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]

Have to? No, of course not. Nothing is absolutely required. Is the game more successful because they have a concept of good and evil that can be easily ignored? Are you really debating that?

No, because as I said before, commercial success is not a factor in my argument., no matter how central it seems to be for others.

 

[Umbran]

I know they have assumptions. That's never been in doubt. I'm speculating as to whether or not they have to have them, or if they just decided to bake those setting assumptions into the rules. I don't know why folks keep quoting the rules as if we somehow don't know about them.

"Have to"? Of course not. As an example, Fate Accelerated has no such morality associated with specific powers. But then, Fate Accelerated is incredibly short on defined powers at all. But as a piece of absolute logic, FAE proves that no, it is not absolutely necessary. If that's what you are looking for, there you go - the rules could technically be formulated without it.

"Find it extremely useful to in the base D&D product?" - very probably yes.

Rarely are writing choices a matter of absolute necessity. They are about effectiveness at doing the job the writer wants to do.

 

[Oofta]

No, because as I said before, commercial success is not a factor in my argument., no matter how central it seems to be for others.

Okay, but I was responding to

I know they have assumptions. That's never been in doubt. I'm speculating as to whether or not they have to have them, or if they just decided to bake those setting assumptions into the rules. I don't know why folks keep quoting the rules as if we somehow don't know about them.

This forum is doesn't really seem the proper venue for an in-depth philosophy discussion, and honestly I don't really care. People have been debating the true nature of good and evil, right and wrong forever. Seems to me it's about as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, which is why I limit my concerns to gaming.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

People have been debating the true nature of good and evil, right and wrong forever.

I answered this several pages back. It's golden retrievers.

The other end of the scale, for anyone curious, is Chihuahuas.

 

[Umbran]

No, because as I said before, commercial success is not a factor in my argument., no matter how central it seems to be for others.

With respect, then your argument is poorly formed.

That YOU don't care about commercial success is irrelevant in what THEY view as requirements or the basis for choices. What they "have to do" should be considered from their point of view and needs, not yours.

 

[Maxperson]

This might be at the core of the disagreement. I don't think it is meaningful to hold good to such impractical idealistic standards. If you only have bad choices, then the least bad is the "good" one. So yes, assassinating a tyrant to stop them committing a genocide is not evil; if you had an opportunity to do that, it is the inaction that would be evil. Same way a necromancer using an undead army to protect the lives of innocents can be seen as justified, and again inaction would be morally questionable.

I think your premise here is flawed. All choices can be evil. Murdering someone to save a thousand others is still evil. There can be a least evil choice, but evil doesn't become good just because the other choices were worse.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't recall seeing anywhere that cannibalism is neutral. I've seen someone say that neutral lizard men eat other species(not cannibalism). I can assure you that in my game cannibalism, consorting with demons and devils and slavery(physical or with mental control) are all evil acts.

I guess "cannibalism" isn't precisely the best term here. I'm not sure what you'd call "willing to eat the corpse of another sentient creature that is not of your species" would be called. But I'm pretty sure, based on statements in this thread, a lot of people would consider it "evil".

 

[Maxperson]

I answered this several pages back. It's golden retrievers.

The other end of the scale, for anyone curious, is Chihuahuas.

Chihuahuas will cut you. We have a 5 months old 45 pound pitbull/shar pei mix puppy. She came running through the kitchen into my office yesterday with her chew treat in her mouth glancing backwards. I expected our black lab mix(also around 45 pounds) to be the one coming after her treat, but no, trotting around the corner came the 5 pound chihuahua.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess "cannibalism" isn't precisely the best term here. I'm not sure what you'd call "willing to eat the corpse of another sentient creature that is not of your species" would be called. But I'm pretty sure, based on statements in this thread, a lot of people would consider it "evil".

I would certainly be put off by the idea of eating an elf or dwarf. And I think that lizard men should probably be evil. I think Gygax probably made them neutral since he designed them to be little more than smart alligators. He also had some odd views on alignment, so that could be it as well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think your premise here is flawed. All choices can be evil. Murdering someone to save a thousand others is still evil. There can be a least evil choice, but evil doesn't become good just because the other choices were worse.

"For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good."
-Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

I think I have to agree with Aristotle here. I think it is more meaningful to judge the good and evil based on options we actually have. So good is to do the most moral thing we can do in a given situation. And sometimes it just happens that the situation sucks.