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.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

unless you have that player that wants to do the fallen paladin thing. Or the player that wants to argue with thier god and try to fix them. I think what you meant was it's not servicing your games any more.

No. I said what I said It's not serving the pulp battle of Law and Chaos thing it was born (stolen from Moorcock) of anymore. Not only is it no longer about cosmic forces at war, it now dictates the character's personality rather than reflecting their allegance.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think the precepts and commandments of a deity =/= alignment.

It is also weird that gods all care about alignment.

Okay, the god of Justice, sure. But the god of Fishing and Woodland Animals? The God of Fire? D&D cannonical gods of indifference demand you adhere to strict neutrality sometimes as if alignment overwrites portfolio.

 

[Voadam]

I

I disagree. paladins knew in 1e what was going to happen. Most DM's I played with were pretty clear. Most would even do warnings. (there are always bad DM's so don't throw them at me. I'll ignore that argument because they affect everything). Paladins and clerics losing thier abilities was a baked into the thing game that most accepted and the ones that didn't generally only played one or two characters of those classes then moved on. If you didn't like the morality argument, you had Wizards, assassins, rogues and fighters. you can't have a game where a human being runs the game and not have conflicts on what morality or anything else means. Look at this thread. We've beaten the horse down to a plowed field ready to plant.

Yes, they knew it would be very up to the individual DM's determination of what counts as a chaotic or evil act. Individuals have good faith different views on the subject. The consequences of playing such a character then is risking having to roleplay seeking penance or losing character power based on views you disagree with or conforming your roleplay to someone else's view of the proper way to do so.

"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter."

If a DM tells a player their character falls for doing something the DM calls evil that the player thought was good and not evil, that could lead to a frustrating bad experience that is easily avoided by not tying game mechanics to such judgment calls the way 4e and 5e paladins are not subject to DM judgments on their roleplay under the rules.

 

[nevin]

I think the precepts and commandments of a deity =/= alignment. It's perfectly fine to have a God who demands that you do good things that support one's community. But there are always exceptions to commandments, and I'd rather have a tailored set of guidelines for a deity rather than a nebulous "you must be within one step of the deity's alignment" or "you must be neutral" or what have you.

I'd mention some real world examples, but that'd probably end up pouring gasoline on this thread.

I agree with this. it's why I make such a set of rule's if someone play's a paladin. I'd love the Dev team to add to the Deity source material, gods goals, what they want their followers to do with example's and guidelines. However I think this forum is near proof that even if they went to that extreme and laid it all out this argument would simply continue as if they'd never done it. Then it would be disagreements with what they said, people picking on thier writing etc. Some people just don't want any rules on their behavior and are going to argue if you tell them the town has judged them badly because they are a thief. (actual argument from a player that he shouldn't be judge for being a thief that got caught). I stand in the it's 80%ish ok. I feel like we are arguing something that cannot ever be resolved.

 

[nevin]

Yes, they knew it would be very up to the individual DM's determination of what counts as a chaotic or evil act. Individuals have good faith different views on the subject. The consequences of playing such a character then is risking having to roleplay seeking penance or losing character power based on views you disagree with or conforming your roleplay to someone else's view of the proper way to do so.

"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter."

If a DM tells a player their character falls for doing something the DM calls evil that the player thought was good and not evil, that could lead to a frustrating bad experience that is easily avoided by not tying game mechanics to such judgment calls the way 4e and 5e paladins are not subject to DM judgments on their roleplay under the rules.

but the story and what the player doesn't know could be at play there. some people like complicated stories. Are you trying to take that from them? What are you actually fixing?

 

[James Gasik]

I agree with this. it's why I make such a set of rule's if someone play's a paladin. I'd love the Dev team to add to the Deity source material, gods goals, what they want their followers to do with example's and guidelines. However I think this forum is near proof that even if they went to that extreme and laid it all out this argument would simply continue as if they'd never done it. Then it would be disagreements with what they said, people picking on thier writing etc. Some people just don't want any rules on their behavior and are going to argue if you tell them the town has judged them badly because they are a thief. (actual argument from a player that he shouldn't be judge for being a thief that got caught). I stand in the it's 80%ish ok. I feel like we are arguing something that cannot ever be resolved.

It is unfortunate that some players do hate their actions having consequences- they see games like D&D, being fantasy make-believe affairs, as an escape from the restrictions of modern society. Take for example, this exchange:

"I want my Rogue to pick pockets in the town square."

DM: "Uh, let's see. Hey, aren't you Chaotic Good?"

"Yeah, so? I have little regard for laws."

DM: "Stealing is an evil act."

"Well...what if I just target evil people?"

DM: "You can't tell if someone is evil by looking at them."

"What about rich people? If you're rich, you probably did something wrong!"

DM: "No, your character wouldn't do it. Or if you did, I'd say you're no longer Good."

Some variation of this has played out at any number of tables over the years. The DM is the final arbiter of what is or is not a good or evil act, no matter what the books say. It doesn't help that most fictional characters (let alone most real people) are way too nuanced to fairly fall into one of the nine alignments*. Many people considered "heroic" are more than capable of doing terrible things if they feel the cause is just, and D&D hasn't, historically, made exemptions to this.

*Exhibit A:

 

[nevin]

No. I said what I said It's not serving the pulp battle of Law and Chaos thing it was born (stolen from Moorcock) of anymore. Not only is it no longer about cosmic forces at war, it now dictates the character's personality rather than reflecting their allegance.

That is another discussion entirely and it's been going on since 1e. personality and alignment are two completely different things and i wish the Dev's would clearly explain that in the Rule book. I shut a friend down on these arguments when I showed him I could play a LE character and everyone would believe I was good. By the time the game was over I'd done many many wicked things but was a pillar of the community and all the players thought my character was NG.

 

[James Gasik]

That is another discussion entirely and it's been going on since 1e. personality and alignment are two completely different things and i wish the Dev's would clearly explain that in the Rule book. I shut a friend down on these arguments when I showed him I could play a LE character and everyone would believe I was good. By the time the game was over I'd done many many wicked things but was a pillar of the community and all the players thought my player was NG.

Exactly what a proper LE character should do!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly what a proper LE character should do!

This is why LE is, IMO, the best villain alignment. You can work with the LE guy.

 

[Umbran]

One other thing I've been noodling over when it comes to good and evil is the color blue. Now, before you accuse me of adding something special to my morning tea, let me explain. The color blue doesn't objectively exist. A specific wavelength of light that we interpret as blue does exist, but as far as we know we've only distinguished blue as a separate color in modern times.

So, there are several things stacked up here, and peeling them apart may help...

What we call "the color blue" is a sensory experience. So, in that sense, it is subjective. There are people who are either blind or color-blind, who cannot experience it at all - for them, the color blue effectively does not exist.

And, you say there's a specific wavelength of light that we interpret as blue exists - that's not even accurate. In reality, there's a range of wavelengths we'd interpret as 'blue". The way the human eye works, there's also going to be combinations of wavelengths that, when presented together, we would still call "blue", even if none of them individually are blue.

So, "blue" is complicated. Go figure.

But even then, we should not assume that the fact that the word "blue" didn't exist means the sensory experience also did not exist. Like, what do we think happened before language - did people not see color, though they had receptors in their eyes for it? Of course they saw it. They just didn't categorize it!

And that's what we come down to - don't mistake the inability to categorize a thing for that thing not existing. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.