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.)

 

[Flamestrike]

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

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

He's arguing that:

1) Even though the prohibition exists (Not a good act, and ONLY evil PCs do it regularly)
2) Because there is no specified penalty for 'what if a Player just does it anyway, in contravention of their alignment'
3) It's a rule that can be ignored.

He'd be in for a rude shock at my table with that logic.

Or maybe in his campaigns I'll use his logic against him, and roll 50d6 for each of my stats, because there is no penalty prescribed for when a Player just ignores the written rules on stat generation either.

 

[Flamestrike]

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 we have a DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, that is my argument.

And it's why the argument fails. It's clearly a nonsense position, since a LG person cannot run around doing the things I said and remain LG.

There are no rules which say otherwise.

Depends on if you view what the alignments say as rules. They don't say much in 5e, but LG clearly does not allow you to run around doing the things I stated, while the evil alignments clearly encompass those acts. Alignment is descriptive of how your character acts. It's an aid to RP, not a constraint. So if you write one alignment on your sheet and run around constantly acting like another alignment, it's that latter alignment that your character is.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Yep.

So a PC that casts animate dead, is not doing a Good act each time he does it, and if he does so frequently he is (or will become) an Evilly aligned PC (or NPC in heroic only games) because he has chosen to do acts that ONLY evil creatures can do.

1st time, he gets reminded of the above rule. And advised that (in game) as he casts the spell, he is nearly overwhelmed by the evil unholy magic he channels, feeling it twist and warp his soul.

He keeps doing it and his alignment changes to Evil, along with whatever consequences come with that change.

It's no different to if he started to engage in murder, torture or rape. I dont care what alignment is written on his character sheet, he's Evil, and his spirit guardians deal necrotic damage now, he gets no special benefit in a Unicorns Lair, he can take the Oath of the Blackguard (and he goes to Hell on death).

Presuming evil PCs are allowed, he can keep the (deluded and evil) PC going, but in a heroic 'Good PCs only' campaign, his PC becomes a NPC villain, and he can roll up a new one, or find another table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I say let's overthrow these jerk gods and their idiotic alignment-based moral system that would punish people with hell for saving innocent kittens by using some relatively safe black magic!

 

[Cruentus]

Fortunately, for the folks I play with and DM for, we all have set out what a setting's social norms are, or what is acceptable and unacceptable as it pertains to magic, most often including enchantment/charm, and necromancy. So what the rulebook says as RAW doesn't mean a thing and isn't really worth the paper its printed on.

If you tried to play DnD 5e exactly according to the RAW, I daresay it wouldn't be a particularly fun experience.

And I'd argue that arguing 5e RAW actually goes against the whole "Rulings not Rules" as posited by the developers. If DnD is about rulings, then what the book says about necromancy being "not good" or alignment mattering (or not) is left up to rulings (and the DM, and session zero, etc.). Arguing anything else is arguing just for the sake of it, particularly when the end result isn't going to change anything for anyone.

The OP asked why, was answered with both sides of the equation in the first couple pages, and then it has devolved into 20 pages of yu-huh, and nuh-uh.

And having just finished playing a Necromancer who tried to toe the "good" line AND use necromancy, yeah, it didn't work real well. I could try to rationalize it any way I wanted, but using it made everyone around me uncomfortable (the party didn't care), but I also had to be very careful where and when I did, because the NPC's certainly would have taken exception. And that went so far as trying to use magic to raise dead or resurrect someone, NPCs reacted negatively to even the suggestion of it.

 

[Voadam]

Depends on if you view what the alignments say as rules. They don't say much in 5e, but LG clearly does not allow you to run around doing the things I stated, while the evil alignments clearly encompass those acts. Alignment is descriptive of how your character acts. It's an aid to RP, not a constraint. So if you write one alignment on your sheet and run around constantly acting like another alignment, it's that latter alignment that your character is.

5e says very little on complying with alignment or changing it after character creation.

It says as part of character creation to pick an alignment and personality traits and ideals and bonds and flaws each of which has narrative descriptions. This is in Step by Step Characters, Step 4 Describe your character on page 13 of the PH.

I don't see much of anything discussing changing any of these after character creation.

What happens if you play your character in contravention of the alignment, ideals, bonds, flaws, mental stats, etc. on the character sheet is not really addressed in 5e.

Prior editions had explicit discussions about changing a PC's alignment based on roleplay portrayal over time and had some class consequences for specific aligned actions or alignment changes.

5e does not.

 

[Dausuul]

There are two related concepts of alignment at work in D&D, which one could call "moral alignment" and "cosmic alignment." Moral alignment is based on evaluating the moral value of a PC's actions--whether they do things which we ourselves would consider good or bad, right or wrong. Cosmic alignment is based on an association of certain acts and objects with the powers of the upper or lower planes. If a warlock with the Fiend patron uses their powers to save an innocent person, the "moral alignment" of that action is good--the warlock is doing the right thing--but the "cosmic alignment" is evil, since the warlock's power comes from a devil or demon.

D&D tends to muddle up these concepts. But that's no excuse for us doing the same. This here:

1st time, he gets reminded of the above rule. And advised that (in game) as he casts the spell, he is nearly overwhelmed by the evil unholy magic he channels, feeling it twist and warp his soul.

That's "cosmic alignment" evil, not moral. You are not describing a morally wrong consequence of creating an undead creature; instead, you are describing an outside force that the PC has exposed themselves to.

But this:

It's no different to if he started to engage in murder, torture or rape.

That's "moral alignment" evil. And it is quite different.

Any table which allows a Fiend patron warlock is just fine with PCs using powers of cosmic evil. But many such tables would have a real problem with the same PCs engaging in moral evil.

 

[Voadam]

Yep.

So a PC that casts animate dead, is not doing a Good act each time he does it, and if he does so frequently he is (or will become) an Evilly aligned PC (or NPC in heroic only games) because he has chosen to do acts that ONLY evil creatures can do.

1st time, he gets reminded of the above rule. And advised that (in game) as he casts the spell, he is nearly overwhelmed by the evil unholy magic he channels, feeling it twist and warp his soul.

He keeps doing it and his alignment changes to Evil, along with whatever consequences come with that change.

That's one way to do it.

Another would be he casts it successfully multiple times then hits a barrier and cannot cast it because he is not evil and only evil spellcasters cast it frequently.

Both are ways to run it and be consistent with RAW.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Why have I never heard of this before Moral and Cosmic Alignment? This is all good roleplaying content for in-game action justification and for a rigorous debate in religious philosophy. Thanks @Dausuul!