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.)

 

[James Gasik]

And I owe you an apology, Maxperson, I misunderstood your tack in the debate, so when I said "i get what you're saying" obviously I was wrong.

I thought you were saying the DM had no right to interpret the Druid 'ban', you were simply saying you wouldn't except "because I'm the DM, that's why!"

Me culpa.

 

[Maxperson]

And I owe you an apology, Maxperson, I misunderstood your tack in the debate, so when I said "i get what you're saying" obviously I was wrong.

I thought you were saying the DM had no right to interpret the Druid 'ban', you were simply saying you wouldn't except "because I'm the DM, that's why!"

Me culpa.

No worries. I wouldn't accept the DM telling me, "No you don't do that." Consequences are fine. The choice of my character to earn those consequences or not is mine, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I generally agree with you. Your 'french fries' post made it seem like a flippant choice, but this post makes it seem more thoughtful. If it becomes an interesting aspect of the story, some shame the character has to carry with them until they atone for the immoral but necessary action - then I'm cool with it.

Heh. It was a combination of frustration and not wanting to use a real world taboo food as the example. French fries were the first neutral food that popped into my head.

I also think that, "A passing bird notes your crime against the druid order. You know that it is speeding to spread word of your misdeed." is far more interesting than getting booted from a game because I roleplayed my character through a hard decision.

 

[Flamestrike]

And this is one of the major reasons why people hate the alignment. The GM using it as bludgeon to force their personal morals on the players.

There is no bludgeon, and have you ever considered it could be the player at fault for ignoring the metaphysics of the game world the DM has established?

In the game world I run, [rape, murder, torture, inflicting harm on others when not reasonably necessary in self defence or the defence of others and in a proportionate manner, selling or destroying a soul, necromancy etc] are evil acts. [Altruism, kindness, self sacrifice, charity and mercy] are good acts.

As the DM I am the adjudicator of whether your actions are Good or Evil, and that's because there are game rules that depend on such things, including:

• Demilich: first time a non-evil creature enters the demilich's lair they take 3d10 necrotic damage (MM 49)
• Lemure: returns to life in 1d10 days unless killed by a good creature under effects of bless or sprinkled with holy water (MM 76)
• Night Hag: evil creatures killed by Nightmare Haunting have soul trapped in bag (MM 178)
• Lycanthrope: PC becoming lycanthrope has alignment changed to appropriate alignment (MM 207)
• Rakshasa: vulnerability to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures (MM 257)
• Shadow: non-evil humanoids killed by Strength Drain become shadows in 1d4 days (MM 269)
• Sprite: can detect creature's alignment on failed DC 10 cha save (MM 283)
• Unicorn: regional affects maximize healing and suppress curses on good creatures (MM 293)
• Vampire: PC becoming vampire has alignment changed to lawful evil (MM 295)
• Gold Dragon: regional mist assumes ominous shapes to warn non-evil creatures of evil creatures present (PHB 115) u/Quastors
• Candle of Invocation: creatures with same alignment as candle's deity have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws and ability checks, clerics or druids with same alignment can cast 1st level spells at-will (DMG 157)
• Book of Vile Darkness: non-evil make DC17 cha save or alignment change to neutral evil (DMG 222)
• Book of Exalted Deeds: requires attunement by a good creature, evil creatures take 24d6 unavoidable radiant damage (DMG 222)
• Blackrazor: requires attunement by a non-lawful creature (DMG 216)
• Deck of Many Things: Balance card reverses alignment (DMG 162)
• Talisman of Pure Good: requires attunement by a good creature, neutral/unaligned creatures take 6d6 radiant damage, evil creatures take 8d6 radiant damage (DMG 207)
• Talisman of Ultimate Evil: requires attunement by an evil creature, neutral/unaligned creatures take 6d6 necrotic damage, good creatures take 8d6 necrotic damage (DMG 207
• Robe of the Archmage: requires attunement by a character of the appropriate alignment (DMG 194)
• Moonblade: requires attunement by a neutral good elf or half elf (DMG 217)
• Oathbreaker Paladin: must be evil (DMG 97)
• Death Cleric: "an additional option for evil clerics" (DMG 96)
• Mount Celestia: good creatures gain effects of bless while on plane and lesser restoration on long rest, optional (DMG 59)
• Bytopia: DC 10 wis save or non-lawful/neutral good creatures changed to one of these alignments, optional (DMG 59-60)
• The Abyss: DC 10 cha save or become corrupted, corrupted creatures become chaotic evil after 1d4+2 days, optional (DMG 62)
• The Nine Hells: DC 10 cha save or become lawful evil, optional (DMG 64)
• Mechanus: DC 10 wis save or become lawful neutral, optional (DMG 66)
• Spirit Guardians: good and neutral casters do radiant damage, evil do necrotic (PHB 278)
• Glyph of Warding: can trigger based on alignment (PHB 245)
• Nystul's Magic Aura: masks alignment to magical effects that sense alignment (PHB 263)
• Ceremony: Atonement restores alignment of creature that has had alignment change (XGTE 151)
• Storm Kings Thunder: coatl in Great Worm Cavern triggered by approach of good creature
• Princes of the Apocalypse: naga encounter triggered by unspecified, alignment related event

