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.)

 

[Maxperson]

I remember my first philosophy course I took as an undergraduate and the instructor started out saying, "Philosophy isn't a bunch of 'we know nothing' baloney. It's supposed to be useful, meaning you can apply it to real life situations." Philosophy isn't just an academic exercise, it has ramifications in the real world.

Most of why I've heard, like the Aristotle quote earlier that said whatever you prefer is good, doesn't seem all that applicable to the real world. I mean, if you take that quote at face value, it says that every act, no matter how heinous, is good if the person doing it prefers it. It's a fun thought project, but is clearly wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree,

The alignment disagreement issues have been there since 1e with paladins falling for single evil actions and level loss and xp penalties for switching alignments up through 3e with alignment requirements for classes and fallen paladin rules. All the way until 4e took out mechanical issues for alignment and then it became a mostly academic argument without a big impact on the game and PCs.

Alignment has always been vague and hard to pin down on specifics with contradictory and conflicting stuff going on in descriptions and the potential for people to view things differently. 1e-3e had mechanical setups though for DMs to police the morality of PC roleplay and impose mechanical consequences for characters as opposed to game reactions of NPCs to PC actions.

3e did a good job with good and evil in the PHB. Paladins were another issue, with slight disagreements possibly causing loss of paladinhood. Fortunately, you could play CG, LE and CE paladins, so you weren't stuck trying to be some person's idea of LG.

 

[Voadam]

Most of why I've heard, like the Aristotle quote earlier that said whatever you prefer is good, doesn't seem all that applicable to the real world. I mean, if you take that quote at face value, it says that every act, no matter how heinous, is good if the person doing it prefers it. It's a fun thought project, but is clearly wrong.

Not quite the reading I would give. Not whatever you prefer but whatever is preferable. The good choice of only evil options is the lesser evil option.

""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"

 

[Voadam]

To each their own, sure. It's just a preference.

Is there a bad faith good guy problem that you see?

 

[Lanefan]

Is stealing evil or chaotic? Especially if you're going to try to insist on objective morality and not consider what and why you're stealing. Bread for a starving child and all that.

And how hard is it to just let the thief pick pockets and deal with the outcome of them being spotted instead of wasting time trying to browbeat them for even considering trying?

Were I the DM I'd also pretty much cut straight to playing out the character's thievery attempts, and sorting out the outcomes (if any).

However, one of those outcomes might be me writing a quiet note-to-self that this particular character's alignment might not be quite what the player claims it to be.

 

[Maxperson]

Not quite the reading I would give. Not whatever you prefer but whatever is preferable. The good choice of only evil options is the lesser evil option.

""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"

It's clear that the lesser evil becomes good because you prefer it over the other. At that point, though, anything you prefer becomes good since which is lesser and which is greater is subjective.

 

[Tonguez]

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.

the paladin v baby goblins argument has been around for a long time, so much so that iirc it even makes its way into a Neverwinter video game.

 

[Umbran]

Most of why I've heard, like the Aristotle quote earlier that said whatever you prefer is good, doesn't seem all that applicable to the real world. I mean, if you take that quote at face value, it says that every act, no matter how heinous, is good if the person doing it prefers it. It's a fun thought project, but is clearly wrong.

Bold take, Maxperson - Aristotle? Pff! He's just wrong. Why is anyone listening to this guy?

 

[Maxperson]

Bold take, Maxperson - Aristotle? Pff! He's just wrong. Why is anyone listening to this guy?

I mean, that quote literally says anything you prefer is good.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think the quote is saying the same thing if you change it from a comparison of a lesser evil to a greater evil to a comparison of an evil that you prefer to a good that you prefer less. It is no longer a lesser evil.

""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"

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