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.)

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't fix the issue. Suppose the necromancer heart attack happened 2 minutes after casting? That a lot of murdered innocents before even a 1 year spell ends.

OK, how about that if the caster of Animate Dead dies, any still-functional undead created by that caster immediately crumble to dust.

 

[Lanefan]

Zombies and skeletons weren't inherently evil in previous editions,

Correct, they weren't.

But the act of creating them was.

I suspect the recent add-ons to make minor undead explicitly evil are to shut down exploits where a necromancer PC could create a small army of neutral undead and then just swarm whatever adventures got in its way.

 

[Lanefan]

Show me how an evil act can create something that isn't evil.

Anything good and-or useful that was made or built by slaves probably qualifies...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Correct, they weren't.

But the act of creating them was.

I suspect the recent add-ons to make minor undead explicitly evil are to shut down exploits where a necromancer PC could create a small army of neutral undead and then just swarm whatever adventures got in its way.

The idea that there was something off about animating the dead has always been present in the game. Here's the 1e version-

Explanation/Description: This spell creates the lowest of the undead monsters, skeletons or zombies, from the bones or bodies of dead humans. The effect is to cause these remains to become animated and obey the commands of the cleric casting the spell. The skeletons or zombies will follow, remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific type of creature) entering the place, etc. The spell will animate the monsters until they are destroyed or until the magic is dispelled. (See dispel magic spell).The cleric is able to animate 1 skeleton or 1 zombie for each level of experience he or she has attained. Thus, a 2nd level cleric can animate 2 of these monsters, a 3rd level 3, etc. The act of animating dead is not basically a good one, and it must be used with careful consideration and good reason by clerics of good alignment. It requires a drop of blood, a piece of human flesh, and a pinch of bone powder or a bone shard to complete the spell.

Long-time players will remember the "Death Master" who was the first real necromancer class, and was an explicitly evil character. In fact, with quite an introduction as to why and how that class must be evil.


Moving to this, I don't think it's about exploits. I think that by the time 5e was being released, they were trying to make explicit some of the issues that had been implicit before. If you want to have a custom campaign at home with necromancy and armies of enslaved evil zombies, more power to you. Just realize that it has been coded as evil in the game. Because otherwise, you're going to get threads ... like this.

And I wouldn't want to be that Hasbro spokesman.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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 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.

Banshees aren't zombies or skeletons. That's what I quoted from MM.

You can do whatever you want with undead. I'm not disagreeing with that. The OP is talking about what the fluff from the PHB and what it says about Animate Dead and I'm using the fluff from Monsters Manual to illustrate why it would be perceived as evil. If we are ignoring the OP and just talking about "here's what you can do in a campaign", then we can just talk for another 1500 posts about all our personal campaigns and all the exceptional undead we put there.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Well, normally large predatory cats kill things specifically for purposes of sustenance. They kill you to eat you to maintain their earthly existence, and if you look like to big a hassle for the moment, they pointedly won't kill you.

The occasional ones that do come to kill just to kill... well, we eliminate them as a danger to the public. Whether they are "evil" or not is kind of secondary, given that alignment as such doesn't exist here.

Before we came to understand animal behavior much at all... well, Shere Khan wasn't considered a good guy, you know?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Anything good and-or useful that was made or built by slaves probably qualifies...

Fair enough, but how does that necessarily apply to Animate Dead?

 

[Voadam]

Reposted from earlier-

Okay, let's see. Here's 10 (I only needed 10) quotes from the PHB. Read them together and see what you think.

Sounds good.

1. School of Necromancy (PHB 118)
"Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."

My take, not indicative of inherent evil but generally considered taboo.

Taboos are generally culture specific things. In the U.S. it is generally taboo to eat dogs. I have a pet dog and live in the U.S. but I do not consider eating dogs inherently evil. The taboo must be evaluated on its own merits for whether it should be considered inherently evil or not.

2. School of Magic (PHB 203)
"Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act,

Probably the most directly relevant statement in the book on the topic.

Not good does not equal inherently evil.

Could have said evil here but specifically did not.

and only evil casters use such spells frequently."

