D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

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.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Well I'm sure if you've played D&D for awhile, you've had a DM say "the magical energy is so powerful it blind/stuns/dazes you!". Which is not, nor has it ever been, an effect of the spell. I've had it happen to my Paladins too with Detect Evil.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Oh you never had that happen? Yeah. It's happened to me a lot. Use a divination ability, be "blown away" by how powerful whatever I'm trying to detect is.
Ah, I see, I get the trope. And it could be cool if done very, very sparingly. Though I think it still should mostly be narrative thing and not have the character to be mechanically stunned in midst of action or something like that.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
You and me both, Crimson Longinus. Unfortunately, lol, I've had that happen. A lot.

Oh hey we were talking about Animate Dead, weren't we? Ghosts and Baelnorns. We know they can be good. The question is, how? If the force that animates even lowly zombies makes them evil, and let's be honest, most undead are, what makes these guys outliers?
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
You and me both, Crimson Longinus. Unfortunately, lol, I've had that happen. A lot.

Oh hey we were talking about Animate Dead, weren't we? Ghosts and Baelnorns. We know they can be good. The question is, how? If the force that animates even lowly zombies makes them evil, and let's be honest, most undead are, what makes these guys outliers?
Because it's not the negative energy making them evil, it's the pure, concentrated Bad Writing.

Ghosts have the power of good writing and Bealnorns are from FR, so no one cares.
 

You and me both, Crimson Longinus. Unfortunately, lol, I've had that happen. A lot.

Oh hey we were talking about Animate Dead, weren't we? Ghosts and Baelnorns. We know they can be good. The question is, how? If the force that animates even lowly zombies makes them evil, and let's be honest, most undead are, what makes these guys outliers?
Aren't the Baelorn basically just liches? I don't know why liches would necessarily need to be evil, seems like a good way to continue wizarding after your natural lifespan runs out.* Now in 5e they added the soul sacrifices for powering lichdom, which seems rather morally questionable, but then again, given the amount of people typical D&D adventurers kill, an average lich probably has a far lower kill count.

I don't think that being undead makes anyone automatically evil. It's just that many lesser undead might not have the proper faculties to reasonably make moral choices. Also many undead might have become undead due some powerful grudge, trauma, etc, and now exists in semi-aware fugue state seeking vengeance or something like that. But I think there are enough ghost stories where the ghosts are not directly hostile, just sad, trapped etc, that they didn't want to make them automatically evil. And I think it is good idea to use similar judgment regarding some of the other undead as well.

* Granted, I don't know why any powerful wizard would choose it if the Clone spell is available.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Oh you know, not only do you get increased power, but you no longer have the constraints of messy biology. Think of how much time you save on spell research when you don't have to sleep, eat, or go to the bathroom!

Now one would argue a Wizard would be better off becoming a vampire, but maybe it's because they dumped Charisma?

Oh and eventually you can all but completely free yourself of physicality and explore the outer planes as a Demilich. If Acererak thinks it's cool, why don't you?

There used to be other good undead, like the Archlich, but the WotC era has only given us two to work with. Like, if they want undead to be animated by pure evil (insert Time Bandits scene here), fine, that's great. I mean, they have to give adventurer's something they can kill without feeling bad about it, and that can't be monsters anymore- Drow have feelings!

So undead- it doesn't matter what you do to them, they're already dead!

But then you have outliers. So I'm curious as to why and how. I mean, beyond Vaalingrade's answer (it's perfectly legitimate, but I'm trying here!).
 

Remove ads

Top