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.)

 

[Tonguez]

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 Skeleton has int 6 wis 8 cha 5, its still fully aware of its surroundings and (as Pathfinder puts it) still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force, (its also socially inept and doesnt have any friends )

anyway, undead maintain sentience and cunning, and are driven by the creators compulsion which denies them any natural tendency or choice. (Animals still maintain natural tendencies and choice, if their trainer denies that then yes they are cruel/evil)

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Morgoth Security Inc

Knock, Knock

Ms. Hammond: Hello?

Mr. Morgoth: Hello, Ms Hammond, I'm Morgoth, you spoke to my secretary yesterday about your need for security regarding the recent rash of break-ins. I have brought a guard here to watch your house.

Ms. Hammond: OH MY GOD, IT'S AN EVIL UNDEAD ZOMBIE!!!!

Mr. Morgoth: Don't worry, Ma'am, it's completely under my control. And it's not evil. It's hardly sentient. We like to refer to it as a 'Security Unit'

Ms. Hammond: Oh? So that will keep the burglars away?

Mr. Morgoth: Yes, ma'am, it will attack intruders on sight!

Ms Hammond: Oh, my. What about all the squirrels and wild life in my backyard?

Mr. Morgoth: Don't worry, it won't harm any wildlife because most wildlife find the presence of undead unnerving and will avoid your property completely.

Ms: Hammond: Well, it is unnerving the way it's looking at me...

Mr. Morgoth: That's because it hates you and wants to murder you and tear you to shreds. But don't worry, I have it under control and it's totally not evil!

Ms. Hammond: Sometimes the little boy next door comes by and takes a few apples from my tree. Will it want to murder him too?

Mr. Morgoth: Certainly, if that's what you want! But, if not, we can train it to not kill your neighbours. In fact, we also train it not to kill the milk man or the mail man. Also, as part of your monthly subscription, you get 5 talismans to give to your closest friends. It will not attack anyone wearing a talisman.

Ms Hammond: It sounds more like you have to tell it who NOT to kill, rather than tell it who to guard against.

Mr. Morgoth: Well, ma'am it's much more complicated than that. But don't worry, it is guaranteed to not murder you while under my control.

Ms. Hammond: Why does it look so familiar?

Mr. Morgoth: Oh, that's because it's Mr. Murphy.

Ms Hammond: Mr Murphy? The gardener down the street!? I liked Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Morgoth: I understand ma'am but, you see, there's been a shortage of black pearls and I was unable to reestablish control of Mr. Murphy's security unit. I asked Mr. Murphy to avoid going into his backyard until the new supply of pearls came in. Unfortunately, he got too close to the back window window and the security unit broke down his door and killed him.

Ms. Hammond: OH MY!

Mr. Morgoth: It's ok! I have a 100% money-back guarantee and his next-of-kin got a full refund. Burials are expensive these days so I also offer a free funeral service with the donation of the corpse - which the family took. If you find his countenance unnerving, I can turn him into a skeleton. All his skin will slough off. The bonus is that he'll have a reflexive memory of his old life.

Ms Hammond: Really?

Mr. Morgoth: Yes! So, while it's being forced to repress its murderous urges, it will also tend your gardens.

Ms. Hammond: That's great! Where do I sign!

 

[Umbran]

Which the rules specifically say contain no rules! So according to the rules necromancy being evil is not a rule...

Is quibbling over what, technically, is a "rule" the valuable bit here? Like, is that going to add understanding and wisdom to the discussion, or merely score logic points?

What you seem to not get is that for many (I daresay most) real people - not fictional world people, but the folks that live next door to you - this matters a lot. While for some, the body of the dead may be "just an object", by and large, it is still representative of the person that it was. And how you treat it is then representative of how much respect you have for other human beings.

Ultimately, that's the thing - abuse of corpses is abuse of the people they were. That is why mucking with undead is evil. While you personally may not care, this is broadly accurate for people, across cultures, around the world.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Is quibbling over what, technically, is a "rule" the valuable bit here? Like, is that going to add understanding and wisdom to the discussion, or merely score logic points?

What you seem to not get is that for many (I daresay most) real people - not fictional world people, but the folks that live next door to you - this matters a lot. While for some, the body of the dead may be "just an object", by and large, it is still representative of the person that it was. And how you treat it is then representative of how much respect you have for other human beings.

Ultimately, that's the thing - abuse of corpses is abuse of the people they were. That is why mucking with undead is evil. While you personally may not care, this is broadly accurate for people, across cultures, around the world.

That's true. Here is the law in Canada according to a quick google search:

In a legal context, offering an indignity to a body refers to actions or conduct that demonstrate a lack of respect, reverence, or proper treatment towards a deceased person’s remains. This can encompass a wide range of behaviours, such as desecrating a corpse, mutilating or disfiguring it, or engaging in any act that would degrade the dignity of the deceased. Offering an indignity to a body is considered a serious offence and it is addressed under Section 182 of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, the concept of offering an indignity to a body underscores the societal and legal obligation to treat the deceased with the same respect and dignity afforded to the living, reflecting the importance of upholding cultural and ethical norms surrounding the handling of human remains.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is quibbling over what, technically, is a "rule" the valuable bit here? Like, is that going to add understanding and wisdom to the discussion, or merely score logic points?

No, not particularly. But several people used "but the rules say..." as an argument, so then we must be mindful of what the rules actually say.
Personally I don't think morality is a subject the rules need to say anything about, nor I consider what they currently say on the subject valuable or meaningful.

What you seem to not get is that for many (I daresay most) real people - not fictional world people, but the folks that live next door to you - this matters a lot. While for some, the body of the dead may be "just an object", by and large, it is still representative of the person that it was. And how you treat it is then representative of how much respect you have for other human beings.

Ultimately, that's the thing - abuse of corpses is abuse of the people they were. That is why mucking with undead is evil. While you personally may not care, this is broadly accurate for people, across cultures, around the world.

I get that. But it also is just a cultural norm, and thus I find irksome that it is deemed somehow objectively evil rather than just impolite in our culture. I have no issue with most cultures in the fictional world having similar attitudes on the subject. And customs are far less universal than many seem to think. There have been cultures that have displayed dead people, there are cultures that have eaten them. And of course all this is just real world humans, in a fictional world where we have literal aliens which presumably would have even more divergent opinions on the subject. There was recently a similarish discussion in some thread where people thought the lizardfolk to be evil because they practiced cannibalism.

And I also get that this is not subject everyone wants to in their game, and thus should be approached carefully. But same goes with so many other things. Mind control that overcomes one's consent, violence to solve issues, consorting with demons and much more. So highlighting this one particular thing as especially problematic just seems inconsistent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

My point is, does it make for the rules to make this stuff evil? Obviously that's what the book says. I'm asking is it what the books should say? This is not a question of fact.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is as much presuming a metaphysic as the world in which creating undead is evil.

Whether a corpse is "an object" or the former house of a soul that still carries moral and ethical valance is an assumption of the fictional world.

Physically though, it's an object. Anything else is up for debate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is the descriptions from the MM:







I highlighted a few key sections

Is anyone seriously questioning what the books say at this point? Quotes aren't going to help here, because what the books say is not the point.

 

[Umbran]

Physically though, it's an object. Anything else is up for debate.

Physically you and I are objects too. Anything else is up for debate.

If, in essence, you want to re-litigate the concept of "human dignity" in order to prove a point about game rules, the real issue isn't the game rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Exactly. Mechanically, this is more a WotC 5e problem than anything else.