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.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Getting back to the intentionality. The crazy evoker magic missiles town guards to death and then fireballs the orphanage which they were guarding, and then runs away, laughing maniacally. A friendly necromancer happens to pass by, and decides to raise the dead guards as zombies, that rescue the orphans from the burning building. After this is done, the necromancer disposes of the zombies.

Do you think what the necromancer did here was evil? Would it have been more moral to let the orphans burn to death?

You can try and fancy up any edge hypothetical you want, but sure, let's try your edge case. (Seriously, though, you keep trying to analogize animating the dead with a tool. "Look everyone, it's just like a sword, or a hammer. Except it's using the powers of evil to create an evil being out of a loved one's corpse, and forever ensuing that your loved one is lost.")

First, the necromancer invoked the negative plane (you know, the evil one). So he was using evil. Strike one.

Second, the necromancer did not get the guard's consent. Strike two.

Third, the necromancer did not check to see if that was permissible by other people. What, do you think onlookers who knew and loved the guards (maybe their wives or husbands or children) would appreciate seeing their rotting corpses used like that? Not to mention killing them AGAIN when he was done.

Fourth, what if there was a town cleric that could have cast a spell to bring the guards back? Well, too bad.

Fifth, you are always assuming a best-case scenario. The evoker wandered off for a minute, saw what the necromancer was doing, and then (for giggles) knocks the necromancer out and runs off, so the zombies go on and rampage through the town.

Seriously, how many times have we seen the common trope of, "Person plays with evil thinking he can control it, but OOPS he can't." You mess with evil, you're going to get burnt. You can summon up all the random-use cases you want, but at the end of the day, the rules say you're wrong. If you want to claim a dispensation for a one-off, sure. But as the rules say ...

"Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."

"Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently."

You don't have to be evil to be a necromancer, but animating the dead is not a good act, and using it a lot is evil. Don't like it? CHANGE YOUR HOME GAME. I don't care if you have a Lawful Good Necromancer- but don't try and convince the rest of us that the rules don't say what they say.

 

[Maxperson]

No. If the spell is about to run out and you don't want to renew it, then you can just order the zombie to stand still as you blast it to pieces with your cantrips. Now not properly disposing your unneeded zombies would indeed be criminally negligent.

Or one day he drinks one too many and oversleeps. Or he has a magical battle and is transported far away and can't teleport back. Or... Or...

Or one day he has a heart attack and doesn't get the chance to change orders and kill the evilly created monsters.

 

[Maxperson]

You're missing a big part here. Intentionality.

Two mages cast a fireball. One casts a fireball to save a orphanage from a bunch of evil brainsuckers.
The other casts the fireball at the orphanage for giggles.

Both are fireballs. Both cause death. One is evil, the other isn't.

The argument that necromancy is almost always evil comes from that intentionality standpoint. It's not a tool.

You are-
1. Using evil power.
2. Animating corpses without the consent of the person.
3. Forever ensuring that person cannot be brought back.
4. Engaging in slavery. That is what you are doing, by the way.
5. And loosing that evil thing upon the world. Sure, it's under your control. But any loss of control, and you've unleashed it.

And the more you do it, the more likely (5) is going to happen. It's a numbers game, because no one is perfect. Look, I've said this before- you want to change the defaults, feel free. You want to create a Constantine-type Necromancer that understands that his power comes with a cost, and makes that bargain? Sure. Knock yourself out. But the idea that necromancy is not an evil act, in the base rules ... that doesn't fly. Arguments about fireballs and so on are just sophistry.

If you don't like the way that this is presented, change it. Make yourself a LG necromancer that just robs graves for the good guys. It's your game. But don't try to tell the rest of us that necromancy is the same as a fireball, because that's not what the rules say.

You and I are on the same side of this debate, but I'm going to disagree with the bolded above.

Fireball has no evil nature and makes no decisions. It doesn't desire the deaths of both the brainsuckers and the orphans. It's pure tool. The caster of the first fireball is not being evil in the first example and being evil in the second. The fireball has no alignment in either.

