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.)

 

[Oofta]

Never been a big fan of keeping the game simple myself, not at the expense of good details.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before. I think alignment is like HP. Unrealistic, doesn't really work like the real world but still works well enough for a game. Alignment just gives the general moral compass, inadequate for detailed NPCs, but something I can use most of the time for general outlook and how they're going to interact.

I'm not a big fan of adding complexity where it's not needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before. I think alignment is like HP. Unrealistic, doesn't really work like the real world but still works well enough for a game. Alignment just gives the general moral compass, inadequate for detailed NPCs, but something I can use most of the time for general outlook and how they're going to interact.

I'm not a big fan of adding complexity where it's not needed.

Everyone has a different level of complexity they like. In order to be happy, I "need" a higher level of complexity than you for D&D. Hence my love of Level Up.

 

[MGibster]

So, yeah, this illustrates my issue with alignments exactly. This is not a criticism of you, but of the rules and the way they condition us to think about what our game world should look like. This is really no different than earlier versions of the game which depicted orcs as innately evil, etc.

We don't have alignment anymore. Not really. And it was close enough to a criticism that I must now challenge you to a duel! To the death! Of our characters.

I have a problem with labeling an entire species or type with one morality. I think it's absurdly reductionist, and I think it parallels simplistic ways of thinking about morality that have had dire consequences in real life.

This isn't really about this though, is it? We're talking about the walking dead here, not anything resembling real life.

In narrative terms, it leads to stories that I find unsatisfying. I like my villains to have understandable motives, so telling me the warlord is evil because he's raising an army of undead just doesn't engage me. My first question is, "well, why is he doing that?"

I don't expect a lot of depth in my D&D games, but that's just me. One of the problems with these types of discussions is that we have so many people coming at it from the point of view of their own personal campaigns. If we don't have any common ground, it's difficult to talk about why it's evil. It's evil because he's raising a bunch of creatures who want nothing more than to kill the living. It's bad. The rules refer to animate dead as imbuing a corpose with a foul mimicry of life. Do we typically use foul when talking about something good?

 

[Maxperson]

Except for those pesky Mummies, of course.

The 1e LE mummies that retain a semblance of life due to their evil?
The 2e LE mummies animated into a weird unlife state whose hatred of life causes them to attack living things without mercy?
The 3e LE mummies animated through the auspices of dark desert gods best left forgotten?
The 5e LE mummies raised by dark funerary rituals to death gods or other dark deities and imbued with necromantic magic?

I'm not seeing how mummies are an exception to it being evil to create undead.

Now, there ARE actual exceptions, like Baelnorns, but those remain exceptions to the rule, not something that disproves the rule.

 

[see]

The 1e LE mummies that retain a semblance of life due to their evil?
The 2e LE mummies animated into a weird unlife state whose hatred of life causes them to attack living things without mercy?
The 3e LE mummies animated through the auspices of dark desert gods best left forgotten?
The 5e LE mummies raised by dark funerary rituals to death gods or other dark deities and imbued with necromantic magic?

I'm not seeing how mummies are an exception to it being evil to create undead.

No, the exception he was remarking on was that in 1e and 2e, mummies were (by the monster description) imbued with positive energy, not negative like all other undead.

1e Monster Manual:

Mummies are undead humans with existence on both the normal and the positive material planes.

2e Monstrous Compendium 1 and Monstrous Manual:

On occasion, perhaps due to powerful evil magic or perhaps because the individual was so greedy in life that he refuses to give up his treasure, the spirit of the mummified person will not die, but taps into energy from the Positive Material plane and is transformed into an undead horror.

2e Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead:

The ancient dead as a group are unique among undead in that they appear to have a positive-energy component. This does not mean the ancient dead are good - far from it. Rather, they have at their disposal an alien power that is disruptive and inimical to life. It is through this positive connection that the ancient dead animate and maintain their corporeal bodies.

 

[Clint_L]

We don't have alignment anymore. Not really. And it was close enough to a criticism that I must now challenge you to a duel! To the death! Of our characters.

This isn't really about this though, is it? We're talking about the walking dead here, not anything resembling real life.


I don't expect a lot of depth in my D&D games, but that's just me. One of the problems with these types of discussions is that we have so many people coming at it from the point of view of their own personal campaigns. If we don't have any common ground, it's difficult to talk about why it's evil. It's evil because he's raising a bunch of creatures who want nothing more than to kill the living. It's bad.

But that's not what you originally described. You originally described a warlord who used undead soldiers, to spare his people from war. That's not evil, in my books.

 

[Maxperson]

No, the exception he was remarking on was that in 1e and 2e, mummies were (by the monster description) imbued with positive energy, not negative like all other undead.

1e Monster Manual:


2e Monstrous Compendium 1 and Monstrous Manual:


2e Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead:

That doesn't really change anything, though. D&D is and always has been an exception based game. There are exceptions to just about everything. Mummies don't change that the rule is that undead are imbued with negative energy.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The rules refer to animate dead as imbuing a corpose with a foul mimicry of life. Do we typically use foul when talking about something good?

Foul I’d say is more accurate to compare to unpleasantness than badness, some medicines are described as being foul but that’s far from being bad for you.

The intended meaning of the foulness of undead’s mimicry is imo closer to being uncanny valley or the low quality of it’s replication, how it’s blatantly obvious that this thing isn’t actually alive but is acting like it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Foul I’d say is more accurate to compare to unpleasantness than badness, some medicines are described as being foul but that’s far from being bad for you.

The intended meaning of the foulness of undead’s mimicry is imo closer to being uncanny valley or the low quality of it’s replication, how it’s blatantly obvious that this thing isn’t actually alive but is acting like it is.

Not in that context. In that context it matches the definition of foul that equates to wickedness.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Evil? Again, what are the Players' expectations? I think a lot of Players expect the practitioners of necromancy to be evil. However, if we as Players expect necromancy to be a practical use of the available technology, then necromancers are just smart and resourceful.

in the end I don't think there is a true or false answer. However, I do think the Developers of the game made their decisions based on their own expectations. Necromancy is vile--but also really cool!

"Don't be sad. I reanimated your pet cat 'Pickles'. I figure you have three or four days of love and affection before the stench becomes unbearable. You're welcome." --The Practical Necromancer.