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.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

So here's an important part that I've seen touched on a lot, but that I haven't seen solidly engaged with by those who don't agree it should be considered evil. The descriptions of them say that the magic that animates them causes them to seek to kill the living if not controlled. Negative Plane energy is not inherently evil, but the type of magic that allows it to be used to animate these things apparently infused them with evil intent.

I suppose you could argue that the drive to kill isn't motivated by maliciousness but by a natural force of entropy in opposition to a force of generation, but that seems similar to arguing that a someone who commits atrocities because they lack empathy (rather than because they delight in causing harm) isn't doing anything morally wrong.

Mindless undead aren't truly mindless in 5e (the skeleton explicitly says as such) the magic imbues them with a simple consciousness based on that destruction of life drive.

A not-neccesarily-evil animating of undead spell would be transmutation. 5e D&D animating undead is not, it is necromancy with a description of what makes it evil, that isn't being fully engaged with (I didn't read all zillion pages, just some at the start and end, so I may have missed where discussion focuses in on this extensively).

So, to be more direct. For those who aren't really engaging with this element (even to explain a disagreement), is it because you disagree with some of the extracted thoughts, or because you reject the premise of it being necromancy, or of the necromantic magic doing what the game says it does?

"I fully understand how 5e says this spell works, and think calling it evil is unfounded" is not the same argument as "I don't like how/that 5e decided the magic works that makes it evil."

but why does it make them want to kill everything it makes no sense.

In the Doylist sense, animate dead is something only evil characters frequently do because "PC sends his zombie horde to kill everything in the next room of the dungeon, animates the corpses to renew his force, and repeats" is an inherently boring "adventure", while "PCs have to fight through the hordes of the animated dead to reach the evil necromancer" is not.

In the Watsonian sense, in 5e animate dead is a non-good act that only evil characters frequently do because creating homicidal maniacs to walk the world is at best "Well, if we're very careful, we can use these in a way that serves the greater good", and the more you do it, the harder it is to be "very careful".

So, the reason skeletons and zombies were made homicidal maniacs (first in Pathfinder 1e, and then in D&D 5) was to shut down what was then decades of Watsonian arguments in favor of it being okay to animate skeletons, in order to preserve the Doylist purpose of the restriction. If people manage to successfully argue that making homicidal maniacs isn't a non-good act only frequently done by evil characters, what will happen is that the next version of animate dead will make the spell more evil in order to serve the Doylist end.

have they tried different adventure and dungeon types?
since to me it is a self correcting problem as well people will get bored of dungeon diving if they just use undead endlessly so either they leave or the rest of the table nags at them to stop running the fun.

 

[Hriston]

As presented in the 1E PHB (1978), the good alignments value life, truth, and beauty. The "foul mimicry of life" (5E) created by animate dead is an offense to all three. The undeath it creates is the antithesis of life, its mimicry is a false semblance of life, and it is hideous and abhorrent. Thus, it is a not-good act.

 

[James Gasik]

As presented in the 1E PHB (1978), the good alignments value life, truth, and beauty. The "foul mimicry of life" (5E) created by animate dead is an offense to all three. The undeath it creates is the antithesis of life, its mimicry is a false semblance of life, and it is hideous and abhorrent. Thus, it is a not-good act.

Sure but we're also told that using poison is an evil act in older books, completely ignoring all the non-evil creatures that use it- and not just animals.

 

[MGibster]

but why does it make them want to kill everything it makes no sense.

It makes sense within the cosmology of D&D's past at least. The negative material plane was hostile to all forms of life and this was the source of power used by a necromancer to animate the dead. Now you might be thinking, "Why would it matter where the power source came from?" I don't know. This is probably something those who use magic have seminars about at their conventions.

 

[Hriston]

Sure but we're also told that using poison is an evil act in older books, completely ignoring all the non-evil creatures that use it- and not just animals.

Yes, and for similar reasons. Unlike in the natural world where it's used as a deterrent, the effective use of poison as a murder weapon relies on deception which violates the value of truth held by good-aligned creatures. The creature you linked to is neutral, so it's not surprising it's described as engaging in non-good acts when motivated by hatred for its opponent.

 

[MarkB]

It makes sense within the cosmology of D&D's past at least. The negative material plane was hostile to all forms of life and this was the source of power used by a necromancer to animate the dead. Now you might be thinking, "Why would it matter where the power source came from?" I don't know. This is probably something those who use magic have seminars about at their conventions.

I remember, back in 3.5e times, envisioning it as an environmental / pollution issue. Channelling negative energy into the world shifts it more towards the negative plane, with commensurate results - diseases are more virulent, lifespans are shorter, spontaneous animation of the dead can occur in areas of particularly high negative energy. Channelling positive energy into the world through healing magic tips the balance in the opposite direction.

 

[Quickleaf]

Look, would you date your friend’s ex without having a heart to heart with your friend to be sure they were ok with it?

The body may be absent a soul, but that doesn’t mean the consciousness doesn’t have lingering sentiments about its corporeal home.

 

[Oofta]

I did engage with it: I don’t use alignments. So the rest of your argument doesn’t apply, since it relies on undead being inherently evil.

Even if you don't believe in good and evil, isn't there still the possibility of being malevolent and dangerous? To take a real world analogy, if I could create a virus for the sole purpose of indiscriminately killing as many people possible most people would consider that an evil act. It serves no purpose other than killing, with no redeeming value.

So if necrotic energy comes from a source where there is intense hatred and desire to destroy all living things, preferring to kill intelligent life, most people would consider that source evil. At the very least, it's dangerous to anything living. You may not consider that evil, but I think for all practical purposes it is.

At a certain point good and evil is just a label indicating helpful and dangerous. Even if it is from the perspective of the person attributing the label. Which, in the case of D&D is shorthand for the group which, in almost all cases will be living creatures.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It makes sense within the cosmology of D&D's past at least. The negative material plane was hostile to all forms of life and this was the source of power used by a necromancer to animate the dead. Now you might be thinking, "Why would it matter where the power source came from?" I don't know. This is probably something those who use magic have seminars about at their conventions.

i feel like they could very easiliy do something where animate dead doesn't specifically use negative energy, and the different energy types give the undead created different default dispositions and drawbacks, positive energy undead will provide help to anyone regardless of their intent and will run to the aid of that person you just cut down as much as they will your allies, lawful undead have to obey every rule they're aware of and are more predisposed to the 'golem issue' of needing specific instructions and following them to the letter, chaotic energy undead are fickle and will obey your orders only until they suddenly decide to take another master, sometimes right in the middle of a task

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Even if you don't believe in good and evil, isn't there still the possibility of being malevolent and dangerous? To take a real world analogy, if I could create a virus for the sole purpose of indiscriminately killing as many people possible most people would consider that an evil act. It serves no purpose other than killing, with no redeeming value.

So if necrotic energy comes from a source where there is intense hatred and desire to destroy all living things, preferring to kill intelligent life, most people would consider that source evil. At the very least, it's dangerous to anything living. You may not consider that evil, but I think for all practical purposes it is.

At a certain point good and evil is just a label indicating helpful and dangerous. Even if it is from the perspective of the person attributing the label. Which, in the case of D&D is shorthand for the group which, in almost all cases will be living creatures.

What other purpose do fireball, cloudkill or a longsword have than to kill people? In fact it is far easier to invent non killy uses for zombies than for those. You can have zombie miners, zombie firefighters, etc. A lot of spells and and implements in D&D are designed mainly to harm sentient creatures. There is a weird double standard going on here.