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.)

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I mean it is no secret that I despise alignment rules, so yes, I obviously ignore them. But if we are technical, the text about creating undead not being good and if done frequently, evil, comes from description of spell schools. Which the rules specifically say contain no rules! So according to the rules necromancy being evil is not a rule...



People take all sort of issues seriously. And I hope I don't need to explain to you why I feel "a lot of people feel it is icky, thus it is evil" a questionable justification. That logic has historically been used to label a lot of harmless stuff immoral.

Besides, we are talking about objective evil here, not just some cultural norms. One might hope that in game of fantastical imagination, we might be able to imagine cultures with different mores without labelling them as evil because they're different from ours.



Like I said, that is a valid angle to ponder. If the necromancy genuinely enslaved some part of A person's sentient soul then that would certainly make it far more questionable. But the text from the rulebooks really do not lead me to believe such. If one wanted to add some metaphysical horror to the undead, this certainly would be a good direction to take.



It's a rather dangerous tool like nuclear power. One that is understandably controversial and dangerous if used improperly.

Nuclear power doesn't have a clear intent to destroy living things. Undead spirits that inhabit corpses have a drive to wipe out life. It says so in the description of skeletons and zombies.

It has nothing to do with alignment. You don't have to call it 'evil'. Most people value 'life' and creature that actively seeks to wipe out life might call such a creature 'evil'. But that's just a perception.

I do think that using zombies to save orphans is the equivalent of putting hungry leopards in a baby nursery with a purpose to keep rodents away. Are the leopards inherently evil? No. Do they want to eat babies? Yes.

Is a person who uses leopards as pest control considered evil? No. Just because a few babies got eaten doesn't make him evil, right? He's doing it for the greater good.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That is a terrible argument.

Being taboo can be a reason to look at the taboo thing to evaluate its morality because one reason a thing might be taboo could be if it were evil, but being taboo in and of itself has zero implications for the morality of something.

Well, I would note that you only focus on one aspect.

That said, if you don't like the fact that it is referred to as a "taboo," how about we refer to this as, "Don't be a friggin' d***."

"Hey, I know that you guys attach value to your dad's remains, and he just passed away and all, but I don't care about that. So how about I just bring his rotting corpse back to life with evil energy and turn him into an evil killing machine to serve my whims, and then, because I'm not a bad guy, I kill him again. No harm, no foul, because I don't care about your stupid little feelings."

This may be a weird concept for certain people here, but there are, in fact, people that attach significance to the people that have left us other than .... objects.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nuclear power doesn't have a clear intent to destroy living things. Undead spirits that inhabit corpses have a drive to wipe out life. It says so in the description of skeletons and zombies.

It has nothing to do with alignment. You don't have to call it 'evil'. Most people value 'life' and creature that actively seeks to wipe out life might call such a creature 'evil'. But that's just a perception.

I do think that using zombies to save orphans is the equivalent of putting hungry leopards in a baby nursery with a purpose to keep rodents away. Are the leopards inherently evil? No. Do they want to eat babies? Yes.

Is a person who uses leopards as pest control considered evil? No. Just because a few babies got eaten doesn't make him evil, right? He's doing it for the greater good.

Leopards are surprisingly trainable and Romans and Egyptians sometimes kept them as pets. But yeah, your overall point is fine. I agree it is dangerous and possibly bad practice in sort of similar way. I have no objection for people considering it too risky to be a good idea. That is something reasonable people can disagree on, and what risks are warranted varies depending on the situation. And whilst leopards or zombies might not be the best or safest choice, there might be situations where they're still better than nothing.

 

[Voadam]

Well, I would note that you only focus on one aspect.

Of course, I was making a point only about that one aspect.

That said, if you don't like the fact that it is referred to as a "taboo," how about we refer to this as, "Don't be a friggin' d***."

"Hey, I know that you guys attach value to your dad's remains, and he just passed away and all, but I don't care about that. So how about I just bring his rotting corpse back to life with evil energy and turn him into an evil killing machine to serve my whims, and then, because I'm not a bad guy, I kill him again. No harm, no foul, because I don't care about your stupid little feelings."

This may be a weird concept for certain people here, but there are, in fact, people that attach significance to the people that have left us other than .... objects.

That is of course only a subset jerk use, using the corpse against the family's wishes and not a universal.

The 2e Jakandor and 3e Hollowfaust cultures see the dead heroically providing defense and service for the living in a dangerous environment and see it as a proper communal duty for their bodies to be used for the common good after their death. In those contexts there is consent and cultural buy in of both the deceased and their families. A not jerk use of animating the dead.

Those cultures were established in a slightly different rules context than animating in 5e as 2e and 3.0 skeletons and zombies were neutral mindless undead that when animated by animate dead at default only performed the explicit commands of their creators even if the creators died. Also animate dead was permanent instead of only 24 hour control after creation or recasting.

5e has shifted things more against such uses by making animated undead non-mindless evil default attackers of living beings and creating ways they can avoid the control of their creators and become walking threats.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Of course, I was making a point only about that one aspect.

That is of course only a subset jerk use, using the corpse against the family's wishes and not a universal.

