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]

Cool.

I was thinking more of mechanics that would work for slightly more mortal characters, but if that's all there is then so be it.

I gather, then, that the 1e idea where Evil Clerics could control undead where a Good or Neutral Cleric would instead have turned them has gone by the boards? Pity.

I thought it hadn't been removed, but when I went to double check before posting I noticed that it wasn't part of turning undead any longer.

 

[Seramus]

Oathbreaker Paladins, but their ability to control undead is also borked long term.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm actually surprised Animate Dead is a spell in the PHB, it really feels like they didn't want players doing this (at least at launch) with all these "hey this is evil" comments, and putting the Death Priest in the DMG. But I guess there's always Warlocks, right?

"Look, I know it's evil, but I made this dumb deal with a guy wearing a long coat in a back alley. I don't want to be able to turn people into zombies, but the world isn't going to save itself!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm actually surprised Animate Dead is a spell in the PHB, it really feels like they didn't want players doing this (at least at launch) with all these "hey this is evil" comments, and putting the Death Priest in the DMG. But I guess there's always Warlocks, right?

"Look, I know it's evil, but I made this dumb deal with a guy wearing a long coat in a back alley. I don't want to be able to turn people into zombies, but the world isn't going to save itself!"

That's an excellent point. I wonder if WotC's forced moralizing here will lead to the spell being removed in the next iteration.

 

[payn]

That's an excellent point. I wonder if WotC's forced moralizing here will lead to the spell being removed in the next iteration.

I hope not. I would rather they give warlocks good and evil patrons.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or make the core setting agnostic and leave the Volo-style commentary to supplements.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I hope not. I would rather they give warlocks good and evil patrons.

Me too. But there does seem to be evidence that they are now using the rules to push heroism, instead of just the tone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I hope not. I would rather they give warlocks good and evil patrons.

Once you remove the alignment any patron can be good, evil, neither or both.

 

[payn]

Once you remove the alignment any patron can be good, evil, neither or both.

No thanks.

 

[payn]

Me too. But there does seem to be evidence that they are now using the rules to push heroism, instead of just the tone.

What evidence is that? (Honest question)