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.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

So again, why isn't Dominate Person an evil act? It goes both ways- one could find a way to use Enchantment magic for positive purposes, just like any other form of magic. But it's still enslaving someone against their will, isn't it?

Yet the exception the rules make is for Necromancy, telling us it's evil and wrong.

Which fine, if that's how it is, then why put Necromancers in the PHB with an ability that automatically gives them Animate Dead, whether they want it or not? "Hey, so, playing with Necromancy is wrong, but here it is as an option."

The obvious answer is, it's there for groups that don't find the use of Necromancy objectionable for their games. Never no mind Oathbreaker Paladin, for example, is consigned to the DMG, likely because groups would find it objectionable!

And it's not like the system has any real system for deciding if your alignment should change, or even a mechanical penalty for being evil, beyond "well, NPC's who see you doing evil stuff might object"- which they would do in response to any evil act.

In other words, there's no particular reason to make Necromancy any more evil than any other misuse of magic- but it was done anyways.

And if creating undead is evil, why doesn't this spell state that casting it is an evil act? Perhaps someone would quibble over the fact that you can't lose control of the fiend, but then we have this spell, where the summoned fiend will certainly try to tempt you towards evil, but nowhere does the spell say "hey, only evil people play with fiends".

Which means it's up to the DM to decide whether it's evil or not. Most people would say playing with fiends is evil (some examples upthread), but unlike with necromancy, we don't have the spells telling us that's the case.

Seems like a double standard to me to put a warning label on one kind of evil thing, but let in other cases, allow people to apply their own judgment.

Perhaps folks should be encouraged to use their own judgement across the board?

 

[James Gasik]

A Skeleton has int 6 wis 8 cha 5, its still fully aware of its surroundings and (as Pathfinder puts it) still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force, (its also socially inept and doesnt have any friends )

anyway, undead maintain sentience and cunning, and are driven by the creators compulsion which denies them any natural tendency or choice. (Animals still maintain natural tendencies and choice, if their trainer denies that then yes they are cruel/evil)

But zombies are no smarter than a large predatory cat. You know, the kind of neutral creature that's perfectly capable of murdering people it comes across.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I just love the increasingly esoteric means they've used to justify it in the face of 3e's 'a mindless creature is Neutral', even after that rule stopped existing.

It's made of negative energy!

Wait, not, this particular creature is mindless but still randomly and pointlessly evil!

 

[Umbran]

I get that. But it also is just a cultural norm...

If it were "just a cultural norm" we'd see a lot more real-world cultures that don't give a hoot. But, instead, we find that caring carefully for the remains of the dead is nigh universal in human cultures, which suggests it is the cultural expression of something more basic than culture.

Primates, from great apes to monkeys to lemurs) generally mourn their dead. Mammals from cats to horses and elephants mourn their dead, sometimes for years. Any time creatures create emotional attachments to others, they mourn - it is part of how they deal with the loss of the attachment, which has psychological and neurological impact.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Is anyone seriously questioning what the books say at this point? Quotes aren't going to help here, because what the books say is not the point.

I guess the books aren't relevant if you're making up your own stuff and wanting to ignore the intent of the game designers. If you're using the fluff from the actual printed game, then it's relevant. I quoted the rule books because an actual question about undead sentience got asked.

The answer, according to the books, is they have sentience that revolves around the need to destroy the living. They have no other purpose unless those desires are over-ridden.

You can argue about whether or not that's evil. The fact that the MM specifically saying the corpse is possessed by a "hateful undead spirit" seems relevant to the discussion.

 

[Clint_L]

It does occur to me that a warlord making use of an undead army with the justification that this keeps his subjects safe might make for an interesting villain. His people might support the war with great enthusiasm knowing their lives and the lives of their loved ones are never going to be at risk.

What makes him a villain?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If it were "just a cultural norm" we'd see a lot more real-world cultures that don't give a hoot. But, instead, we find that caring carefully for the remains of the dead is nigh universal in human cultures, which suggests it is the cultural expression of something more basic than culture.

