• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

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.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad




James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Unlikely. Also, 'perfectly risk free' is an absurd standard. You can set things in fire with a fireball, you could accidentally start a forest fire or burn down a city, causing way greater danger than some pesky zombie would.
These are all arguments I have personally- I don't see why Animate Dead is any more evil than any other spell, but again, this is the way WotC wants it, so that's how it is.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Unlikely. Also, 'perfectly risk free' is an absurd standard. You can set things in fire with a fireball, you could accidentally start a forest fire or burn down a city, causing way greater danger than some pesky zombie would.
It's not even unlikely. An adventurer has lots of surprises and trips away. Sooner or later you will lose control either because you weren't there or because you ran out of slots saving your rears in a fight.
 

It's not even unlikely. An adventurer has lots of surprises and trips away. Sooner or later you will lose control either because you weren't there or because you ran out of slots saving your rears in a fight.
It is unlikely that you were taken out but your undead that was ordered to protect you wasn't. And like I have tried to explain about seven thousand times, the slots don't matter. If you can't or don't want to renew the spell, you just destroy the undead before the time runs out. You can do so safely, as you can order it to not defend itself.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It is unlikely that you were taken out but your undead that was ordered to protect you wasn't. And like I have tried to explain about seven thousand times, the slots don't matter. If you can't or don't want to renew the spell, you just destroy the undead before the time runs out. You can do so safely, as you can order it to do nothing.
It's not a given that you will be able to do that.
 

It's not a given that you will be able to do that.
And it's not given that your fireball don't set a city in fire and kill thousands of people. 🤷


Just accept that it is an absurd standard from harm causing perspective. A lot of things have small chance of being dangerous if you're careless, and they still are not considered evil. This is solely based on thematic 'undead are icky' and not on some logical risk analysis.
 


Remove ads

Top