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.)

 

[Clint_L]

Banshees aren't zombies or skeletons. That's what I quoted from MM.

You can do whatever you want with undead. I'm not disagreeing with that. The OP is talking about what the fluff from the PHB and what it says about Animate Dead and I'm using the fluff from Monsters Manual to illustrate why it would be perceived as evil. If we are ignoring the OP and just talking about "here's what you can do in a campaign", then we can just talk for another 1500 posts about all our personal campaigns and all the exceptional undead we put there.

That's not my issue. Obviously, folks can do what they want at their games. My issue is that the game tries to establish a moral paradigm that is, IMO, constraining rather than freeing. It's like doing improv with a partner who keeps saying, "no, but..." Take this thread, for example. "What if the zombies aren't driven solely by a hateful lust to kill?" "No, but the MM..."

 

[Voadam]

I'd also like to point out (again, but it was last year, so I understand if people don't remember) that alignment in statblocks is just a suggestion and individual entities may differ. So zombies are not any more inherently evil than orcs or goblins are. And there are a lot of creatures in MM that have evil alignment in their stablocks. So I think that arguing that making creatures that that have evil as their default MM alignment is an evil act is pretty damn questionable, as it would literally mean that orcs having babies is an evil act.

Its not the alignment stat block, it is the description of the monster in the MM. Animated undead are described as different in nature than evil humanoids.

Skeletons:

"When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation."

Zombies:

"A zombie left without orders simply stands in place and rots unless something comes along that it can kill. The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters."

This is distinctly different than an individual goblin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You asked for an example of something good being created by an evil act. I gave you one.

Animate Dead is similar in that casting it, while an evil act, can sometimes be done with the noblest of intentions.

It boils down to a question of whether the ends justify the means.

But why is casting Animate Dead an evil act, when the result of said casting is not? Just because the rules say it is?

 

[Maxperson]

OK, how about that if the caster of Animate Dead dies, any still-functional undead created by that caster immediately crumble to dust.

That would probably work to keep the undead from going on independent murder sprees. However, you'd also need to stop the requirement to cast it on the undead every 24 hours. You'd also need to ensure that nobody could ever take control away from you.

Even with all that done, you are still tapping into the evil death energy plane to animate them. It's also possible that the energy itself keeps you from making the spell as safe as you describe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The MM states zombies and skeletons are powered by evil energy, possessed by a hateful entity and desire nothing more than to destroy life. Not neutral automatons. I'm just stating this as a baseline for reasons why a Necromancer might be perceived as evil.

But, for some reason, the books that were written for the game and that the monsters therein are being ignored for the purpose of this thread. I'm not even sure what people are arguing.

I and a couple others were discussing previous editions, in which zombies and skeletons are neutral rather than evil.

 

[Tonguez]

Man, if making things that are inherently harmful was 'evil', we'd all be in trouble.

Which us why I loved the 'negative energy causes entropy or is inherently destructive to life, which is evil' thing from the BoXDs. All of us are smuggling enough fungi, prions, bacteria and viruses to make Asmodeus look like Pippi Longstocking. And he can't harbor disease, so he's morally better than all of us by that logic.

Except most of us arent actively making fungi, prions, bacteria and viruses, where just the unwitting dupes that provide those things habitat. Asmodeus is actively creating stuff to harm others, just like the mad Necromancer-Cleric raising zombies that want to eat brains

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, you're trying to answer the OP by coming at it from the perspective of a game that they aren't playing?

I'm not specifically answering the OP. Just addressing an interesting topic about D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

It can do that.


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


Again, subjective. Many are dangerous.


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.


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.


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

Evil is not subjective in the d&d universe unless you change it to be that way. If subjectivity is the foundation or a part of the foundation of your position, then it's an inherently flawed position to take.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Evil is not subjective in the d&d universe unless you change it to be that way. If subjectivity is the foundation or a part of the foundation of your position, then it's an inherently flawed position to take.

Yes, I think the alignment is utter nonsense. That's on record.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't look at the 'alignment' in the stat block of skeletons and zombies. I read the description. It was pretty easy to infer they might be evil just from the description. Animate dead isn't the only way to create zombies and skeletons even.

"They heed the summons of spellcasters who call them from their stony tombs and ancient battlefields, or rise of their own accord in places saturated with death and loss, awakened by stirrings of necromantic energy or the presence of corrupting evil."

Death and loss aren't inherently evil concepts either, to be fair.