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.)

 

[nevin]

Your point? Popularity doesn't matter in rules design.

It does matter in sales. something developers other creatives love to pretend isn't important.

 

[nevin]

and last I checked I've been arguing that D&D is the way it is because it follows the written and unwritten norms of that apeal to the masses.
so point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It does matter in sales. something developers other creatives love to pretend isn't important.

I am never talking about sales, except to lament how much it is prioritized. I am talking about game design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and last I checked I've been arguing that D&D is the way it is because it follows the written and unwritten norms of that apeal to the masses.
so point.

Fair enough. Not my issue.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure D&D changes based on mass appeal. It also changes based on negative attention, as seen with 2e, where TSR tried to "clean up it's image". Doesn't make the change positive just because you're trying to dodge a social panic. But think about what you're saying.

"The rules are the way they are because the majority of people like it that way."

Is that really how to design a game? That's like saying we should amend Monopoly to allow you to claim money from landing on Free Parking because a lot of people play it that way. Oh and remove auctions, because most people don't use those rules.

 

[Umbran]

Your point? Popularity doesn't matter in rules design.

This is only true if you are designing a game for the sake of designing a game, instead of for sake of people playing it, or selling it.

If having folks interact with your rules design in any way is one of the goals of the creation of the rules, then what those people think about it matters.

 

[nevin]

Honestly I think most of the hot button issues for people with game design go to the same place. Fantasy is not a perfectly "known" thing but people tend to want a pretty predictable set of things to play a fantasy game. I've learned that lesson the hard way over the years. You touch an invisible sacred cow and suddenly all the player's are mad or don't want to play. But what most people want from fantasy come's from our collective myths and legends and children's tale's and I think the day WOTC or HASBRO messes with that very much "mass appeal" model will be the day the potentially destroy the franchise.

 

[billd91]

Ok, that's certainly true in our world. But D&D worlds aren't our world. For one thing, magic is real and can be quite common. And rather than being aloof, D&D Gods are actively granting miracles by the truckload to their priests.

The idea that all D&D societies would evolve the same way as they did on our earth is a bit ludicrous on it's face. And even if they did, there are lots of evil actions societies will turn a blind eye to if there's a need, like slavery or child labor.

My objection, by the way, isn't that animating the dead is something a society objects to- that's perfectly fine. It's that the game itself says "on a metaphysical level, this thing is evil, while other, equally objectional things are not metaphysically evil".

Like, say, Dominate Person.

True, D&D worlds aren't our world. But the D&D alignment system is based at least loosely on real-world morality and literature - and those clearly are informed by the idea that most real cultures would have a problem with having grandma's corpse (or even just skeleton) animated by some necromancer. Enchantment, slavery, unmitigated violence - all of those may also be considered evil or at least put to evil use, but none of those are quite as blatantly transgressive as imbuing the dead with a persistent "un"life.

 

[nevin]

Sure D&D changes based on mass appeal. It also changes based on negative attention, as seen with 2e, where TSR tried to "clean up it's image". Doesn't make the change positive just because you're trying to dodge a social panic. But think about what you're saying.

"The rules are the way they are because the majority of people like it that way."

Is that really how to design a game? That's like saying we should amend Monopoly to allow you to claim money from landing on Free Parking because a lot of people play it that way. Oh and remove auctions, because most people don't use those rules.

depends. Are you appealing to the masses and trying to make money. Or are you trying to develop a game that is perfect to you but has limited sale value. Both can be valid reasons. But to argue the popularity and money aren't important in D&D game design is like ignoring not the elephant in the room but the fact that elephant's ever existed

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is only true if you are designing a game for the sake of designing a game, instead of for sake of people playing it, or selling it.

If having folks interact with your rules design in any way is one of the goals of the creation of the rules, then what those people think about it matters.

Fair enough, perhaps I overstated. My point was that the majority shouldn't make all your design decisions, and that people who like things the majority might not shouldn't be discarded.