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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yes, exactly!


Also, if those child murderers would want to lessen the evil in the world, the easiest way to do so would be to jump off a cliff.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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

That is left up to the DM to decide.

Kind of similar with druids who wear metal armour.

 

[Cadence]

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?

Say the code or rules or whatnot someone claims to follow says "It isn't honorable to lie. Only dishonorable people frequently lie." If someone frequently lies, what do we know about them if the quoted sentence is true?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Says what rule?

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.

If it’s not a constraint then it can’t prevent a good character from doing things like rape and murder and cast animate dead. You can’t eat your cake and have it too, either it restricts the character’s actions or it doesn’t.

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.

If that’s the way you run it, then it absolutely is a restraint. That’s not what the rules actually say though.

 

[Charlaquin]

Kind of similar with druids who wear metal armour.

Exactly. And what sage advice says about that is it’s intended as a general statement about the world, not a hard restriction on PCs’ actions. If a player wants their druid character to wear metal armor, they can unless the DM rules otherwise. Likewise, the statement that only evil characters frequently cast necromancy spells is a general statement about the world, not a hard restriction on PCs’ actions. If a player wants their non-evil character to cast necromancy spells frequently, they can unless the DM rules otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

Says what rule?

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

If you are typically behaving in a way that is described under a different alignment, that's your alignment. Alignment is descriptive of the PCs typical actions.

If it’s not a constraint then it can’t prevent a good character from doing things like rape and murder and cast animate dead. You can’t eat your cake and have it too, either it restricts the character’s actions or it doesn’t.

It doesn't prevent anything, but those are evil acts and do enough of them and you are evil. And nothing I have said restricts any actions. Act how you want. Those actions determine your alignment.

If that’s the way you run it, then it absolutely is a restraint. That’s not what the rules actually say though.

Show me one thing I said here about alignment that would prohibit your from engaging in an act. Just one thing. Any restraint at all on an action.

 

[Charlaquin]

Say the code or rules or whatnot someone claims to follow says "It isn't honorable to lie. Only dishonorable people frequently lie." If someone frequently lies, what do we know about them if the quoted sentence is true?

Whether or not the quoted sentence is true is what’s in dispute though. Now, if there was a slot on the character sheet where players wrote whether their character was honorable or dishonorable, and the choice was up to the player to make, this statement would not prevent a player who had chosen to write “honorable” on their character sheet from lying.

That would, of course, be a pretty useless feature of the character sheet, in the absence of some rule saying honorable characters can’t lie, or better yet, “an honorable character who lies becomes dishonorable.” Take from that what you will about alignment.

 

[Seramus]

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!

To be fair, the alignment system is determined by forces way over the paygrade of greater gods. Even above AO. I don't know who you would punch to change it In-Game. Probably have to go to Sigil and break everything like Die, Vecna! Die!

 

[Cadence]

Whether or not the quoted sentence is true is what’s in dispute though. Now, if there was a slot on the character sheet where players wrote whether their character was honorable or dishonorable, and the choice was up to the player to make, this statement would not prevent a player who had chosen to write “honorable

It feels to me like it would prevent what they wrote from being true. Lots of politicians self describe in many ways, for example, even if the description doesn't seem to apply by any common definition. The fact that they describe themselves in a certain way doesn't make it true, even if there is nothing to stop them from continuing to describe themselves that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Brief summaries of typical behavior. Not rules about how the character is allowed to behave.

If you are typically behaving in a way that is described under a different alignment, that's your alignment. Alignment is descriptive of the PCs typical actions.

And who makes the judgment about which description best fits a character’s typical actions? If not the player themselves, then it is indeed a restriction.

It doesn't prevent anything, but those are evil acts and do enough of them and you are evil. And nothing I have said restricts any actions. Act how you want. Those actions determine your alignment.
Show me one thing I said here about alignment that would prohibit your from engaging in an act. Just one thing. Any restraint at all on an action.

It would prohibit you from having your character’s alignment reflect what you envisioned and chose for them, if the DM deems the way you play your character to be more like their interpretation of a different description.