The only evil spellcasters part is a bit odd. It is not qualified as a generalization such as "typically only evil casters" but it is limited by the "frequently" so it is an absolute line statement on evil but in a weird fuzzy place. I could see this part being used to argue either way, that the reason only evil ones do this frequeuently is because animating is inherently evil, or that casting animate dead is not inherently evil, it is literally only saying evil people do X frequently not that X is evil in a causation correlation situation.

3. Animate Dead Spell (PHB 212-13)
"Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. ... The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you’ve given it."

Foul mimicry, sure. That is a descriptive characterization.

(note that if you are creating zombies and skeletons, you are creating evil creatures where there were none ... you are not summoning or binding already existing critters)

Wait, I thought this was a list of rules quotes and asking for people's comments on the quotes.

4. Druids (PHB 65)
"Druids accept that which is cruel in nature, and they hate that which is unnatural, including aberrations (such as beholders and mind flayers) and undead (such as zombies and vampires)."

Undead are not natural.

A cult that accepts cruelty does not like undead.

5. Paladins (PHB 82, 84, 86)
"Even so, their martial skills are secondary to the magical power they wield: power to heal the sick and injured, to smite the wicked and the undead

The wicked and the undead are separate things paladins get power to smite. Got it.

... The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead

Yep detecting undead as a type. Whether a good ghost or an evil vampire.

... As an action, you present your holy symbol and speak a prayer censuring fiends and undead ..."

Right paladins have another power that can be used against undead.

6. Detect Evil and Good (PHB 231)
"For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you ..."

Can detect undead just like fey and elementals.

7. Hallow (PHB 249)
"Everlasting Rest. Dead bodies interred in the area can’t be turned into undead."

8. Raise Dead (PHB 270)
"The spell can’t return an undead creature to life."

9. Resurrection (PHB 272)
"You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn’t die of old age, and that isn’t undead."

Right an aspect of the spells that functionally interacts with undead, not really a morality thing.

10. Negative Plane (PHB 300)
"Like a dome above the other planes, the Positive Plane is the source of radiant energy and the raw life force that suffuses all living beings, from the puny to the sublime. Its dark reflection is the Negative Plane, the source of necrotic energy that destroys the living and animates the undead."

Big conclusions, not good, fairly icky, lots do not like undead.

So, does a necromancer absolutely have to be evil? No. It's says so.

Right.

But ...

And here we go

repeatedly animating the dead is evil, because:
A. It's taboo in most societies; and
B. It violated the bodily autonomy of the individual (in a world where there is certainly an afterlife); and
C. It prevents the person from being raised; and
D. It creates an evil being where none existed before; and
E. It uses the energy of the Negative Material Plane, which is NOT GOOD BOB; and
F. Read in its entirety (including the existence of spells to prevent people from coming in and raising the dead) it's clear that the base rules strongly mean that animating the dead ... aka, creating evil creatures to serve your bidding and keeping those people from ever having the chance to live again, not to mention not getting their consent, is an evil act.

I do not read these game elements to come to the same conclusion.

I think D is your strongest argument about undead creation as inherently evil but it does not come from anything the book asserts or points out, it is just your observation that created undead are evil.

I am not sure where you are pulling bodily autonomy from in the quoted game elements either, the resurrection/raise spells?

I feel like these are your reasons why you consider frequently animating bodies is only done by evil spellcasters and why you therefore consider it inherently evil but I don't feel like these are necessary conclusions from the rules text.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough, but how does that necessarily apply to Animate Dead?

You asked for an example of something good being created by an evil act. I gave you one.

Animate Dead is similar in that casting it, while an evil act, can sometimes be done with the noblest of intentions.

It boils down to a question of whether the ends justify the means.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The minor ones - skeletons, zombies, and the like - I've always seen as pretty much automatons; to the point where they themselves aren't even necessarily evil. They're mostly neutral, as in they don't have enough sentience to register on the alignment detector.

The act of creating them, however, is evil all the way.

Why would creating a neutral automaton be an evil act?

The MM states zombies and skeletons are powered by evil energy, possessed by a hateful entity and desire nothing more than to destroy life. Not neutral automatons. I'm just stating this as a baseline for reasons why a Necromancer might be perceived as evil.

But, for some reason, the books that were written for the game and that the monsters therein are being ignored for the purpose of this thread. I'm not even sure what people are arguing.