In addition, your alignment also has a metaphysical consequence. Evil creatures go to the negative outer planes on death. Good creatures go to the positive outer planes on death.

You can play your character however you want (subject to the tables social contract and session zero expectations of course), but I'm (as the DM) the final arbiter of if your PC is 'Good' or 'Evil', as viewed through the eyes of Ao and the Gods.

I don't care if you have LG written on your character sheet. If your PC is going around animating the dead, raping people, committing acts of murder or whatever, you're actually evil. If that means you've broken the social contract/ session zero (assuming an agreement of 'no evil PCs') you get flipped into a NPC villain (or booted from the game). If we're running a game where evil PCs are allowed, then it has no bearing on the player at all.

 

[James Gasik]

Huh, I played Storm King's Thunder, and I don't recall a Coatl encounter. Maybe we missed it? But it's nice to know it was there, at least.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Huh, I played Storm King's Thunder, and I don't recall a Coatl encounter. Maybe we missed it? But it's nice to know it was there, at least.

The coatl didn’t come out because it sensed you were animating the dead …..

 

[James Gasik]

I wasn't! I swear! I was Chaotic Good! Chaotic GOOD!

 

[Flamestrike]

I wasn't! I swear! I was Chaotic Good! Chaotic GOOD!

I only murder occasionally. CHAOTIC good.

 

[tomBitonti]

No worries. I wouldn't accept the DM telling me, "No you don't do that." Consequences are fine. The choice of my character to earn those consequences or not is mine, though.

I’m 95% in agreement. However, are there no limits? What if you had seriously vowed to never eat French fries, and had consistently role played that vow, but one day decided, heck, who cares, and started frying up some taters? In my games, there have been times when a player has “broken character” and began to ignore an important, established, part of their character’s story, until the DM interceded and asked for clarification, or simple said that the character wouldn’t do the stated action.

A character is selling a piece of fiction. They have some responsibility for presenting a plausible story. (Note: There is still room for truly chaotic behavior, or for sly and subtle evil. As long as the DM is clear on what the player is doing, and as long as the player is simply not being disruptive.)

TomB

 

[lingual]

I don't think Animate Dead should be evil. I do think that most people will be disturbed that you're turning the corpse of Great-Uncle Sid into slave labor. Many societies will be disturbed buy this- but not all societies. Maybe it's a necessary evil, like the nation of Karnnath in Eberron, who, during the Last War, were so unable to withstand an army of robots that they turned to Necromancy. Maybe death is seen as a part of life, and the dead are proud to serve from beyond the grave.

I used to play a Priest of the Death God who would perform a special ritual before he animated any dead corpse, where I would ask the soul if they would be willing to aid me in my travels. Some accepted. Some didn't. Those that did I treated as my loyal retainers, and I saw no evil in my actions.

When 3.5 suddenly said, no, no matter what the ultimate goal, using Animate Dead is EVIL, I felt a great disturbance in the Force. So if I command a skeleton to rescue a child from a fire, I'm serving the purpose of evil?

(then the great Descriptor War began, which Vaalingrade alluded to, where I could counteract my evil deeds by summoning Celestial Dogs and send them to attack innocent bystanders- we don't talk of this time, for it was very silly).

There is a cosmic Good and a cosmic Evil. It may be that Animate Dead really does serve Cosmic Evil. But I'm inclined to say Animate Dead is a tool, like any other. If you misuse it, heck yes, it's bad. But if you use it responsibly, maybe not so much?

Just cuz it says "inherently evil" does not mean you automatically switch alignments or anything. There's no mechanics around it because the designers probably want to actually give games the opportunity for nuance and even ambiguity. It's the rules-lawyery type of arguments here on this thread (though fun to follow) - which seem to have to resolve everything into "I run the game correctly and you do not".

I think it would actually be a good opportunity for character interaction if, for example, a pious Good priest found out that his altruistic wizard friend has been animating zombies to help guard the village.

The wizard can certainly be Good too - he/she/they just doesn't give a damn about theology and have a more "practical" morality.