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.)

 

[TheSword]

No no, we established being raised from the dead is evil, Mort, nobody should have any expectation of that!

The sidebar in question specifically cites creating undead through the use of necromancy spells as evil. Raise the Dead doesn’t make one undead. It also doesn’t apply to spells like false life, or blindness etc.

Probably best not to strawman what is already a complicated enough debate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Definitely the DM's place to make sure consequences to actions occur.

That's not what you said. You said you were punishing them to 'make them better players'. Assuming they're grown folk, you're not their parent.

 

[Vaalingrade]

From the Enchantment school section…

Some enchanters are peacemakers who bewitch the violent to lay down their arms and charm the cruel into showing mercy. Others are tyrants who magically bind the unwilling into their service

It’s pretty clear the designers have identified that enchantment absolutely can be evil.

Except all those things are wrong!

"Don't worry guys, I only burrow into the brain and destroy the agency of bad people! That's what makes me a hero!"

 

[nevin]

seriously. but there is no complication to this debate other than people trying to argue that if a rule isn't in the book in reference to an action then it can't be judged by any moral code. We've kind've reached the point of arguing that my words mean different things than the commonly defined definitions that were taught. If your a moral relativist you can argue that anything in your best interest is not evil. That doesn't make it true but Humans are the masters of justification. With great intelligence comes the Mythic ability to refuse to accept reality.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Accept the reality of a fantasy children's game.

 

[nevin]

That's not what you said. You said you were punishing them to 'make them better players'. Assuming they're grown folk, you're not their parent.

this is a forum. Words without context of visual reactions have to be given some leeway.

There is absolutely only a tiny difference of intent between applying consequences to actions and punishing/rewarding actions. Thus the end result is likely to be the same even if you don't like the intent. And I did address that if the Intent of the person running the game was to find ways to punish the players they were wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Except all those things are wrong!

"Don't worry guys, I only burrow into the brain and destroy the agency of bad people! That's what makes me a hero!"

Yep. Maybe. I can think of many instances where a minor wrong(bewitching the violent into laying down arms or showing mercy) is far preferable to a major one(letting the violent kill the old lady).

 

[James Gasik]

The sidebar in question specifically cites creating undead through the use of necromancy spells as evil. Raise the Dead doesn’t make one undead. It also doesn’t apply to spells like false life, or blindness etc.

Probably best not to strawman what is already a complicated enough debate.

It's not a strawman at all, it was pointed out earlier in the thread that "only evil people cast Necromancy spells often" as evidence for the entire school of Necromancy to be tainted and corrupt- inherently evil on some level.

Raise Dead and Resurrection are Necromancy spells. Using the fact you can't Raise undead as evidence of the evil of undeath when the rulebook also tells us that Necromancy AS A SCHOOL OF MAGIC has inherent evil properties?

And as I also pointed out, being undead does not make you evil, as some undead, like ghosts, can be of any alignment.

I'm not being serious, I think it's all quite humorous, but you can't cite one thing the books say and then say "but this other thing isn't evidence".

 

[nevin]

Accept the reality of a fantasy children's game.

Yes, Accept the common reality that you and your party have chosen to participate in. If you can't do that your just intentionally attempting to ruin the game for the other players who have accepted it. You don't get on a soccer team and play by rugby rules. Why do so many players today seem to think that kind of mindset in a communal role playing game is ok?

 

[TheSword]

Except all those things are wrong!

"Don't worry guys, I only burrow into the brain and destroy the agency of bad people! That's what makes me a hero!"

Nah, they’re not. Forcing someone to drop their weapon and surrender is not evil. It’s a non-violent subdual. Surrender of agency is not the evil you seem to think it is. It happens every time someone is sent to prison.