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]

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.

It doesn't have a mechanism for changing alignments, but it does have a blurb about what each alignment represents. If you write down LG on your sheet, but run around acting with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust, you are CE regardless of what you wrote down. I don't need to enforce any chance since alignment is descriptive and nor proscriptive. Your PC's actions determine his alignment.

What a player writes down on the sheet is a declaration to the DM of how he intends to roleplay the PC. He is not limited by that description, but if he deviates to the point where his actions consistently describe another alignment, that new alignment is the alignment of the PC.

"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't see anything in the game that even begins to touch on the gods or cosmic good of the universe preventing casters from using those spells too frequently. I do see alignment and evil acts, though. Occam's Razor would support the casting of those spells being evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

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:

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:

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.

Agreed to an extent but I consider them to be related concepts.

In game, there is very little difference. A creature that dies with an Evil alignment (regardless of due to it being a Cosmic evil, or a Moral one) adds his soul to the tally of the forces of Evil (goes to a Negative Outer Plane).

In the grand scheme of things, there isnt any difference 'in game'. The forces of Evil gain 1 soul. The forces of Good lose 1 soul.

Of course, there is a difference to the players at the table, where selling souls and animating the dead and trucking with Demons is 'meh' but torture, murder and to a far greater degree rape are frowned upon (usually).

When it comes to animating the dead, I always frame it in the following way to players.

You're:

1) Using 'foul, dark, unholy, black magic' (think Dark Side, Star Wars) to,
2) Channel an evil monstrous spirit into,
3) The corpse of a dead person, defiling that corpse, and the dignity of the deceased,
4) To create a horrific undead monster, that would happily eat babies if you lost control of it (a possibility).

Regardless of your intentions (and the path to Hell is lined with good intentions), this is not a Good act, and only Evil creatures do so with any regularity.

End of story.

Unless there is a social contract at the table, whereby we want to explore a heroic (but misguided) PCs fall to evil, or it's a non heroic game (all alignments welcome) there will be an additional warning that the PC is in the red zone for an alignment change, and possible loss of PC (presuming a heroic campaign) or other consequences, including an alignment change and everything that goes with that.

Of course, if I have a player whining about an alignment change for doing something ONLY evil creatures do, we likely have a bigger problem on our hands, and a player that would likely be better off playing elsewhere.

 

[lingual]

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

Yes.

No rule says they are.

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.

If DM that way, then no one here's gonna complain.

Personally, I wouldn't want a huge rule book in a role playing game. I think those things are better left to DM freedom. Even the rules for Animate Dead can be cumbersome. For example, there would have to be huge list of context and circumstances.

Does a character that was raised by necromancers know it's inherently evil?

Is the character casting the spell to save money on house repairs? Or to save a life? The character's background and the present circumstances would all have to come in to play and you have flowcharts and matrices, etc. I don't think the general playing population wants that

 

[lingual]

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).


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 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.


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.



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.


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?

I'm waiting for the arguments on what "frequently" entails. Maybe 5E just doesn't provide enough rules guidance to fit everyone's tastes.

 

[lingual]

This whole thread is interesting and the morally ambiguous nature of these things can enhance the game.

My Neutral half orc rogue had no moral problems taking and using a "night whistle" which allows her to cast Animate Dead.

The Good mage and priest didn't want to touch that thing since their characters considered it evil.

Likewise, the Good characters wanted to slaughter the goblin kids to prevent the spread of evil and had no moral quandaries about it. My half orc rogue considers killing the goblin kids evil and abhorrent. It leads to some interesting in-character interactions. Who is actually evil or good here? No one? Everyone?

Having a rules and mechanics behind such things can take away some of this interesting (at least for me) rp.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When it comes to animating the dead, I always frame it in the following way to players.

You're:

1) Using 'foul, dark, unholy, black magic' (think Dark Side, Star Wars) to,
2) Channel an evil monstrous spirit into,
3) The corpse of a dead person, defiling that corpse, and the dignity of the deceased,
4) To create a horrific undead monster, that would happily eat babies if you lost control of it (a possibility).

And then we use that monster to save a lot of innocent lives, and not having to risk actual living people in dangerous situations.

Regardless of your intentions (and the path to Hell is lined with good intentions), this is not a Good act, and only Evil creatures do so with any regularity.

So a person is willing to endanger their soul to help some innocent people and kittens, whilst some moralising jerk paladin would rather play it safe and let those people and kittens to die in order to not anger some despotic gods. I think it's pretty clear who's actually the hero here.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Saying something is not good doesn’t necessarily mean it’s evil. It’s not a good act, I agree.

And that's where the DM steps in.

Great! But that’s the DM setting rules for their table, not a general rule of the game.

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.

I am not agreeing the prohibition exists. If I say “only birds fly,” I am not prohibiting bugs from flying, I’m just making a factually inaccurate statement. If I were to say “only birds can fly,” that might be interpreted as a prohibition against non-birds flying, though without anything to back it up, it isn’t a very effective one.

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.

Except the rules for multiclassing don’t allow that.

With this rule, you have the option of gaining a level in a new class whenever you advance in level, instead of gaining a level in your current class.

(emphasis added)

D&D’s exceptions-based rules tell you what you can do, not what you can’t do, so there’s no need for a rule saying you can’t multiclass with your current class. It’s sufficient that there’s no rule saying you can.

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

It’s not even remotely the same thing.

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.

But here’s the thing. I can choose to play a good character. I can choose to cast whatever spells I want, whenever I want. Ergo, I can play a good character who casts necromancy spells frequently. Ergo, the statement that only evil characters do cast them frequently can’t be true of PCs. If it said only evil characters can cast them frequently, or it said characters who cast them frequently have their alignment changed to evil, then either of those would be prohibitions.

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

Then the DM’s only option to enforce it is to go outside the written rules. Which is fine and valid, but the question was why animate dead is inherently evil, not if DMs could use fiat to mess with PCs who cast animate dead.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

But, again, it doesn’t say good and neutral characters can’t cast those spells frequently. It says only evil characters do. Well, my good character did, now what happens?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

She or they, and no that’s not what I’m arguing.