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.)

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

It's a fairly simplistic view of evil, but D&D has always been kind of black and white. The good guys are shining paragons of virtue, the bad guys are vile and depraved, and the PC's are wandering ne'er-do-wells who only do anything if it benefits them.

I'm not sure that's true... in fact some of the earliest and most famous D&D characters and settings (greyhawk, for example) are almost explicitly "sword and sorcery", rather than tolkein high-fantasy.

...in fact you kinda contradict yourself in your post.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

To be fair, icky = evil was 60% of the entire premise of the Book of Vile Darkness. Evil includes: Bugs, cancer, being too fat, being too skinny, body modification, and BDSM.

My take on the BoVD was more that those were all aesthetic motifs that hinted at what unifies 'evil' things: treating subjects like objects.

(Also it galls me that most people are familiar with that concept from Discworld, because I actually can't stand Pratchett or his books. Sorry, not sorry.)

 

[tomBitonti]

Eh, so there is a difference between what the game presents as its current default settings, and either what the game had as a prior default setting, and what settings one might chose if there were no default settings. This is in relation to the act of creating undead. (Which is not the same thing as being undead.)

Within this framework, explaining what is the current default, and providing historical or cultural or psychological reasons for the current default being what it is, doesn't mean that the person doing the explaining agrees with the default, or that the person doesn't see room for alternate settings.

This is important to keep in mind.

TomB

 

[Baron Opal II]

True, the foundational themes of D&D have been a vague and moving target for 40+ years, beyond wargame turned adventure game.

 

[Willie the Duck]

You know, back in 1e and 2e, Mummies were stated to draw their power from the positive material plane, not the negative. Though most were still evil. Not sure if this was some backhanded reference to Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife or what.

Not that long-after-the-fact recollection is really that reliable, on a Dragonsfoot Q&A thread, Gary said he didn't remember that and assumed it was a typo that took on a life of its own.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure that's true... in fact some of the earliest and most famous D&D characters and settings (greyhawk, for example) are almost explicitly "sword and sorcery", rather than tolkein high-fantasy.

...in fact you kinda contradict yourself in your post.

I have always felt that typical D&D adventures make way more sense with grey sword and sorcery morals. And trying to cast S&S style 'kill them and take their stuff' adventures as some sort of noble crusade for the greater good has a lot of unfortunate implications.

 

[Oofta]

True, the foundational themes of D&D have been a vague and moving target for 40+ years, beyond wargame turned adventure game.

Which I think is one of it's strengths. I've done very few dungeon crawls/invade enemy territory for their loot type games for a long time. I just think story driven heroic campaigns are more fun.

Meanwhile others run games with morally grey murder hoboes, which couldn't be much further from what I run.

That flexibility and lack of assumptions is a strength, not a weakness IMHO.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not sure that's true... in fact some of the earliest and most famous D&D characters and settings (greyhawk, for example) are almost explicitly "sword and sorcery", rather than tolkein high-fantasy.

...in fact you kinda contradict yourself in your post.

The contradiction was intentional, for comedic purposes. Sorry that my joke didn't land, lol.

But really, it's true on a meta level. Offer the players a chance to do some real good without any reward and they'll do it, but rarely will they be excited about it. It can happen- I'm usually happy to do the right thing myself, but it sometimes takes some prodding.

Then tell them, in the spirit of charity, nobody gains experience points for this quest either. : )

 

[Baron Opal II]

Which I think is one of it's strengths. I've done very dungeon crawls/invade enemy territory for their loot type games for a long time. I just think story driven heroic campaigns are more fun.

Meanwhile others run games with morally grey murder hoboes, which couldn't be much further from what I run.

That flexibility and lack of assumptions is a strength, not a weakness IMHO.

I agree that it is a strength overall. I am certainly happy I don't have very much to pry from the rules to adapt them to my campaign.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Because the zombies and skeletons last until destroyed, so they break the action economy over a longer period of time that Summoning spells do. DM's always hate it when the players get to do more stuff, so it must be "inherently evil".