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.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, true. But ‘Corrupting Evil’ is probably evil. Unless you make a campaign world where no evil exists and nothing can ever be inherently evil.

Such a thing should, I think, be an option, yes.

 

[Voadam]

What about in previous editions (like I've been talking about for the last few pages), where such creatures weren't considered inherently evil?

Varies by edition.

I quite liked 3.0 with alignments and descriptors. All the undead creation spells had the [EVIL] descriptor. I interpreted this as they tapped into the cosmic force of EVIL as part of the spell. Mechanically the spell detected as evil when cast and counted as an evil action for paladins.

Undead, even neutral alignment skeletons and zombies and any alignment ghosts, detected as evil also for the detect evil spell and the paladin power. I narratively tied this into supernatural cosmic EVIL being inherent in the undead condition.

I took this further in my 3.0/3.5/PF games and house ruled undead as descriptor [EVIL] creatures, fey descriptor [CHAOS], and constructs as descriptor [LAW] to put a bit more alignment as cosmic forces into my game.

This was all separate from judgments about moral evil.

 

[Oofta]

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..."

One man's general guideline that gives you a base for behavior starting point when you don't want to put much thought into it that can be completely ignored any time the DM wants (which is what I use alignment for, and how it's explained in 5E) is another man's "constraint" I guess.

I like having a default alignment, it gives me a 10,000 foot view of overall motivation. Which, for monsters that aren't even going to have 15 minutes of fame, is what I need.

EDIT: also, D&D oversimplifies everything. Moral outlook and approach to life is just one of many things. It has to in order to keep the game simple.

 

[James Gasik]

But the energy used was. The desecration was. The act objectively was.

Except for those pesky Mummies, of course.

 

[James Gasik]

So here's a question. If the negative energy plane is such a dark and vile place, why isn't the positive energy plane the source of ultimate good? The Xag-ya and the Ravid (denizens of the positive plane) are neutral.

Heck, the Xeg-yi, who live on the negative plane are also neutral, for that matter.

And the use of positive energy effects like healing spells aren't automatically Good acts either while we're on the subject.

 

[Clint_L]

What even is negative energy? Electrons? Is it an entire plane with a negative charge?

Or is it an entire plane full of annoying co-workers? I think I've been to conferences in the negative energy plane.

 

[payn]

What even is negative energy? Electrons? Is it an entire plane with a negative charge?

Or is it an entire plane full of annoying co-workers? I think I've been to conferences in the negative energy plane.

Nice, now do magic and casting spells.

 

[Tonguez]

So here's a question. If the negative energy plane is such a dark and vile place, why isn't the positive energy plane the source of ultimate good? The Xag-ya and the Ravid (denizens of the positive plane) are neutral.

Heck, the Xeg-yi, who live on the negative plane are also neutral, for that matter.

And the use of positive energy effects like healing spells aren't automatically Good acts either while we're on the subject.

whats the opposite of Radiant Energy?
We know Paladin and Celestial things tend touse radiant energy that hurts fiends and undead and dsiperses shadows etc etc, is that what Positive Energy is?

knowing what the opposite of Radiant Energy was would help define negative energy as being other than just necrotic or shadow (umbral?)

 

[Kurotowa]

So here's a question. If the negative energy plane is such a dark and vile place, why isn't the positive energy plane the source of ultimate good? The Xag-ya and the Ravid (denizens of the positive plane) are neutral.

Do you want the history of depictions of the planes in D&D, or an attempt to rationalize the current setup? I can't speak authoritatively to the former, beyond knowing that it's complex and branching. At some points I believe it's had more overlap with a Shadow Plane that had its own native undead ecosystem. But I can attempt the latter.

Right now, the negative energy plane isn't "evil" in the same morally charged way the Lower Planes are. Instead, think of negative energy as anti-life energy in the same sense as anti-matter; elementally opposed and mutually destructive to. Using it in small and controlled amounts is just fine. Spaying it around recklessly so it wrecks the area is not. Infusing it as an animating force results in a creature with an intrinsic drive to snuff out all the horrible positive energy it's surrounded by, ie kill the living. So releasing undead into the world is like scattering landmines around a suburban neighborhood. It's "evil" because innocent people are going to die as a result, and in a completely foreseeable way.

The positive energy plane, meanwhile, is similarly useful in controlled doses for things like healing. Too much of it unshielded is still enough to cause deadly overloads, though. But as for self-directed creatures animated by positive energy... they're already everywhere. So it's not especially dangerous to dabble in that, and therefore neither "good" or "evil".

 

[Micah Sweet]

One man's general guideline that gives you a base for behavior starting point when you don't want to put much thought into it that can be completely ignored any time the DM wants (which is what I use alignment for, and how it's explained in 5E) is another man's "constraint" I guess.

I like having a default alignment, it gives me a 10,000 foot view of overall motivation. Which, for monsters that aren't even going to have 15 minutes of fame, is what I need.

EDIT: also, D&D oversimplifies everything. Moral outlook and approach to life is just one of many things. It has to in order to keep the game simple.

Never been a big fan of keeping the game simple myself, not at the expense of good details.