Contrast that to the zombies/skeletons who just want to murder everything alive, including their creator. They desire the death of the evil brainsuckers and would make that attempt if the caster weren't there. They also desire the deaths of those orphans and would make that attempt if their creator weren't there. They're right evil bastards who just want to murder anything alive.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You and I are on the same side of this debate, but I'm going to disagree with the bolded above.

Fireball has no evil nature and makes no decisions. It doesn't desire the deaths of both the brainsuckers and the orphans. It's pure tool. The caster of the first fireball is not being evil in the first example and being evil in the second. The fireball has no alignment in either.

Contrast that to the zombies/skeletons who just want to murder everything alive, including their creator. They desire the death of the evil brainsuckers and would make that attempt if the caster weren't there. They also desire the deaths of those orphans and would make that attempt if their creator weren't there. They're right evil bastards who just want to murder anything alive.

There is no disagreement. The part you bolded has an unstated (but assumed) word. The ACT is evil. Fireballs (like swords, or hammers, or a mending cantrip) cannot themselves be evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if the undead are sapient creatures. Which most of them aren't.

All of them have intelligence scores and are as smart as the dumbest PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Seriously, how many times have we seen the common trope of, "Person plays with evil thinking he can control it, but OOPS he can't." You mess with evil, you're going to get burnt. You can summon up all the random-use cases you want, but at the end of the day, the rules say you're wrong. If you want to claim a dispensation for a one-off, sure. But as the rules say ...

Wait a moment. I thought we just established that was fireball.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Wait a moment. I thought we just established that was fireball.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fireball can never be evil. It has no alignment and can make no choices. Only the user can be good or evil, or engage in good or evil acts with it. Skeletons and zombies on the other hand are evilly aligned intelligent beings who themselves revel in murdering the living.

But does it make sense for them to be evilly-aligned? I mean, a corpse is an object, ultimately. The soul's already moved on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can try and fancy up any edge hypothetical you want, but sure, let's try your edge case. (Seriously, though, you keep trying to analogize animating the dead with a tool. "Look everyone, it's just like a sword, or a hammer. Except it's using the powers of evil to create an evil being out of a loved one's corpse, and forever ensuing that your loved one is lost.")

First, the necromancer invoked the negative plane (you know, the evil one). So he was using evil. Strike one.

Second, the necromancer did not get the guard's consent. Strike two.

Third, the necromancer did not check to see if that was permissible by other people. What, do you think onlookers who knew and loved the guards (maybe their wives or husbands or children) would appreciate seeing their rotting corpses used like that? Not to mention killing them AGAIN when he was done.

Fourth, what if there was a town cleric that could have cast a spell to bring the guards back? Well, too bad.

Fifth, you are always assuming a best-case scenario. The evoker wandered off for a minute, saw what the necromancer was doing, and then (for giggles) knocks the necromancer out and runs off, so the zombies go on and rampage through the town.

Seriously, how many times have we seen the common trope of, "Person plays with evil thinking he can control it, but OOPS he can't." You mess with evil, you're going to get burnt. You can summon up all the random-use cases you want, but at the end of the day, the rules say you're wrong. If you want to claim a dispensation for a one-off, sure. But as the rules say ...

"Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."

"Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently."

You don't have to be evil to be a necromancer, but animating the dead is not a good act, and using it a lot is evil. Don't like it? CHANGE YOUR HOME GAME. I don't care if you have a Lawful Good Necromancer- but don't try and convince the rest of us that the rules don't say what they say.

Why I am bringing up best case scenario examples is to show that it is contextual. I am not denying it is risky and perhaps controversial, but to me inherent evil implies that it is wrong in any scenario, and I just don't see that to be the case.

Furthermore, any circular blathering the books do about evil energies and such is meaningless. Books also think the murderous slaad are neutral. Any genuine assessment of good and evil must be based on real harm, not on dogmatically incoherent alignment system.

 

[Maxperson]

But does it make sense for them to be evilly-aligned? I mean, a corpse is an object, ultimately. The soul's already moved on.

100%. They are animated by the evil energy of death and given the intelligence and desire(by that evil energy of death) to run amok killing indiscriminately.

You can use the evil death machines to save orphans, but every one of those death machines will desire the death of the orphan it holds. It wishes to rip out the child's throat and watch the life blood seep out into the dirt. It wants to see the last throes of death take the kid.