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.)

 

[Umbran]

My point was that the majority shouldn't make all your design decisions,

"All," is a really big word, an absolute word, that makes this seem a bit of a boogeyman. I don't think implying that someone out there is making ALL their design decisions specifically for the majority is apt to be fair.

Indeed, referring to "the majority" as if it were some known thing is probably doing everyone a disservice. "The majority" of the world population, or the population of any nation, do not play RPGs at all. So, what majority are we really talking about here? There is no reliable polling of "all RPG players", from which we can take a majority.

...and that people who like things the majority might not shouldn't be discarded.

Well, this depends on what you mean by "discarded". Each creator/designer has their own goals, and they will need to make choices about what audiences they want to appeal to.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

so if you make a deal with a devil and no real harm is done that should be good?

Well it's not inherently evil. Why would it be? People make contracts all the time.

There is a cosmology set up to make it clear and easy. you deal with lower planes, evil. You deal with negative energy evil. You muck around with the middle planes shade's of grey you deal with the upper plane's good. I'm having a hard time understanding what problem you are trying to fix and how everything being shades of grey and determined by outcome not intent makes it easier.

The problem I'm fixing by getting rid of alignment is avoiding this sort of childish black and white moral categories that avoid exploring actual ethical complexity.

 

[nevin]

Well it's not inherently evil. Why would it be? People make contracts all the time.


The problem I'm fixing by getting rid of alignment is avoiding this sort of childish black and white moral categories that avoid exploring actual ethical complexity.

have fun with your choice. Just don't expect me to agree that your problem is a problem.

 

[nevin]

Well it's not inherently evil. Why would it be? People make contracts all the time.


The problem I'm fixing by getting rid of alignment is avoiding this sort of childish black and white moral categories that avoid exploring actual ethical complexity.

It's called a mythology. The devils tried to one up the gods, they failed got thrown in thier prison and then you the mortals were told not to associate with them. That's all basic 101 stuff if you are using any setting with gods. If it's your own setting then you are arguing to no one about nothing and it's just confusing.

 

[Stormonu]

Imagine someone you love dies. It's heart rending and you don't know how you'll go on. You go through the death rituals we've devised over millennia of mourning and laying the body to rest. It helps you move on.

Then you see the corpse of your dearly beloved shambling down the road. For a moment there's a spark of hope that maybe they're still alive only to realize that someone took the last remnants, the last reminder of someone you would do practically anything to get back, is being used without thought or concern. They've turned all of your rituals, your love, into a mockery.

It's that pain that you can cause that is evil. Desecration of the dead in most cultures is considered evil because even though the spirit is gone the person was a spirit and the form, the body.

Going back all the way to this, I believe this is where it starts. Most cultures respect their dead, several believe that the body needs to be preserved for use in the afterlife or when resurrected for the next life. Some very rare cultures (such as the Charoni from Jakandor) believe in animating their dead (as a work force, no less) and for keeping loved ones around - but this very, very rare.

Further, many undead not only hunt the living, they can make more of their kind - ghouls, wights, wraiths, sons of kyuss, morghs, vampires - just to name a few. Spellcasters (and seasoned adventurers) know the difference between these undead and which can do what, but most common folk don't - and they don't care that they don't. Undead are just a liability and the whether dangerous or not they'd just rather NOT have them around. Even if the spellcaster promises they have the undead under their control, how do you know they really do? And how do you know they don't have plans for your body after your die and are they really willing to let you finish your natural life before they get bored enough to end it for you?

Want a good example of where animation by those in power think its a good idea but the rest of the society thinks it sucks - look at Thay!

 

[CreamCloud0]

the meanings of DnD's alignments absolutely should not be being judged by the subjective definitions of people's thinking from outside of the game, or even anyone inside the game.

good and evil and law and chaos are real tangible forces in the DnD universe, they should have fixed consistent definitions and values.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's called a mythology. The devils tried to one up the gods, they failed got thrown in thier prison and then you the mortals were told not to associate with them. That's all basic 101 stuff if you are using any setting with gods. If it's your own setting then you are arguing to no one about nothing and it's just confusing.

And perhaps the devils had good or at least understandable cause to rise against the gods? This is not exactly a novel though at this point, almost four centuries after Milton. These sort of moral questions are interesting, having alignment provide official stock answers to them is a disservice to the game. Let the people who play the game come up with their own answers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's called a mythology. The devils tried to one up the gods, they failed got thrown in thier prison and then you the mortals were told not to associate with them. That's all basic 101 stuff if you are using any setting with gods. If it's your own setting then you are arguing to no one about nothing and it's just confusing.

Mythology is great, love the heck out of it. IMO, however, it should be setting specific as far as value judgements go.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

the meanings of DnD's alignments absolutely should not be being judged by the subjective definitions of people's thinking from outside of the game, or even anyone inside the game.

good and evil and law and chaos are real tangible forces in the DnD universe, they should have fixed consistent definitions and values.

"We count the number of goodums their dead body contains and divide by their weight, giving us the number of goodums per stone, allowing us to objectively prove that, in fact, golden retrievers are the most good beings in the multiverse." -- A cleric of knowledge, probably

 

[Micah Sweet]

And perhaps the devils had good or at least understandable cause to rise against the gods? This is not exactly a novel though at this point, almost four centuries after Milton. These sort of moral questions are interesting, having alignment provide official stock answers to them is a disservice to the game. Let the people who play the game come up with their own answers.

Agreed, with the caveat that I'm fine with a setting having answers to those questions.