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.)

 

[payn]

"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.

That doesnt make the lesser evil not evil though, it just means it should be viewed as the better option morally. The context is entirely different. You are again trying to shape this in your favor.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

There have been real human cultures which practiced cannibalism. Sometimes it was eating parts of dead members of the community as part of the grieving process. Sure, it sounds pretty gross to us, but I think it is rather culturally insensitive for us to call it evil.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That doesnt make the lesser evil not evil though, it just means it should be viewed as the better option morally. The context is entirely different. You are again trying to shape this in your favor.

I am not sure that this is even a disagreement about ethics any more, rather than disagreement about semantics. Whether we call the most moral thing to do in bad situation "good" or "lesser evil" is ultimately meaningless, if we actually agree that it is the correct thing to do.

 

[James Gasik]

"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.

There's a fun quote from Legend of the Five Rings along these lines. "Choosing between evils is still choosing evil."

I don't pretend that if I were an evil Necromancer, and I saved a kingdom by using an undead army, that my actions would be considered "Good", even if the "greater good" was served. It's a slippery slope, to be sure- once you start down the path of compromise, you can no longer claim the moral high ground.

However, if I were responsible about the use of my undead horde, I think I could make a strong case for being neutral. I mean, lots of famous historical figures in our own history made questionable choices.

Is Harry Truman an evil monster for using the atomic bomb to end WW2? In the real world, there's a lot of nuance to that question.

Even in D&D, it is not for mortals to judge, but the Gods. And if all the Gods universally agree that raising the undead for any purpose is evil, that's one thing- but I don't think that's necessarily true.

For example, in the Greyhawk setting, Wee Jas is a Goddess of, among other things, Death. Quote: "she has no problem with undead being created - as long as they are not reanimated against their will, and their remains are procured in a lawful manner."

And she's Lawful Neutral (though some will say she has LE tendencies).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Happily, no one ever asked him what he thought about paladins eating orc babies, which I am sure he had an answer for.

 

[Maxperson]

"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.

Good is good and evil is evil. Evil can't become good. Philosophy is fine as an academic exercise, but when you(general you) are trying to justify evil acts, that's a problem. Especially since once you start making it that subjective, I can go around making anything I feel like good. Murder 10 orphans? It's a good act because now they aren't a burden on society and their poor quality of life has ended!

 

[Maxperson]

Happily, no one ever asked him what he thought about paladins eating orc babies, which I am sure he had an answer for.

But a paladin converting one to good by the sword and then murdering it to keep it from backsliding, that's LG!!!!

 

[Umbran]

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 played a lizardfolk barbarian for a bit - a character concept I want to explore further at some point. I had to think through his position on this.

Ultimately, to him... meat's meat. Protein is protein. Actually hunting sentients is stupid, unless you are really hard up for food, for the same reason that hunting large carnivores is stupid - they're just dangerous prey. Non-sentient herbivores are way better reward vs risk. You don't take on the shark or orca when there's a perfectly delicious cod swimming right there.

But, like, the party had to kill the ogre anyway. It's dead now. They weren't gonna bury it, or cremate it, or anything - it was gonna just lay there until the wolves and buzzards found it. Seems an awful waste of a good resource there. Maybe you don't wanna ask what he's roasting over the fire that night, or exactly where that new axe-handle came from...

Mind you, the goal there wasn't really a "good" character. Just one that would be tolerably "neutral". His loyalty to friends and willingness to take on threats for the good of the collective might lean him into good territory on the balance.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That doesnt make the lesser evil not evil though, it just means it should be viewed as the better option morally. The context is entirely different. You are again trying to shape this in your favor.

i think trying to assign actions to have certain inherent moral good-ness or bad-ness that persist through all circumstances probably isn't helping with us having any form of nuance in the discussion, the motive and the circumstance it was taken in are as much a part of what determinines the morality of an action as the action itself IMO.

 

[payn]

i think trying to assign actions to have certain inherent moral good-ness or bad-ness that persist through all circumstances probably isn't helping with us having any form of nuance in the discussion, the motive and the circumstance it was taken in are as much a part of what determinines the morality of an action as the action itself IMO.

Not in D&D alignment. Not even in a court of law which only determines your culpability, not your ethical standing.