Primates, from great apes to monkeys to lemurs) generally mourn their dead. Mammals from cats to horses and elephants mourn their dead, sometimes for years. Any time creatures create emotional attachments to others, they mourn - it is part of how they deal with the loss of the attachment, which has psychological and neurological impact.

Sure. And different cultures deal with the remains after mourning in a different way. To ancient Egyptians cremation that is completely normal to us would be terrifying. Some cultures ate parts of the dead to show their respect. And to what do you think people of the past would think of now common practice of using the dead for replacement bodyparts for the living? Like that's some Frankenstein stuff right there! I am sure in a fantasy world where necromancy was a thing there would be cultures that would see it as a honour for warrior to be able to keep fighting even in death, etc.

 

[Clint_L]

Morgoth Security Inc

Knock, Knock

Ms. Hammond: Hello?

Mr. Morgoth: Hello, Ms Hammond, I'm Morgoth, you spoke to my secretary yesterday about your need for security regarding the recent rash of break-ins. I have brought a guard here to watch your house.

Ms. Hammond: OH MY GOD, IT'S AN EVIL UNDEAD ZOMBIE!!!!

Mr. Morgoth: Don't worry, Ma'am, it's completely under my control. And it's not evil. It's hardly sentient. We like to refer to it as a 'Security Unit'

Ms. Hammond: Oh? So that will keep the burglars away?

Mr. Morgoth: Yes, ma'am, it will attack intruders on sight!

Ms Hammond: Oh, my. What about all the squirrels and wild life in my backyard?

Mr. Morgoth: Don't worry, it won't harm any wildlife because most wildlife find the presence of undead unnerving and will avoid your property completely.

Ms: Hammond: Well, it is unnerving the way it's looking at me...

Mr. Morgoth: That's because it hates you and wants to murder you and tear you to shreds. But don't worry, I have it under control and it's totally not evil!

Ms. Hammond: Sometimes the little boy next door comes by and takes a few apples from my tree. Will it want to murder him too?

Mr. Morgoth: Certainly, if that's what you want! But, if not, we can train it to not kill your neighbours. In fact, we also train it not to kill the milk man or the mail man. Also, as part of your monthly subscription, you get 5 talismans to give to your closest friends. It will not attack anyone wearing a talisman.

Ms Hammond: It sounds more like you have to tell it who NOT to kill, rather than tell it who to guard against.

Mr. Morgoth: Well, ma'am it's much more complicated than that. But don't worry, it is guaranteed to not murder you while under my control.

Ms. Hammond: Why does it look so familiar?

Mr. Morgoth: Oh, that's because it's Mr. Murphy.

Ms Hammond: Mr Murphy? The gardener down the street!? I liked Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Morgoth: I understand ma'am but, you see, there's been a shortage of black pearls and I was unable to reestablish control of Mr. Murphy's security unit. I asked Mr. Murphy to avoid going into his backyard until the new supply of pearls came in. Unfortunately, he got too close to the back window window and the security unit broke down his door and killed him.

Ms. Hammond: OH MY!

Mr. Morgoth: It's ok! I have a 100% money-back guarantee and his next-of-kin got a full refund. Burials are expensive these days so I also offer a free funeral service with the donation of the corpse - which the family took. If you find his countenance unnerving, I can turn him into a skeleton. All his skin will slough off. The bonus is that he'll have a reflexive memory of his old life.

Ms Hammond: Really?

Mr. Morgoth: Yes! So, while it's being forced to repress its murderous urges, it will also tend your gardens.

Ms. Hammond: That's great! Where do I sign!

That's cute, but it also reminds me that one of my favourite characters in contemporary science fiction, Murderbot, is a security unit who essentially fits the definition of animated corpse. Definitely not evil - quite adorable, really.

 

[Voadam]

What you seem to not get is that for many (I daresay most) real people - not fictional world people, but the folks that live next door to you - this matters a lot.

The issue of whether D&D labels the fictional magical animating of bodies as inherently evil or not? I don't think this matters a lot to my neighbors.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What makes him a villain?

If they fought an unjust offensive war. But yeah, using necromancy to summon an undead army to protect one's county that is under attack seems pretty justifiable to me. And absolutely something people in real life would have done were it possible. Then they would develop cultural norms which would deem such service in death honourable.