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"
People willingly take mind-altering drugs all the time. Booze and weed for fun, sleep aids, medicine prescribed by a therapist, herbal supplements to help with concentration, etc. These are all things that Enchantment school can do too in a positive manner.
Secondly, your argument has a few dozen flaws in it.
You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately so - I never used absolutes. D&D has a
bias towards exploring dungeons and fighting monsters - its in the name. The overwhelming majority of spells are aimed at doing just that, and yes, there's even a few exceptions to that rule. Its a general trend, not an absolute. Heck, some spells, such as Arcane Lock, are meant to be used AGAINST the party instead of for them - "This spell is what antagonist wizards use to magically protect locks from rogues." Stronghold / dungeon building, in other words; strongholds are just dungeons for PCs instead of enemies. Prestigitation has been quoted as one of the best adventuring utility spells because it can be used to clean up, light fires, etc. All needs for someone surviving away from friendly civilizations. Mending has its uses for fixing things in ruins.
Enchantment, as it specifically targets minds - what kind of minds do you tend to run into while adventuring? Usually commoners, quest givers and antagonists. For the enterprising dungeon builder, controlling their minions. You generally don't need to use magic against the former two types of people, and you generally want to leverage violence against the latter two. D&D generally is a poor game to mimic political games or helping people with mental illnesses.
And, again, this is a general trend. A
bias.
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
Most of these very much do have adventuring applications. I mean, hells. Air Bubble is literally a spell designed for exploring hazardous environments. How you can claim that's not adventuring?
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.
Ah. My bad.
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?
Because, the moment you don't renew the spell...
the skeletons and zombies are now NPCs under the control of the DM. You are not the zombies and skeletons. If you want to play an undead character? Hells, I'd be all for it. But your summons and animated dead are not your character. You have magical control over them until the spell ends, same as if you cast Dominate Person on an NPC.
I also find what sounds like disdain towards "flavor and lore" to be out of place. The PHB, MM and DMG all come with default description of how the D&D cosmology works. This is part of that. If you want a homebrew world with different rules, then more power to you. But we should acknowedge that's not the default understanding of D&D cosmology. Here, in any forum, we should default to the cosmology as presented in the book unless otherwise stated.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "I want to use something different than what's in the core books." But this conversation is about why Necromancy (or, in my case, Animate Dead specifically, though there's also an argument that necrotic energy is associated with the Evil Planes) is considered "evil" by default. We're talking about the default assumptions of the D&D cosmology.
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.
The intent of Animate Dead is to raise undead and put them under your control... until the time expires and you haven't renewed the spell. Once the duration is over, the undead don't disolve or lose their animation, the spellcaster just loses control over them. At which point, they revert back to their insticts "in the wild." IE. DM control, as described in the DMG.
Meaning that, as a player who is not supposed to read the Monster Manual, how am I supposed to know this information?
There's a ton of ways. Experiment and see what happens when the time expires during downtime. Make a Study (Arcane) check. Use a divination spell. And that's assuming the DM just doesn't tell you as a player and that your PC would automatically know this.
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.
There's no conflict. D&D has a default assumption divorced from the real world. This is understood by the fact that D&D has magic that we need to treat as real and is a complete bastardization of real world mythology.
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?
Animate Dead isn't a temporary defender - the undead persist after they're raised. They are creatures of necrotic energy - there's no disputing that. If you wanted something of radiant energy, then maybe, just maybe, you should cast something like Guardian Spirits or some other kind of summoning spell. There's plenty of ways to call down holy beings instead of raising creatuers powered by energy associated with the Hells, Hades and the Abyss.
Why would a god associated with the higher planes grant a spell that requires energy from the lower ones? Perhaps you need to pose as an evil cleric to prevent a greater tragedy. Maybe you need to fake a death to protect a life, and animating a zombie helps with witnesses and smuggling a corpse into a city that you plan to char and leave fully dead before time expires (this actually happens in one of the Drizzt books, as executed by one of the main characters). There's plenty of possibilities.
Might as well ask why a Goodly being has any spells that can harm other people. Sometimes, its necessary for the greater Good.
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.
And that's great... for your table if you're so inclined to run things that way. However, that is not the default assumption of the game. Saying "I don't want to use the default assumptions of the game" is cool; no one is forcing you. Trying to pass off your fanon as actual canon isn't.
The books are "inflexible" (they're really not) because D&D fans overwhelmingly voted in favor of having more of this kind of story and lore and in world monster psychology along with physiology. Again, you don't have to use the default lore at your table, but that doesn't change that its still default lore.
