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.)

 

[clearstream]

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.)

Raise Dead and Resurrection can't return undead to life. So animate dead makes dead friends far more problematic to bring back to life. That might earn some antipathy.

 

[Cadence]

Only A does B implies that one who does B is A.

Right. The rules says that regularly animating the dead -> evil character. But...

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.

Is the rule on picking alignment a more general rule than the specific rule on alignment and animating the dead? Does specific beat general?

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.

Does it judge whether the player is honestly attempting to follow the rules in this one particular case? This doesn't seem to me like the player arguing the morality of A with the DM or another player. In this case isn't it the actual rules that say "A=regularly animating the dead" is "B=only done by evil characters"? Once the judgement is made, it doesn't require any action on the part of the player or the DM. But neither do many (most?) other judgements in social circumstances.

There is, for example, a thread where some have said they don't care if players fudge die rolls or bonuses (in character creation or combat or other areas of play). Is there anything in the rules that requires the DM to act, or specifically empowers them to demand a reroll of the dice or a retabulation? (Does the DMG do anything beyond suggesting DMs ask players who scoop the dice before anyone else sees them to be less secretive?).

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.

Correct, the rules don't say casting necromancy spells is evil. It says regularly animating the dead is only done by those who 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.

There is a rule in this case though that objectively measures things. It says that only an evil character would regularly animate the dead. The rules are judging the character in this particular circumstance regardless of what the character has on their sheet.

And, in 5e it really doesn't matter I guess as far as the play. (Unless you're playing the Goodman B2 module and run into the clerics of chaos and the medallions they have... in which case it actually helps to not be good).

 

[Lanefan]

To inform the DM how such magic is generally perceived and used.

Also to inform the players. If it was only to inform the DM it'd be in the DMG, not in the spell write-up.

As meaningless a statement as “Druids won’t wear metal armor.” No information is given on what happens if a good character does use it frequently, which is something the players can easily make happen if they wish.

And here is where the DMG is clearly lacking, as info/rules/guidelines on what happens in these cases should be in there for the DM to use as she sees fit.

An obvious example for Druids: wearing metal armour denies spellcasting ability unti the armour is removed.

 

[Lanefan]

This thread has really made me want to play a good necromancer!

I have a player who has been trying for this for years. Necromancers in my game cannot be Good, but she keeps trying anyway and has built her PC's whole back-story around it. Someday these efforts might bear fruit...or not...we'll see...

 

[Lanefan]

This discussion really is saying the quiet part loud on alignment and its use as a social bludgeon.

Even with no mechanical consequence, for some it is still necessary to us the social weight of labels to express Judgement against a player who does not conform to the DMs ideals.

"You want to be a necromancer? Then I Pronounce You Evil in Mine Sight. Take This Brand Feel Shame For Not Sharing My Values."

Not quite.

It's an in-game bludgeon, sure; if a character is doing these things in an in-game society that is known to frown on such (which would probably be most of them) then there could be in-game consequences. I can't see how this could be controversial in any way.

But out-of-game the DM might have no problem at all with what the player has the PC doing: it's your character, play it as you will, and I'll have the setting react as its established patterns suggest it would. Now sure, those setting reactions might well be based (to whatever extent) on the DM's own views; but as long as it's consistent with itself that's still fine, as establishing the setting is under the DM's purview.

 

[Voadam]

Also to inform the players. If it was only to inform the DM it'd be in the DMG, not in the spell write-up.

In 5e it is not in the spell write up. It is only in an aside on describing the school of necromancy generally in the sidebar on the schools of magic.

The most descriptive the spell gets is to say "Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature."

Interestingly the sidebar also starts off by saying "The schools of magic help describe spells; they have no rules of their own, although some rules refer to the schools." So one could take that as the necromancy school description that "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." is simply narrative and not actually a rule. Or you could interpret schools not having their own rules as meaning something different.

It is not the tightest of technical writing.

 

[Lanefan]

There isn’t a reason they need to, and a group is free to break that assumption if it suits their needs. Like I said, I’d be willing to talk to a player to figure out how their hovering character concept would work.

I'd first remind the player that wind exists in the game world, and that a hovering character might need to add "anchor" to its equipment list or risk being more-or-less-gently blown away on anything other than a calm day...

 

[Lanefan]

Can you guarantee that no nuclear plant will ever leak radiation, can you guarantee that no airplane will ever crash, can you guarantee that no vaccine will ever cause adverse effects?

It's a question of percentages and odds; and the odds of any of those happening are, I think, rather massively lower than the odds of Necromancers losing control of their undead.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Kind of similar with druids who wear metal armour.

Really very similar.

Both are a piece of flotsam flavor text designed to appeal to an older, D&D orthodox audience that ultimately means nothing and serves no one.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not quite.

It's an in-game bludgeon, sure; if a character is doing these things in an in-game society that is known to frown on such (which would probably be most of them) then there could be in-game consequences. I can't see how this could be controversial in any way.

But out-of-game the DM might have no problem at all with what the player has the PC doing: it's your character, play it as you will, and I'll have the setting react as its established patterns suggest it would. Now sure, those setting reactions might well be based (to whatever extent) on the DM's own views; but as long as it's consistent with itself that's still fine, as establishing the setting is under the DM's purview.

Except the actual think people are doing here is going, "I'll say neener neener, your character is evil! And they'll be sad and I'll be smug and it'll be great!"