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.)

 

[nevin]

good analogy. A lot of arguments over the year have really boiled down to the question. "Should the game concepts be simplified, or complicated? " Odd that we can't all agree....

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is unfortunate that some players do hate their actions having consequences- they see games like D&D, being fantasy make-believe affairs, as an escape from the restrictions of modern society. Take for example, this exchange:

"I want my Rogue to pick pockets in the town square."

DM: "Uh, let's see. Hey, aren't you Chaotic Good?"

"Yeah, so? I have little regard for laws."

DM: "Stealing is an evil act."

I mean, it could stop right there, couldn't it?

Is stealing evil or chaotic? Especially if you're going to try to insist on objective morality and not consider what and why you're stealing. Bread for a starving child and all that.

And how hard is it to just let the thief pick pockets and deal with the outcome of them being spotted instead of wasting time trying to browbeat them for even considering trying?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, there are several things stacked up here, and peeling them apart may help...

What we call "the color blue" is a sensory experience. So, in that sense, it is a subjective. There are people who are either blind or color-blind, who cannot experience it at all - for them, the color blue effectively does not exist.

And, you say there's a specific wavelength of light that we interpret as blue exists - that's not even accurate. In reality, there's a range of wavelengths we'd interpret as 'blue". The way the human eye works, there's also going to be combinations of wavelengths of that, when presented together, we would still call "blue", even if none of them individually are blue.

So, "blue" is complicated. Go figure.

But even then, we should not conflate the fact that the word "blue" didn't exist that the sensory experience also did not exist. Like, what do we think happened before language - did people not see color, though they had receptors in their eyes for it? Of course they saw it. They just didn't categorize it!

And that's what we come down to - don't mistake the inability to categorize a thing as that thing not existing. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Language and color theory is a fascinating topic all on its own.

One's language appears to actually affect color perception and historically, languages have developed for colors in roughly the same order. And we are still learning the hows and whys.

 

[Voadam]

but the story and what the player doesn't know could be at play there. some people like complicated stories. Are you trying to take that from them? What are you actually fixing?

I can't tell what you are talking about. A devil surreptitiously interfering with a paladin's power to make it look like the god is doing so where the player does not know? A god "testing" their paladin's faith by arbitrarily taking it away?

The issue that 4e and 5e fixed was having DMs evaluate the PCs roleplay to potentially impose mechanical penalties on them for the DM's moral judgment which the player may disagree with. Having a player in good faith play a good guy by the rules and get penalized by the DM for in the DM's view doing it wrong.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is unfortunate that some players do hate their actions having consequences- they see games like D&D, being fantasy make-believe affairs, as an escape from the restrictions of modern society. Take for example, this exchange:

"I want my Rogue to pick pockets in the town square."

DM: "Uh, let's see. Hey, aren't you Chaotic Good?"

"Yeah, so? I have little regard for laws."

DM: "Stealing is an evil act."

"Well...what if I just target evil people?"

DM: "You can't tell if someone is evil by looking at them."

"What about rich people? If you're rich, you probably did something wrong!"

DM: "No, your character wouldn't do it. Or if you did, I'd say you're no longer Good."

And then we argue about Robin Hood for a while. What an utter waste of time. Just get rid of the alignment, and trust the players to know what their character would do. Like literally what's the point? Why anyone would think that pausing the game for the GM to lecture to players about his personal morals using game mechanics as a bludgeon improves the gaming experience?

Some variation of this has played out at any number of tables over the years. The DM is the final arbiter of what is or is not a good or evil act, no matter what the books say. It doesn't help that most fictional characters (let alone most real people) are way too nuanced to fairly fall into one of the nine alignments*. Many people considered "heroic" are more than capable of doing terrible things if they feel the cause is just, and D&D hasn't, historically, made exemptions to this.

*Exhibit A:
View attachment 340955

Right. Alignment is utter meaningless nonsense.

 

[nevin]

I mean, it could stop right there, couldn't it?

Is stealing evil or chaotic? Especially if you're going to try to insist on objective morality and not consider what and why you're stealing. Bread for a starving child and all that.

And how hard is it to just let the thief pick pockets and deal with the outcome of them being spotted instead of wasting time trying to browbeat them for even considering trying?

honestly it's a thief. good evil don't matter. chaotic, lawful might if they get caught by the authorities or the local Guild. the local guild might not like troublemakers who are bad for business.

 

[nevin]

And then we argue about Robin Hood for a while. What an utter waste of time. Just get rid of the alignment, and trust the players to know what their character would do. Like literally what's the point? Why anyone would think that pausing the game for the GM to lecture to players about his personal morals using game mechanics as a bludgeon improves the gaming experience?




Right. Alignment is utter meaningless nonsense.

No when you worship gods which is generally the only time it comes into the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't tell what you are talking about. A devil surreptitiously interfering with a paladin's power to make it look like the god is doing so where the player does not know? A god "testing" their paladin's faith by arbitrarily taking it away?

The issue that 4e and 5e fixed was having DMs evaluate the PCs roleplay to potentially impose mechanical penalties on them for the DM's moral judgment which the player may disagree with. Having a player in good faith play a good guy by the rules and get penalized by the DM for in the DM's view doing it wrong.

Of course, removing DM judgement from the equation also allows players to play a good guy in bad faith without reprocussions.

 

[Voadam]

DM: "No, your character wouldn't do it.

Bleah.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No when you worship gods which is generally the only time it comes into the game.

There is no reason for the gods to agree on morality either. It is understandable that a god might expect certain moral behaviours from their followers, but you don't need the alignment system for that. Different gods will have different tenets. And it is quite different thing for the players to disagree with a deity, than supposedly universal morals, because in later case they are effectively disagreeing with the GM, which makes it more personal and takes the argument out of the game. Characters disagreeing with tenets of particular religion can remain purely in-character.