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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, but we’re talking about a game with rules, one of which is a thing called alignment. Again, if there was a roleplaying game about politicians where one of the things you chose for your character was whether they were earnest, neutral, or corrupt, and a passage of the text said “only corrupt politicians lie frequently”, but no rule said that characters of the earnest and neutral alignments weren’t allowed to lie, or that lying caused a politician’s alignment to change to corrupt, the statement that only corrupt politicians lie frequently would be meaningless in the context of that game.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It would not prevent them from lying. It would make them dishonorable if they lied frequently, though, despite honorable being written on the sheet.

 

[Charlaquin]

It would not prevent them from lying. It would make them dishonorable if they lied frequently, though, despite honorable being written on the sheet.

But it doesn’t say that. The rules would need to specify that lying causes a character to become dishonorable.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Excellent. Then you agree with me as I have not said anything about "allowed to behave," so your Red Herring can be dropped.

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.

Um no. It's not a restriction unless the CANNOT perform the action. The DM being the one to decide doesn't restrain the PC's actions even an iota. The DM is the one that determine the objective good and evil of the game world. It will align with the player the vast majority of the time and is really irrelevant when it doesn't align. I mean, so what if you have LG on your sheet but are acting LN and the DM is having the universe respond as if you were LN, you still get to act however you want your PC to act.

It would prohibit you from having your character’s alignment reflect what you envisioned and chose for them

So here's an idea. If you envision your PC being good, don't run around being evil. If the alignment of your PCs actions no longer reflects good like you envisioned, you only have yourself to blame for being a right evil bastage.

 

[Maxperson]

But it doesn’t say that. The rules would need to specify that lying causes a character to become dishonorable.

It said it right here, "Only dishonorable people frequently lie." If you frequently lie and have honorable written down, you are dishonorable.

 

[Cadence]

Yes, but we’re talking about a game with rules, one of which is a thing called alignment. Again, if there was a roleplaying game about politicians where one of the things you chose for your character was whether they were earnest, neutral, or corrupt, and a passage of the text said “only corrupt politicians lie frequently”, but no rule said that characters of the earnest and neutral alignments weren’t allowed to lie, or that lying caused a politician’s alignment to change to corrupt, the statement that only corrupt politicians lie frequently would be meaningless in the context of that game.

Is "Only A does B" equivalent to "B implies A"?

 

[Charlaquin]

So here's an idea. If you envision your PC being good, don't run around being evil. If the alignment of your PCs actions no longer reflects good like you envisioned, you only have yourself to blame for being a right evil bastage.

The problem lies in when the person with the power to decide what counts as evil and the person with the power to decide what the character does, don’t agree.

 

[Cruentus]

But it doesn’t say that. The rules would need to specify that lying causes a character to become dishonorable.

What does that line on the character sheet mean? Where did it come from? Does the game have an Honor mechanic? Does the culture or civilization the character hails from (or adventures in) have an Honor Code? Honorable or Dishonorable on a character sheet has to have some kind of context.

If, in the context of that line on the character sheet, lying is considered by the character's starting or current cultural situation to be dishonorable, then Bob's your uncle.

Again, its all in the rules that are part of the game as discussed by the table, presented by the DM, and hashed out in session 0. Like @Maxperson said, anyone can act anyway they please, but there could be in-game repercussions that are not written down anywhere in the rulebooks.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem lies in when the person with the power to decide what counts as evil and the person with the power to decide what the character does, don’t agree.

Why? How does that prevent you from roleplaying your PC the way you want by even a little bit? It can't, so there isn't a problem. \

You're getting too hung up on the descriptive RP aid that is alignment. If alignment didn't exist, the world would still be treating your PC as an evil git no matter how you envisioned your PC, because your PC is acting evil. The player doesn't get to decide how the world responds to the players actions. The DM does, and that includes treating those actions as evil when the DM feels that they are evil.

 

[Cruentus]

The problem lies in when the person with the power to decide what counts as evil and the person with the power to decide what the character does, don’t agree.

Which should be hashed out before those people play together.