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.)

 

[Lanefan]

It is not equivalent to that at all.

“Only birds fly.” Do insects now become birds if they fly?

"Only birds fly" is not a true statement, as other things can fly.

"Only evil characters frequently cast Animate Dead", however, is a true statement within the setting; in that non-evil characters casting it frequently will, by so doing, cause themselves to become evil if they are not already. The statement in effect makes itself true.

 

[Charlaquin]

At no one specific point, but slowly as an ongoing process of alignment drift as the pattern of evil spell use develops and continues.

I mean, that’s great in theory, but in actual practice, since alignment is nine distinct categories instead of a spectrum (mechanically, anyway), there must come a point at which the character’s alignment changes from one to another.

This is a problem with the 5e rules in that this "silence" is in fact a rather big hole in those rules; and not one a DM is likely to think to fill in session 0 or by houserule until-unless it comes up in play, at which point it's already too late.

Right, I agree. If alignment is going to exist, it needs proper rules governing how these things work. Leaving it up to the DM to ad-hoc is a formula for friction at the table.

In your example above, certainly if the DM is running any modules that feature aligned places or items etc. then your character (or others) might notice those things are reacting to your PC (or vice-versa) differently than they once might have.

Yeah, I think in a game with alignment, this is the best way to handle it.

Why have the rule/guideline at all if it's not to be enforced? Seems that Sage Advice, once again, isn't.

Exactly my point.

I disagree: knowing the violator's intention (or whether there's intent at all) is often the most important thing when it comes to how to or even if to enforce a rule.

Yeah, I’m a consequentialist, so we aren’t going to agree on this matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Only birds fly" is not a true statement, as other things can fly.

Yes, and I am arguing that, in D&D 5e, “only evil characters cast animate dead frequently” is also not a true statement.

"Only evil characters frequently cast Animate Dead", however, is a true statement within the setting; in that non-evil characters casting it frequently will, by so doing, cause themselves to become evil if they are not already. The statement in effect makes itself true.

It may be true of NPCs in the setting, but in the absence of rules laying out what happens to a non-evil PC who casts animate dead frequently, for it to be true of PCs would constitute a violation of player agency.

If it said characters who frequently cast animate dead become evil, that would be a different matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This isn’t really a case of specific conflicting with general. Let’s say I’m playing in a game you’re DMing (and assume you are using alignment in this game). I decide to play a neutral good wizard, and I take Animate Dead as one of my spells. Taking Animate Dead doesn’t constitute using it frequently, so I’m sure we can at least agree that wouldn’t make my character evil. Now suppose, during the course of play, a situation comes up where I think it’s necessary and appropriate for my character to cast Animate Dead. Again, I’m not exactly doing it frequently, it was just the once, so my character is allowed to stay Neutral Good, right? Now let’s suppose this happens several more times. Perhaps to the point where it can reasonably be said that my character casts it frequently.

If we accept the text in necromancy description to be a rule, then this is not a situation that is allowed to happen under the strict reading of the rules. Then again, the rules also say that descriptions of the schools are not rules, so it is not a rule according to the rules...

We can do a similar thought experiment on a druid character who ends up in a situation where they feel it’s necessary and appropriate to wear metal armor.

Then they won't wear it if we follow the rules. There is no 'what if they do' like there is no 'what if I add my proficiency bonus to damage instead of strength modifier.' It simply is not a state allowed to by the rules.

And in that case, we actually have precedent in Sage Advice for what happens: nothing, really. Someone makes a joke about the character exploding, and there are no actual consequences, short of the DM making a house rule to cover the situation.

Sage Advice doesn't say that. It merely explains why the rule exists.


Now I fully agree that both of these instances are terribly worded rules, but at least in the druid case there is no much ambiguity about what wearing metal armour means, whilst what constitutes a frequent use of a spell is a pure judgement call. But then again the rules say that it is not a rule, so it's not really a problem.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, that’s great in theory, but in actual practice, since alignment is nine distinct categories instead of a spectrum (mechanically, anyway), there must come a point at which the character’s alignment changes from one to another.

Perhaps, but I've always seen it as more spectral and - dare I say - organic. A NG character, for example, who is a shining beacon of Goodliness is probably going to be affected by Evil things more noticeably than a NG character who is barely above the pure N line.

In practice this means we often describe alignments using big and small letters; the two characters above would be NG and Ng respectively. Or brackets. For example a character who's just a little bit Chaotic and a little bit Good but not far off pure Neutral might show as N(cg) or cg{n}. (had to edit in the funny brackets as it took the first try to be an emoji)

Right, I agree. If alignment is going to exist, it needs proper rules governing how these things work. Leaving it up to the DM to ad-hoc is a formula for friction at the table.

And those rules don't have to be exhaustive - hell, it'd fill three books if they were. Just some very basic guidelines in the PH (so every one gets the same info) would be a great start.

