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]

The stuff we're talking about here is lore baked into the WotC 5e rules. Its not really the same thing as hit dice and levels, and it doesn't need to be there to make the game work. All of that should be setting material.

I gave ten (10!) quick examples ... just from the PHB, showing how it's all interlocking, and you're saying it doesn't matter?

So hallow ground shouldn't work to prevent people from raising the dead?
So the negative plane isn't a source of evil and anti-life?
So undead aren't evil?
So when you put a hateful evil spirit into someone's corpse, they can still be brought back to life?
So Paladins can't sense the undead, because maybe they're just like Clint's undead and want to hug you and make you sweaters?
So Druids don't have an antipathy toward undead because they are unnatural (not just "cruel" like natural critters)?

It's throughout the rules. Again, you want to customize it? Totally fine! I love DIY campaigns. But this is getting beyond bizarre. Given that you have a well-known dislike of 5e, I am somewhat surprised that you are even trying to argue the rules, btw. But ... goes with the territory?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't. I don't really think any of it should be baked into the rules.

That would be chaos. Western philosophy is baked into every RPG I've ever seen, because they were written by western folks. We are products of our cultures, and so are our role playing games.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the question of undead sentience is a good one. Do they have one and where does it come from? As in most cases the dead person's soul can move one, it is not there to provide sentience to the undead form of their corpse. So does the spell create sentience or are they just automatons?

The minor ones - skeletons, zombies, and the like - I've always seen as pretty much automatons; to the point where they themselves aren't even necessarily evil. They're mostly neutral, as in they don't have enough sentience to register on the alignment detector.

The act of creating them, however, is evil all the way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I gave ten (10!) quick examples ... just from the PHB, showing how it's all interlocking, and you're saying it doesn't matter?

So hallow ground shouldn't work to prevent people from raising the dead?
So the negative plane isn't a source of evil and anti-life?
So undead aren't evil?
So when you put a hateful evil spirit into someone's corpse, they can still be brought back to life?
So Paladins can't sense the undead, because maybe they're just like Clint's undead and want to hug you and make you sweaters?
So Druids don't have an antipathy toward undead because they are unnatural (not just "cruel" like natural critters)?

It's throughout the rules. Again, you want to customize it? Totally fine! I love DIY campaigns. But this is getting beyond bizarre. Given that you have a well-known dislike of 5e, I am somewhat surprised that you are even trying to argue the rules, btw. But ... goes with the territory?

I'm not arguing the rules. They say what they say. I'm arguing that the rules don't have to be written that way.

And my dislike is for WotC, not 5e. My 2nd favorite RPG is a version of 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That would be chaos. Western philosophy is baked into every RPG I've ever seen, because they were written by western folks. We are products of our cultures, and so are our role playing games.

Zombies and skeletons weren't inherently evil in previous editions, but now they are. All of those games are the product of Western culture, so how could that have happened?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The minor ones - skeletons, zombies, and the like - I've always seen as pretty much automatons; to the point where they themselves aren't even necessarily evil. They're mostly neutral, as in they don't have enough sentience to register on the alignment detector.

The act of creating them, however, is evil all the way.

Why would creating a neutral automaton be an evil act?

 

[Maxperson]

Zombies and skeletons weren't inherently evil in previous editions, but now they are. All of those games are the product of Western culture, so how could that have happened?

The power behind them and animating them has always been inherently evil. As has the use of those spells.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So hallow ground shouldn't work to prevent people from raising the dead?

It can do that.

So the negative plane isn't a source of evil and anti-life?

Evil is subjective. It can be anti-life which many living people probably aren't that fond of.

So undead aren't evil?

Again, subjective. Many are dangerous.

So when you put a hateful evil spirit into someone's corpse, they can still be brought back to life?

With some spells yes. Makes it a bit harder, just like destroying the corpse would. Certainly not a nice thing to do to anyone who had a resurrection insurance. Then again, most people don't, and the chances are that the sucker was someone who you or your allies killed in the first place (possibly for good reasons) so you might not want them to come back anyway.

So Paladins can't sense the undead, because maybe they're just like Clint's undead and want to hug you and make you sweaters?

They can sense them. But if the paladin indiscriminately destroys undead even if they just wished to make sweaters it is not the morality of the undead which I am questioning.

So Druids don't have an antipathy toward undead because they are unnatural (not just "cruel" like natural critters)?

They might. And reasonable people might disagree on the morality of such a stance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The power behind them and animating them has always been inherently evil. As has the use of those spells.

Show me how an evil act can create something that isn't evil.

 

[Lanefan]

If they fought an unjust offensive war. But yeah, using necromancy to summon an undead army to protect one's county that is under attack seems pretty justifiable to me. And absolutely something people in real life would have done were it possible. Then they would develop cultural norms which would deem such service in death honourable.

If you're losing a war badly enough that you need to summon undead to keep the fight going, it's probably time to just surrender and get it over with.