I think that you're missing the fact that D&D is a violent game. Of course there's going to be a whole host of violent spells in every school (except Abjuration), because that's what the game revolves around. This is just a kind of selection bias - there's plenty of non-offensive potential in Enchantment school, we just don't get to see it, because, well, defeating antagonists is the name of the game. Literally in this case.
I'm not missing that point at all. When looking at the school of "manipulating people's minds" the very concept has very few non-evil uses, especially when compared to the school of "making energy" or the school of "changing physical things"
Secondly, your argument has a few dozen flaws in it.
Control Flames, Druidcraft/Thaumaturgy/Prestidigitation, Mage Hand, Message, Mending, Shape Water, Ceremony, Comprehend Languages, Create or Destroy Water, Distort Value, Illusory Script, Purify Food and Drink, Unseen Servant, Air Bubble, Arcane Lock, Mordenkainen's Chest, Mordenkainen's Secret Sanctum, Guards and Wards, Temple of the Gods, Creation, Fabricate, Calm Emotions, Gentle Repose, Locate Animals or Plants, Nystuls' Magic Aura, Pyrotechnics, Skywrite, ect ect ect ect
We have spells that aren't violent, aren't combat focused, and have little to no use in the standard adventuring day. Spells for having someone come of age, or building buildings, or making fire dance. Calm Emotions even exists as a not-neccesarily evil, non-combat use for the enchantment school. So you really can't claim selection bias because more spells exist than we can see, when we do get to see other types of spells that would also not be there if this selection bias theory were stronger. I mean, come on, there is an entire high level spell devoted to a pocket mansion. Sure, it can be a place to rest after the violence, but the hut does the exact same thing. It exists for portable luxury.
They're in the core books, and the Raise Dead spell specifically references the monsters, which are in the MM. Its like the Conjure Elemental and Conjure Minor Elemental spells. There are no elementals in the PHB, but they very much can be called upon. In fact, the spells (both Raise Dead and the Elemental ones) both reference the DM having the stats, presumably because the DM is the one with the MM.
Saying that its not in the PHB isn't a good excuse. D&D relies on three core books, not just the PHB. You can make a good argument for any book outside of those three, but not the three itself.
Firstly, Raise Dead is the wrong Necromancy spell. That's the good one that people accept as being fully good with no questions because it brings back PCs as PCs. You mean Animate Dead.
Secondly, the reason it matters that it is in the MM and not the PHB is because you are talking flavor and lore. Yes, the DM has the statistics, but are the stats the lore? No. Just like the Mage in the MM doesn't define how my wizard plays, why am I beholden to the lore of the MM for this?
And, it is very interesting that you bring up Conjure Elemental. Because here is something from that spell "
If your concentration is broken, the elemental doesn't disappear. Instead, you lose control of the elemental, it becomes hostile toward you and your companions, and it might attack. An uncontrolled elemental can't be dismissed by you, and it disappears 1 hour after you summoned it."
Animate Dead? "
If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete. The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you've given it. To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one."
So, if the intent is that the Animate Dead spell causes uncontrolled undead to attack the nearest living creature.... why is that not mentioned anywhere in the spell? Remember, spells only do what they say they do. It doesn't say anything about evil spirits being used either.
Meaning that, as a player who is not supposed to read the Monster Manual, how am I supposed to know this information? Sure, you can say "you know what a zombie is" but if you take zombie lore back to the roots with misinterpreted Voodoo, they were little more than Flesh Golems (whose creation and use is also not evil)
I'm not saying the MM lore doesn't exist, I'm saying the two different interpretations are in conflict, and we consistently have the Player's override lore when making their characters. Otherwise, you couldn't have interesting PCs for 80% of the lineages in the game.
Clerics, as a whole, are based around necromancy; its part of their class identity. There's a reason they get Turn Undead, one and all. Clerics get their power from the blessings of gods and other powerful beings of the Outer Planes. Also known as the afterlife that the majority of souls travel to. They get the ability to commune with the dead. So, its only natural that Light and Love and Law cast spells related to necromancy, because that's just part of the base class. Subclasses don't overwrite base classes.
So, you are saying it is more reasonable that a Diety of Good and Light, with access to good, selfless souls willing to temporarily give up paradise, to have their cleric use their power to contract an evil spirit that hates life and wishes for the destruction of all light, life, and joy, rather than utilizing the souls of the good and pure beings for a temporary defender?
For me, I'd say there are multiple ways to reach the same end goal, especially since I am aware of multiple different interpretations and takes on Undead, rather than have Good aligned deities empowering evil spirits because the Monster Manual is inflexible.
