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]

I would argue that summoning angels to do your will, say with a 3e wizard summon monster spell which is not inherently evil, but casting the spell to do evil ("I summon you to kill these innocent orphans and puppies!") enough would make the caster evil.

That, too. What you do with summoned/created creatures doesn't that the spell itself isn't inherently good or evil. Going to 3e Holy Word was a good aligned spell that could be used to kill a bunch of non-good babies in an orphanage(evil act).

 

[This Effin’ GM]

That, too. What you do with summoned/created creatures doesn't that the spell itself isn't inherently good or evil. Going to 3e Holy Word was a good aligned spell that could be used to kill a bunch of non-good babies in an orphanage(evil act).

Yeah but it’s a cleric spell for a reason. Only those wise enough to know testing it out on babies is an absolute no no will be granted this awesome power. Given a chance you KNOW Wizards are gonna try it just to see if it works, those wacky baby murderers

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

Why would it be?

In the case you were not joking:

If they are intelligent undead would they not know that these weren't sentient beings and just moving corpses? Even if they didn't know, the undead aren't exactly much of a unified force.

 

[Cadence]

For 5e, skeletons and zombies are both listed as evil alignment. It feels like making evil things is... evil?

 

[Jer]

That makes sense for the real world, but good and evil in D&D are objective things. Undead creation is not going to be a good act in one society and an evil act in another.

Even if that's true, why is it that the society that thinks undead creation is evil is the one that's right? It could be a neutral act and they could both be wrong.

 

[TheSword]

It’s evil, for the same reason eating the dead, and having sex with the dead is considered evil.

It stems from the fact that the bodies of the dead are considered precious even after death, both as a memorial to the person who was once living to remember them. And because the body was thought to once housed the spirit and therefore should be treated with respect. Reverence for the dead is something that pretty consistent across cultures, even ones that haven’t come into contact with each other.

From a biological/evolutionary stand point there are also good reasons why as humans we would have a biological imperative to avoid other humans that are dead. To avoid disease and/or other causes of the death that might affect us to. It’s one of the theories behind the Uncanny Valley that causes revulsion to things that look almost human but aren’t quite right. Hence messing with the dead being taboo.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if that's true, why is it that the society that thinks undead creation is evil is the one that's right? It could be a neutral act and they could both be wrong.

Sure, but again, in D&D good and evil are objective, not subjective. It doesn't matter what the societies think, only one is correct(assuming a third society where it's a neutral act in their eyes). Which leads us back to the 5e PHB section on necromancy. If only evil casters create undead very often, there's something about using it that is objectively not kosher. Otherwise good wizards could use it for good purposes all day long and that comment wouldn't be in there.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

It’s evil, for the same reason eating the dead, and having sex with the dead is considered evil.

Now someone tells me.

 

[Maxperson]

Now someone tells me.

I was going to, but you were busy.

 

[Jer]

Sure, but again, in D&D good and evil are objective, not subjective. It doesn't matter what the societies think, only one is correct. Which leads us back to the 5e PHB section on necromancy. If only evil casters create undead very often, there's something about using it that is objectively not kosher. Otherwise good wizards could use it for good purposes all day long and that comment wouldn't be in there.

Or it could be a neutral act and much like gluttony, sloth, and other things that get put under the blanket of evil are evil when not done in moderation. Making a few undead here or there might be a neutral act, much like eating a meal. Making a huge number of undead could be an evil act in the same way that stuffing yourself with food while others go hungry is an evil act.