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.)

 

[Oofta]

Except if they do, since nothing stops them.

Other than the fact that when they decided to become a druid they also decided that from that point on they will not wear metal armor. It's a clear rule, feel free to ignore it. If I'm not DMing, that is.

 

[Maxperson]

Say what now?

I have no idea how what I said has anything to do with either of your sides. No matter who wins, we all lose.

One side is being inclusive. We are allowing the druids to have their voluntary taboo and to break it in a pinch if they need to. The other side is into One True Way, with some even going so far as to boot someone who tries from the group.

 

[Maxperson]

Other than the fact that when they decided to become a druid they also decided that from that point on they will not wear metal armor. It's a clear rule, feel free to ignore it. If I'm not DMing, that is.

Vegetarians decide not to eat meat, yet some backslide now and then. Such a voluntary situation isn't binding.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One side is being inclusive. We are allowing the druids to have their voluntary taboo and to break it in a pinch if they need to. The other side is into One True Way, with some even going so far as to boot someone who tries from the group.

What does that have to do with me?! I wasn't talking to either of you, yet I get snatched into it somehow?

 

[Dire Bare]

Do you believe nuclear power is inherently evil?

In the 80s, there was a decent amount of fear that yes, nuclear power is inherently evil. That is less strong now, although some still feel that way. It's certainly considered selfish and unwise by many, a dangerous practice that puts the world at risk unnecessarily.

 

[James Gasik]

Something can be considered to be evil, yes, but that doesn't mean it is evil. Just that we perceive it to be that way.

 

[Dire Bare]

I didn't read the entire thread, it's super long . . .

But, if you are interested in non-evil necromantic societies in D&D . . . . it's been done, and well, several times.

I wouldn't count the Karnathi from Eberron, their use of undead is evil, it's just an evil that many in the culture have decided is acceptable. But the elven Aerenal are ruled by a non-evil caste of undead elves!

I would also encourage you to take a look at the 2E micro-setting Jakandor. It's a large island with a barbarian culture at war with a necromantic culture, neither of which view themselves as evil (but the other guys are!). The necromancers of Jakandor used undead for mundane labor, and citizens felt it was honorable to donate your body to science, so to speak, upon death.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those do not require universal morals at all. You can easily have gods and other extraplanars hanging out on planes without universal morals.


All it means that some gods may disagree with them. And if some god or overgod thinks that saving kittens using zombies is evil, then I will just disagree with such blatantly evil kitten haters.

You can remove cosmic morality, but that's not how D&D has ever been designed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Other than the fact that when they decided to become a druid they also decided that from that point on they will not wear metal armor. It's a clear rule, feel free to ignore it. If I'm not DMing, that is.

So if a druid player says to you, "I'm going to put on this chain shirt", you just tell they can't?

 

[James Gasik]

I think he'd simply point out that it's forbidden, and such an action is a violation of the character, a decision they made by playing a druid.

It's not an unreasonable ruling, again it simply comes down to how the players and the DM feel about the restriction in the first place. It's implied, not stated, but that doesn't mean it can't be valid.

I would have probably said "Druids do not OF THEIR OWN VOLITION wear metal armor" if I wanted to be more clear about this (or simply had something about Ex-Druids in the DMG, much like why Oathbreaker Paladins are there). But again, I'm used to such half-hearted efforts by WotC, lol.

"Rulings not rules! Be vague about stuff! If you tell them how they're supposed to play, they just gripe and ignore you anyways!" -Jeremy Crawford, probably.