Yeah, I’m a consequentialist, so we aren’t going to agree on this matter.

Er...OK...whatever that is...

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, and I am arguing that, in D&D 5e, “only evil characters cast animate dead frequently” is also not a true statement.

If it said characters who frequently cast animate dead become evil, that would be a different matter.

In my view the first bolded statement implies the second bolded statement strongly enough that it doesn't need any further explanation.

Clearly you read it differently.

Welcome to 5e's attempt to emulate 1e, where such differing interpretations were/are a common thing.

 

[Seramus]

Let’s say I’m playing in a game you’re DMing (and assume you are using alignment in this game). I decide to play a neutral good wizard, and I take Animate Dead as one of my spells. Taking Animate Dead doesn’t constitute using it frequently, so I’m sure we can at least agree that wouldn’t make my character evil. Now suppose, during the course of play, a situation comes up where I think it’s necessary and appropriate for my character to cast Animate Dead. Again, I’m not exactly doing it frequently, it was just the once, so my character is allowed to stay Neutral Good, right? Now let’s suppose this happens several more times. Perhaps to the point where it can reasonably be said that my character casts it frequently. What actually happens as a result? Does my character’s alignment change? At what point does the change happen? How does this change of alignment actually impact my character and gameplay? The rules are entirely silent on this matter. At this point, my Neutral Good character can be said to have cast Animate Dead frequently, so it can’t really be true that in all cases, characters who frequently cast Animate Dead are evil.

In a REAL game (assuming alignment is being used for the hypothetical) I would probably treat it like a video game.
1 Step towards Evil for casting Animate Dead.
4 Steps towards Good for saving a bunch of children and denying payment.
2 Steps towards Chaotic for breaking into a home, regardless of suspicion of guilt.
1 Step towards Evil for casting Animate Dead.
3 Step towards Lawful for reporting your evidence of crime (from the home) to the authorities, and cooperating with them.
1 Step towards Evil for casting Animate Dead.

That kind of mental tallying. It could definitely end up with a predominantly good character who casts Animate Dead a lot, but it would make the process a lot harder to achieve/maintain depending on frequency of casting.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, the more I read this thread the more I think 5e could really have done with some tighter wording around all this. Either that, or flat-out state in that sidebar that it's up to the DM to determine consequences, if any, for Good characters who cast certain Necromantic spells.

They made the conscious decision to write in a less technically defined style for 5e and to leave a lot up to DM adjudication. This writing style can leave a lot of ambiguity about exactly what they are talking about and even whether something is a rule or an option or flavor text that can vary in different campaigns.

In my opinion the rules should shoot for unambiguity and what is generally left open to doing differently table to table should be clear as well so those types of decisions can be consciously made.

 

[cbwjm]

Animating the dead is probably one of the perfect spells for differentiating cultures. A fantasy Egypt might be fine with it, having the honoured dead protect the dead king in his tomb. Anywhere else where the dead are laid to rest and disturbing the remains is seen as desecration are going to treat any necromancers as evil twisted spellcasters. I also think that it's likely that they will be evil or at least morally grey if they've grown up in that culture.

 

[Charlaquin]

If we accept the text in necromancy description to be a rule, then this is not a situation that is allowed to happen under the strict reading of the rules.

But it literally can happen. I could make a good character and cast raise dead lots of times. The DM could rule that my character becomes evil, but that’s not what the “rule” says. It says only evil characters do, which by making a good character and then doing it, I have proven false. Now it falls on the DM to decide what to do about that.

Then again, the rules also say that descriptions of the schools are not rules, so it is not a rule according to the rules...

As much as I would like to just take this as a win, the rule we’re debating isn’t actually about necromancy as a school of magic. It’s about using certain necromancy spells to create undead. There are lots of spells in the necromancy school that don’t create undead, so these statements don’t actually contract each other even if you interpret them both as hard rules.

Then they won't wear it if we follow the rules. There is no 'what if they do' like there is no 'what if I add my proficiency bonus to damage instead of strength modifier.' It simply is not a state allowed to by the rules.

Except, a player can make a druid character, and then declare that this character is putting on metal armor. It then falls on the DM to determine what happens as a result, since the rules don’t. Maybe the character loses their druid levels, maybe the armor transmutes into wood, maybe the DM kicks the player out of the game, maybe nothing happens at all. But the “rule” is inarguably violable by players, so its lack of specified consequence makes it an incomplete rule, if it’s a rule at all.

Sage Advice doesn't say that. It merely explains why the rule exists.

It straight-up says ask your DM if you want your druid character to break the taboo. In other words, it’s not really a rule. It’s a statement about an in-setting taboo informs the setting and relies entirely on the DM’s judgment to determine what (if anything) happens if a player doesn’t want this character to observe the taboo.