is a rule, there is just no consequence for breaking the rule outlined.

That is left up to the DM to decide.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is just circular nonsense. I don't care about the idiotic alignment. I care whether the deed actually helps or harms people.

This, I think, is the point where agreement will never be reached. Ultimately what we’re really arguing about is deontology vs. consequentialism.

 

[Voadam]

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

A would imply B here. B is not logically a "must" here though.

A, being an absolute, can still have other possible explanations. Neutral and good casters could be magically incapable of casting animate dead enough times to become "frequently". If there are cosmic forces of Good and Evil then it is possible for cosmic Good to affect the universe to prevent the frequent casting of undead creation spells by all spellcasters, except those aligned with evil.

Druids may be magically incapable of choosing to put on metal armor (a magically binding geas type of situation). All the 5e rules say is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"

The page 5e PH Page 203 description of Necromancy says "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."

So we know it is not a good act. Only evil casters use it frequently.

Those are the only two facts from what is written. The rest is implication.

Also from the overall context of 5e this is a fairly weird place to put some of the only explicit hard alignment requirements.

It is similar to the language from the AD&D versions of animate dead, but weird to see in 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But the thing very clearly can happen, and the rule makes no provision for what to do if it does. If it said “only evil characters can cast necromancy spells frequently” (or “Druids can’t wear metal armor”) it would be a different story. As it is, it’s not a prohibition but a declarative statement that does nothing to prevent the counterfactual.

I'd argue it does. The situation simply is not allowed to occur if we interpret the rules literally. If the rule is "X won't do Y" then X doing Y is not a situation that is allowed to occur according to the rules. We don't have to answer what happens if X does Y, because the rule is that they don't! And yes, that is a terrible way to formulate a rule.

True.

I feel that instead of trying to zero on some legalistic RAW answer on whether something is evil or not under the incoherent and nonsensical alignment system, it is probably more helpful to consider how the thing would be judged by some vaguely sensible real moral standards.