The 2e Jakandor and 3e Hollowfaust cultures see the dead heroically providing defense and service for the living in a dangerous environment and see it as a proper communal duty for their bodies to be used for the common good after their death. In those contexts there is consent and cultural buy in of both the deceased and their families. A not jerk use of animating the dead.

Those cultures were established in a slightly different rules context than animating in 5e as 2e and 3.0 skeletons and zombies were neutral mindless undead that when animated by animate dead at default only performed the explicit commands of their creators even if the creators died. Also animate dead was permanent instead of only 24 hour control after creation or recasting.

5e has shifted things more against such uses by making animated undead non-mindless evil default attackers of living beings and creating ways they can avoid the control of their creators and become walking threats.

Again, if someone wants to create their own world with their own rules, more power to them. It's a game of the imagination! But arguing against what is in the rules as ... not the rules ... seems a fool's errand.

I would also add that IME, necromancy can also be one of those subjects that will occasionally cross a line with a few players at all times, or with some players at certain times (in a manner I have seen), so I can certainly understand why WoTC chose to put a little extra verbiage around that feature. For whatever reason, people that don't get the issue really don't get it, and tend to not understand why others might not be as receptive. Especially at certain times.

 

[MarkB]

Leopards are surprisingly trainable and Romans and Egyptians sometimes kept them as pets. But yeah, your overall point is fine. I agree it is dangerous and possibly bad practice in sort of similar way. I have no objection for people considering it too risky to be a good idea. That is something reasonable people can disagree on, and what risks are warranted varies depending on the situation. And whilst leopards or zombies might not be the best or safest choice, there might be situations where they're still better than nothing.

But then there's the slavery aspect. They are intelligent beings, and while they have no sense of self, they do have very clearly-defined desires. They are under the effects of magic that subverts their will, and if they are being employed for any purpose other than indiscriminate mayhem they're being forced to act against their nature.

 

[James Gasik]

But then there's the slavery aspect. They are intelligent beings, and while they have no sense of self, they do have very clearly-defined desires. They are under the effects of magic that subverts their will, and if they are being employed for any purpose other than indiscriminate mayhem they're being forced to act against their nature.

So again, why isn't Dominate Person an evil act? It goes both ways- one could find a way to use Enchantment magic for positive purposes, just like any other form of magic. But it's still enslaving someone against their will, isn't it?

Yet the exception the rules make is for Necromancy, telling us it's evil and wrong.

Which fine, if that's how it is, then why put Necromancers in the PHB with an ability that automatically gives them Animate Dead, whether they want it or not? "Hey, so, playing with Necromancy is wrong, but here it is as an option."

The obvious answer is, it's there for groups that don't find the use of Necromancy objectionable for their games. Never no mind Oathbreaker Paladin, for example, is consigned to the DMG, likely because groups would find it objectionable!

And it's not like the system has any real system for deciding if your alignment should change, or even a mechanical penalty for being evil, beyond "well, NPC's who see you doing evil stuff might object"- which they would do in response to any evil act.

In other words, there's no particular reason to make Necromancy any more evil than any other misuse of magic- but it was done anyways.

And if creating undead is evil, why doesn't this spell state that casting it is an evil act? Perhaps someone would quibble over the fact that you can't lose control of the fiend, but then we have this spell, where the summoned fiend will certainly try to tempt you towards evil, but nowhere does the spell say "hey, only evil people play with fiends".

Which means it's up to the DM to decide whether it's evil or not. Most people would say playing with fiends is evil (some examples upthread), but unlike with necromancy, we don't have the spells telling us that's the case.

Seems like a double standard to me to put a warning label on one kind of evil thing, but let in other cases, allow people to apply their own judgment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But then there's the slavery aspect. They are intelligent beings, and while they have no sense of self, they do have very clearly-defined desires. They are under the effects of magic that subverts their will, and if they are being employed for any purpose other than indiscriminate mayhem they're being forced to act against their nature.

If they have no sense of self, then they really aren't sapient beings. They're not even at the level of complex animals. Now what level of sentience they exactly have is certainly somewhat unclear, so here different interpretation will also lead to different moral calculus.

 

[James Gasik]

If they have no sense of self, then they really aren't sapient beings. They're not even at level of complex animals. Now what level of sentience they exactly have is certainly somewhat unclear, so here different interpretation will also lead to different moral calculus.

A zombie is as smart as a leopard. So if you're enslaving a zombie, then I guess training a leopard is also slavery!

 

[Oofta]

Animate dead uses a dead person's body as if it were a meaningless crafting component and powers it with a malevolent spirit from the negative plane. It creates what is the equivalent of a psychopathic murderer who's only desire is to kill every living creature in sight. You're manufacturing Chuckie out of dead body parts. The only reason it doesn't go around killing everyone and everything is because it's been enslaved. If, and in many cases when, it gets free it will go on a killing spree until stopped. A single zombie could easily take out a small village.

Meanwhile the undead have a higher intelligence than animals and slightly more intelligent than ogres. They don't have a sense of self because they do not care about their continued survival. They have no desires, needs or wants other than killing every living creature they can. That's about as evil as you can get. Creating that kind of evil that cannot be reformed, cannot be reasoned with, is evil.