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.)

 

[Maxperson]

My point is, does it make for the rules to make this stuff evil? Obviously that's what the book says. I'm asking is it what the books should say? This is not a question of fact.

There really isn't a "should." I think that the game is written from real world western philosophy point of view, so going by how most who play the game view it, evil makes the most sense. From a traditional d&d view it also makes the most sense.

I think that of you want the creation of undead to be non-evil, that's a change DMs will have to make for their own tables.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

But as we've already been over, in the fictional world of 5e D&D as defined in the rulebooks, it is inherently evil.

So we are in a kind of ouroboros, aren't we.

First, people complain that they don't like the actual, you know, text of D&D. They want to argue real-world morality.

But then when people point out that the real world morality isn't looking so hot either, it's back to, "Well, it's just a fantasy world with it's own rules ... that we want to ignore!"

So I will re-state what I have stated many times before- if you want to have your good necromancer, do it for your home game. No one will stop you. No one will slap the character sheet out of your hand just because you scrawled "LG" on it.

Or just make your own game. Or your own campaign setting. Do what you want!

But stop trying to convince everyone else of either the rules or the real-world import, 'cuz it's really not a great look.

 

[payn]

View attachment 340655

Gotta say, the waste this product creates infuriates me.

 

[Clint_L]

As I posted many pages ago, the moral rightness or wrongness of an act ultimately depends on context (apologies to Immanuel Kant). If animating corpses is going to be hurtful to people, that should be taken into account, and if your character is indifferent to the suffering caused to others, then they seem like a pretty nasty character.

But given that we are playing a fantasy imagination game, I don't understand why we should have to shackle ourselves to real world assumptions about what is right or wrong. I can easily imagine a culture in which animating corpses is a sign of respect, similar to organ donation in our own culture. For instance, take that "evil" warlord above who is using zombies so that his people are spared the horrors of war. It is not hard for me to imagine a culture where people donate their bodies after death for just such purposes, reasoning that they no longer have a use for it, and it can still help their loved ones. Sign me up! (IRL, I not only am registered as an organ donor, I have it tattooed onto my body, inside a recycle symbol. It saves lives! Register to donate yours!).

And there are infinite other possible scenarios. Like, plasmoids are unicellular sapient entities. I can't imagine that their conception of life, death, and the ethics thereof would resemble mine in the least. So why do we want to impose arbitrary limits on our imagination game? If the folks at the table are all having fun, then it's all good.

Edit: And to respond to Snarf's position: why do we need the game rules to legislate the morality of our fictional worlds? How does that improve the game? D&D plays just fine without ever mentioning alignments. Better, even, because players have to think about their character's moral actions in context.

Edit continued: The warlord example above is what bugs me about writing alignment into the game, as if everyone can be reduced to inherent qualities. Why the assumption that a warlord using undead has to be evil? The game conditions us to make that assumption, but to me that just exposes the alignment system for what it always has been: an attempt to legislate one one guy's morality and limit our imaginations. Maybe Gary Gygax couldn't imagine a world in which animating dead wasn't inherently evil. But I can.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

I think that's the thing, though, that people get mixed up. The OP moved Animate Dead from Necromancy to Transmutation. The problem with that is undead aren't automatons with no feelings or emotions or desires. Nor are they robots with personalities. They have a single desire: to kill the living.

The MM says they are possessed by a hateful undead spirit. They are malevolent.

Also edit:

Googling Murderbot:
" As it spends more time with a series of caring people, it starts developing friendships and emotional connections, which it finds inconvenient."

This seems impossible for undead. They don't develop friendships or emotional connections.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Capable of =/= actively desires to do at all times due to its malevolently evil nature.

 

[Maxperson]

But as we've already been over, in the fictional world of 5e D&D as defined in the rulebooks, it is inherently evil.

So we are in a kind of ouroboros, aren't we.

First, people complain that they don't like the actual, you know, text of D&D. They want to argue real-world morality.

But then when people point out that the real world morality isn't looking so hot either, it's back to, "Well, it's just a fantasy world with it's own rules ... that we want to ignore!"

So I will re-state what I have stated many times before- if you want to have your good necromancer, do it for your home game. No one will stop you. No one will slap the character sheet out of your hand just because you scrawled "LG" on it.

Or just make your own game. Or your own campaign setting. Do what you want!

But stop trying to convince everyone else of either the rules or the real-world import, 'cuz it's really not a great look.

I don't even need to change things to make a good necromancer. There are just some necromancy spells that I will need to avoid using.

 

[Maxperson]

Gotta say, the waste this product creates infuriates me.

Burns you up does it?

 

[Clint_L]

I think that's the thing, though, that people get mixed up. The OP moved Animate Dead from Necromancy to Transmutation. The problem with that is undead aren't automatons with no feelings or emotions or desires. Nor are they robots with personalities. They have a single desire: to kill the living.

This is not even true in canon D&D. For instance, take the classic 5e starter adventure, Lost Mine of Phandelver. One of the first side quests involves making a deal with a banshee, who only fights the party if they are hostile to her, and even that only if her horrifying visage fails to frighten them off.

Edit: there is also a necromancer who uses zombies as his guards but is more than willing to bargain with the party. So if that's how you started 5e, and that's how a lot of people started 5e, you already see undead as more complicated than "rawr, more brains!"

Edit 2: Murderbot is not a "robot with a personality." They are a cyborg built using a human corpse as their chassis.

The MM says they are possessed by a hateful undead spirit. They are malevolent.

The MM can say whatever it wants, but even in its own publications WotC features undead with a wide array of outlooks and motivations. I think that this is because alignment is a feeble excuse for characterization, so as soon as you need creatures to move beyond some generic description and a stat block you have to start writing them with actual desires and motivations.

I'll use mindless zombies out for brains; it's a fun trope. And someone who raised them just to hurt others is no doubt pretty villainous. But I have also had zombies who were gentle and helpful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Gotta say, the waste this product creates infuriates me.

I know! All that good alcohol wasted on that cinnamon whisky crud.