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]

What you're saying here, flat out, is that the ends justify the means. You really sure you want to plant that flag?

Yes, I tend towards utilitarianism in my ethics, with the caveat that no perfect ethical system exists. But I think utilitarianism, in its more nuanced forms, gets closest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This thread is in the D&D forum. The question is rather focused on D&D, specifically. It would seem to me that the creators of D&D have, among their various concerns, entry into the hobby.

So, if you are asking "Why is D&D like this?" that is probably part of the answer.



Yes, but then the new players would have to get a separate setting document, and absorb it, before play beings. For the Big Fish of RPGs, having a vague notion of "default setting" with some understood characteristics, is useful.

So, again, "Why is D&D like this?" - it isn't trying to be a primarily advanced play product.

I don't think it is aimed being a primarily entry-level product either, by the way. The game product is covering a wide swath of play, making for a hybrid product that has nods for several different kinds of players. It is perfect for nobody.

I would argue that a setting can easily be included in a core product, in a separate section from the game rules, but otherwise fair enough. I do see it as a shame though.

 

[Tonguez]

How about using the setting to determine what evil things can be destroyed with impunity, and leave the game rules out of it?

Um the statement that raising undead is evil is an aspect of the Setting, thats reflected in a whole lot of interrelated featurns - Clerics turning, Hallow/Unhallow etc. As said above in your homevrew do what you want, but the standard source books have assumptions of a core setting woven through the rules presentation, Unholy undead is one of them

 

[Tonguez]

My problem with the coding of "Necromancy = bad" has a lot less to do with them deciding that's the case and more with the inconsistency of all the other questionable stuff, especially with regards to fiends, brainwashing, and casual cannibalism by lizardfolk in subsequent products.

first off as a cultural practice cannibalism isnt inherently evil (though killing for that purpose is), and for Lizardfolk eating unrelated mammalian species its even less, no different to a Croc eating a human irl. I was also under the impression that summoning fiends was evil, but maybe thats a hangover from 3e that isnt carried to 5e. You do have a point about mindcontrol though, but I suppose thats why charm person states that the charmed know they were charmed by you (and can respond appropriately)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Um the statement that raising undead is evil is an aspect of the Setting, thats reflected in a whole lot of interrelated featurns - Clerics turning, Hallow/Unhallow etc. As said above in your homevrew do what you want, but the standard source books have assumptions of a core setting woven through the rules presentation, Unholy undead is one of them

I know they have assumptions. That's never been in doubt. I'm speculating as to whether or not they have to have them, or if they just decided to bake those setting assumptions into the rules. I don't know why folks keep quoting the rules as if we somehow don't know about them.

 

[Maxperson]

So I obviously don't think that making zombies is completely unproblematic. It is just that among all sort of morally questionable things that happens in D&D I feel it seems weirdly inconsistent to highlight this one thing as specifically heinous. Cannibalism is neutral, killing is no problem and mind control is just fine. Consorting with devils or demons is not flagged as evil either. So if the players are allowed to make up their own mind about all of this, why not about undead creation?

And I am sensitive to the idea that the undead might be unnerving to some players in real life. But same goes for a lot of other topics that occur in the game too, and personally I would be way more worried about mind control magic than the corny pop-culture trope that is the zombie. Nor I think the game's in-universe moral system is the right tool for warning about potentially upsetting topics in any case.

Furthermore, whilst flagging undead creation as evil isn't particularly worrisome, the game has long history of the writers pushing their morals to the players and it mostly is not good one. The game still contains the notion that one's morality is linked to their race and in some cases literally to the colour of their skin. So I am really not in need of moral advice from this source.

I don't recall seeing anywhere that cannibalism is neutral. I've seen someone say that neutral lizard men eat other species(not cannibalism). I can assure you that in my game cannibalism, consorting with demons and devils and slavery(physical or with mental control) are all evil acts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the larger issue with alignment is how folks view morality and consequentialism. Take for example the necromancer with the existential village crisis. The assumption is the necromancer must raise dead to save their village, its the only tool they have. So, it means ultimately they are really good as a result because of the outcome. It's the opposite of the paladin must fall scenario. The part that really blows peoples minds is the fact that an evil necromancer can produce good outcomes. That does not make them good or neutral. You can sub in anything like for example an assassin that only kills tyrants. Still very much an evil dude, but can produce good outcomes.

In other words, good does not equal correct, and evil does not equal incorrect.

This might be at the core of the disagreement. I don't think it is meaningful to hold good to such impractical idealistic standards. If you only have bad choices, then the least bad is the "good" one. So yes, assassinating a tyrant to stop them committing a genocide is not evil; if you had an opportunity to do that, it is the inaction that would be evil. Same way a necromancer using an undead army to protect the lives of innocents can be seen as justified, and again inaction would be morally questionable.

Or at least that's roughly how I see it. YMMV, philosophers have debated this stuff for millennia, so it is possible that we won't concussively solve it to everyone's satisfaction here.

 

[payn]

This might be at the core of the disagreement. I don't think it is meaningful to hold good to such impractical idealistic standards. If you only have bad choices, then the least bad is the "good" one. So yes, assassinating a tyrant to stop them committing a genocide is not evil; if you had an opportunity to do that, inaction would be evil. Same way a necromancer using an undead army to protect the lives of innocents can be seen as justified, and again inaction would be morally questionable.

Na, the thing with being an assassin is murder isnt just on your list of things you are willing to do; its at the very top. Its the same with the necromancer, you even stretched the example into "stop them from committing a genocide". The extreme situation does not make the action good; but only the outcome.

The other thing folks never ever cover either, is when the existential threat is over. Does your good necromancer/assassin just keep looking for corner cases to keep their good card up to date?

What is wrong with being an anti-hero or evil dude that does good things?

 

[Voadam]

This is pretty vestigal in 5e. The most direct comments are on the spell school necromancy part about not a good act and only done frequently by evil spellcasters.

I think it would have been better without that description given D&D's history of alignment argument problems over evil acts, simply describe the relevant factors, animated undead as attacking living things, the control limitations in animate dead, the general descriptions of good and evil and neutral, and all the foul mimicry descriptions and taboo and mechanical interactions of turning and raise dead. Show don't tell.

Anybody who thinks creating D&D skeletons and zombies is inherently evil did not need to be told that only evil spellcasters do so frequently to make that determination.

 

[Oofta]

I know they have assumptions. That's never been in doubt. I'm speculating as to whether or not they have to have them, or if they just decided to bake those setting assumptions into the rules. I don't know why folks keep quoting the rules as if we somehow don't know about them.

Have to? No, of course not. Nothing is absolutely required. Is the game more successful because they have a concept of good and evil that can be easily ignored? Are you really debating that?