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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alignment hasn't really come up in any of the games I've played, but I'ved had players wonder if an act was good or evil. People wrestle with morality in real life even without alignment.

Yes! This is good for roleplay. And we don't need the rulebooks spoil the fun by providing a "correct" answer. Let the players come up with their own answers to the moral questions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So the negative plane

Which negative plane?

 

[CreamCloud0]

And you think it's the same in this context? Okay.

No i do not think they’re the same, my point was that just because something is unpleasant or disliked that doesn’t make it inherently a bad thing, or in this case ‘an evil thing’

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No i do not think they’re the same, my point was that just because something is unpleasant or disliked that doesn’t make it inherently a bad thing, or in this case ‘an evil thing’

It seems likely that people are going to be upset if you turn the remains of their loved ones into meat-robots. To do something you know is likely to hurt people is an evil act.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It seems likely that people are going to be upset if you turn the remains of their loved ones into meat-robots. To do something you know is likely to hurt people is an evil act.

people 'being upset' at your actions does not constitute an evil act, perhaps with the exception that the act was taken with the explicit intention of causing emotional distress, and not to include any circumstance where the person or their loved ones gave permission for their body to be zombiefied, or they were some good-for-nothing bandits who actively made every other people's lives worse, or a long forgotten skeleton found in a cave that nobody would be able to identify,

and as i mentioned in an earlier post, in a world where the afterlives are an explicitly known thing would death and sanctity of a corpse be viewed the same as in our world? or are we just projecting our beliefs and values because we don't concieve of a different perspective.

 

[Voadam]

It seems likely that people are going to be upset if you turn the remains of their loved ones into meat-robots. To do something you know is likely to hurt people is an evil act.

Inherently evil would be whether it upset people or not. Animating dead does not have to be done to the dead loved ones of people living now, for example, or if the culture does not consider it wrong then it would not be upsetting.

If you are just arguing that hurting people is evil then you are not arguing that animating undead is inherently evil but that some uses are evil.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can't wait for the next topic.

"So, my adventurers need to save some coin on supplies, so they've started eating the townguards that they kill. Some dude complained that this is evil, but I'm like, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? Gold piece saved is a gold piece earned! Then I tipped my fedora at him and started complaining about the lack of moral complexity in my fantasy game."

 

[James Gasik]

I can't wait for the next topic.

"So, my adventurers need to save some coin on supplies, so they've started eating the townguards that they kill. Some dude complained that this is evil, but I'm like, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? Gold piece saved is a gold piece earned! Then I tipped my fedora at him and started complaining about the lack of moral complexity in my fantasy game."

A lizardfolk would think that's rather logical. Yet they tend to be neutral.

 

[payn]

I can't wait for the next topic.

"So, my adventurers need to save some coin on supplies, so they've started eating the townguards that they kill. Some dude complained that this is evil, but I'm like, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? Gold piece saved is a gold piece earned! Then I tipped my fedora at him and started complaining about the lack of moral complexity in my fantasy game."

Hey those guards are happily in the afterlife now so enjoy your dinner.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can't wait for the next topic.

"So, my adventurers need to save some coin on supplies, so they've started eating the townguards that they kill. Some dude complained that this is evil, but I'm like, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? Gold piece saved is a gold piece earned! Then I tipped my fedora at him and started complaining about the lack of moral complexity in my fantasy game."

Like noted, the neutral lizardfolk would happily do this.

But this indeed highlight the weirdness with the pearl-clutching about this. At the point where you are contemplating what to do to the bodies, the most morally questionable part has already occurred. Let's not pretend that in a normal D&D game the characters do not go around killing piles of sentient beings. So it seems rather hypocritical worry about the family of the hobgoblin you just killed being upset about the customary hobgoblin burial practices not being followed. Like sure, they might be upset about that, but they'd probably be way more upset about you killing their family member in the first place! That of course assuming you already didn't slay the whole hobgoblin family due the racist assumption that the hobgoblins are evil monsters.