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

Except the hypothetical rule doesn’t say the bolded part.

 

[Maxperson]

Which should be hashed out before those people play together.

No. There's no reasonable way to hash out every possible act and what those acts are alignment wise. The game is based on western morals(read judeo-christian), so unless it's being played by people outside of that sphere, the actions are going to align(hur hur!) between player and DM the vast majority of the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Only A does B implies that one who does B is A. However, in the context of a roleplay game where players can choose for their characters to be A, X, or N, and no rules exist saying that an X or N character who does B becomes an A character, the statement that only A does B is factually inaccurate.

 

[Maxperson]

Only A does B implies that one who does B is A. However, in the context of a roleplay game where players can choose for their characters to be A, X, or N, and no rules exist saying that an X or N character who does B becomes an A character, the statement that only A does B is factually inaccurate.

Not in a game where there (A) isn't a rule for everything, (B) is designed for there not to be a rule for everything and the DM decides, and (C) is implies so very strongly that you have to do mental gymnastics to avoid seeing it.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Except since this is an analogy for alignment in 5e, no, it doesn’t. Alignment in 5e has no meaning or context. No rules dictate what a character of any given alignment can or can’t do, or provide any consequence for a character of any given alignment taking any given action. It’s literally a meaningless two words or letters written on a piece of paper that affects nothing.

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.

In other words, house rules. Yes, I agree that a DM can make house rules about alignment and what happens if characters of a given alignment perform certain actions.

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.

Certainly, which would fall under “certain characters might consider it evil and act accordingly.” I’m not saying in-game actions don’t have in-game consequences, I’m saying it isn’t inherently evil to cast necromancy spells.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I'd say Occam's Razor probably suggests that instead of adding in a DM oversight and changing a PC's alignment mechanic that the DM just does not sweat tracking a PC's roleplayed alignment to the one on their sheet.

D&D has cosmic alignment forces and some optional mechanics for alignments and aligned outer planes.

In 3e it was cut and dried, animate dead had the [Evil] descriptor and a good cleric or a cleric of a good god simply could not cast the spell. A good wizard could, though even if done for good purposes and ends it would detect as supernatural evil. This was because of the cosmic alignment forces of good and evil and different supernatural interactions with those forces.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It’s point of view:

if you make zombie workers, the corporations are going to love the cheap labour and hail you a saint. Meanwhile, the union is going to call you evil for stealing jobs and tell you you have sold your soul to Corporate greed.

The insurance companies will think you are good because the outcries of public safety will allow them to increase their rates but, if you have good health and safety protocols, they’ll never have to pay out. To them, you are good because worker insurance claims will have plummeted.

meanwhile government officials running for office will call you evil because they need a scapegoat and you’re an easy target because they can blame rising unemployment rates on you when, in reality, it is due to their own mismanagement of the economy.

 

[Charlaquin]

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. \

Then WHY IS IT THERE???

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.

Exactly, so characters in the game world who consider necromancy evil will act accordingly when they learn your character is a necromancer. This is true regardless of whether alignment exists as a rule of the game, and does not make necromancy inherently 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.

Right, all fine and good. The world will behave as the DM determines in response to the character’s actions. That, in and ove itself doesn’t make an action inherently evil or good. For an action to be inherently evil or good, it would need to have an impact on some objective measure of the character’s morality, which would in turn need to have rules governing how it functioned.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which should be hashed out before those people play together.

Indeed it should.

 

[Charlaquin]

No. There's no reasonable way to hash out every possible act and what those acts are alignment wise. The game is based on western morals(read judeo-christian), so unless it's being played by people outside of that sphere, the actions are going to align(hur hur!) between player and DM the vast majority of the time.

Not at all. “Western Morals (TM)” are not a single coherent set of rules, and “Westerners (TM)” disagree about them ALL THE TIME. Even if you specify Judeo-Christian morals, there are countless denominations of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam precisely because the followers of those belief systems frequently disagree with each other on interpretations of those moral systems.