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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

All systems require points of reference for humans to make sense of them.

We do not have source for objective morality in the real life, we don't need such in fiction either. Not having one will just make the fictional world more real.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When one of those nerds can waggle their fingers and utter a few arcane phrases to turn me into a newt get back to me.

CRSPR.

 

[Stormonu]

So we have come full circle to noting that in Thay it's not considered evil to animate dead. The argument has come full circle.

Those in power aren't willing to admit it's not evil, because they can get away with it, despite what the rest of the population thinks. Honestly, in Thay it's a form of slavery.

 

[Oofta]

No, you absolutely do not need to have such a thing, and I'd go so far to argue that having such a thing is a disservice. Just describe how things are, people can make up their own minds about good and evil, just like in real life. There is no need for the game designers to forcefeed their outdated moral systems to the players.

The game is based on widely held common beliefs, myths, and assumptions. There's nothing force fed about stating the assumptions the book is based upon, the authors repeatedly state that you should make the game your own. D&D is not "high art", it is not an advanced philosophy course, it is mass appeal fantasy which means it will assume the core tropes of fantasy and let individuals deviate as they see fit.

The rules and descriptions are not shackles, they're suggested default assumptions based on broadly shared (and popular) concepts.

 

[Oofta]

Those in power aren't willing to admit it's not evil, because they can get away with it, despite what the rest of the population thinks. Honestly, in Thay it's a form of slavery.

People that commit the most heinous and evil acts rarely believe they are evil.

 

[nevin]

We do not have source for objective morality in the real life, we don't need such in fiction either. Not having one will just make the fictional world more real.

Everybody has a source for objective morality in real life. it's called the culture you grew up in.

 

[nevin]

Those in power aren't willing to admit it's not evil, because they can get away with it, despite what the rest of the population thinks. Honestly, in Thay it's a form of slavery.

Those in power generally only care about power and the first thing they jettison to justify everything is the simple moral ideas of Good and Evil because they are silly and no one should be burdened by such things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Everybody has a source for objective morality in real life. it's called the culture you grew up in.

Do you know what "objective" means? Because it appears you don't. Also cultural morality (thankfully) changes and it is common for people to disagree with the cultural norms of their own culture.

 

[Voadam]

All systems require points of reference for humans to make sense of them.

I don't think you need the books to tell you that animating undead is evil by itself or not for you to make sense of D&D and animating undead in the game.

Particularly in 5e where no real mechanical consequence flows from such a moral determination.

In 3e and AD&D where there were mechanical consequences to a paladin doing an evil action it was more relevant and useful for the game to define. 3e's descriptors gave an easy to use determination. Animate dead had the [Evil] descriptor so a paladin casting that spell could be an easy agreement about it being an evil act without getting into judgment calls or arguments about intent or results or cultural values or such.

 

[nevin]

Do you know what "objective" means? Because it appears you don't. Also cultural morality (thankfully) changes and it is common for people to disagree with the cultural norms of their own culture.

but the one you grew up in isn't the one it changed too today. Everyone was raised in a specific manner and taught objective things that may have changed now that you are older. objective just being the facts and culture of what you were taught growing up. Not the changed version you'll argue today. Unless the things you were taught changed while they were teaching them to you?