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]

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.

no but the alignment system is the simple version of doing a full list of acceptable behaviors for Gods which could end up based on historical and real world examples, mapping out most of the characters day, telling them when they have to pray, what words they can and can't use, whether or not they can talk to unmarried women unsupervised, whether or not cussing with the gods name is a sin, etc, etc etc, ad infinitum.
I'll keep what weve got.

 

[Voadam]

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

Eh, without mechanical class repercussions. They have the same consequences as any good guy turning heel.

In 5e mechanically that means yes they avoid the potential consequence of talismans of pure good harming them.

 

[nevin]

Eh, without mechanical class repercussions. They have the same consequences as any good guy turning heel.

In 5e mechanically that means yes they avoid the potential consequence of talismans of pure good harming them.

Or those talisman's of pure good become a talisman of a certain god and they they hurt nearly everyone good or bad that shouldn't pick them up. How dare you hold a relic of the sun god?

 

[James Gasik]

Bleah.

I agree, but that isn't exactly an uncommon occurence.

 

[James Gasik]

Or those talisman's of pure good become a talisman of a certain god and they they hurt nearly everyone good or bad that shouldn't pick them up. How dare you hold a relic of the sun god?

Hey, if I'm using it to give a vampire a bad time, I'd like to think the sun god would be ok with it!

 

[Voadam]

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

I would also much rather the game focus on empowering and not penalizing playing heroes in good faith rather than constrain roleplay and impose potential problems to avoid players playing good guys in bad faith.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would also much rather the game focus on empowering and not penalizing playing heroes in good faith rather than constrain roleplay and impose potential problems to avoid players playing good guys in bad faith.

To each their own, sure. It's just a preference.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, here's the thing. I like the idea of alignment. It's neat. The idea that you have an affinity towards some cosmic forces who are duking it out across the multiverse to decide the ultimate fate of reality.

But how alignment has been handled, historically, is bad. It's used far more often as a tool to restrict or even punish players than it ever was to reward them.

Oh sure, if you're Lawful Good, you can be a Paladin!....but is that really such a great thing? Maybe you'd be better served as a Fighter/Cleric....or a Fighter/Priest of a specific Mythos. Well as a Paladin, you can use a Holy Avenger...damn near a minor artifact and unlikely to really show up in the game.

And being a Paladin comes with a host of restrictions on top of being Lawful Good...hm...

Well, no matter, you'll be Good because being a hero is the thing to do! Except, you know, you're now subject to the effects of Unholy Word and similar things. Can't pick up Evil sentient weapons. Might not even be able to associate with some characters....

Well ok, obviously playing Evil is bad, nobody would want to do....oh uh, there's an Assassin class, you say? Anti-Paladins in the latest issue of Dragon? This evil God gives cool powers? Oh and there's evil spells that are cool?

Oh sure, now you have to worry about Good monsters (who are usually tougher than their evil counterparts), Paladins, and Holy Words, right? But hey, small price to pay for the freedom to do whatever I want!

Oh uh, going to the Hells when I die? Pfft. I probably wasn't going to be able to come back to life anyways.

The game itself provides very few real benefits for being Good, despite the fact that it's kind of, you know, expected (except for Thieves, why they can't even be Lawful Good...except for that Van Richten guy! Can't trust 'em!).

And not a lot of real punishments for being evil. Oh sure, a DM can certainly add these to the game. They can give Good characters a positive reputation with NPC's....though that can be a double edged sword. And what about the Lawful Evil guy with good publicity?

And the more over the years the game tried to approach alignment and how it should be used, the more complex it became, and the more likely players would just say "to hell with it, I'll just be Neutral".

And that's why alignment has become increasingly vestigial, because if you know how to make it work, you don't need WotC to tell you. And if you don't, then it might be better you don't attempt to make it work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hey, if I'm using it to give a vampire a bad time, I'd like to think the sun god would be ok with it!

Sorry, the sun god is evil and therefore has to love vampires because they're also evil.

 

[James Gasik]

Sorry, the sun god is evil and therefore has to love vampires because they're also evil.

Pelor the Burning Hate! I should have known!