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.)

 

[MGibster]

Most of why I've heard, like the Aristotle quote earlier that said whatever you prefer is good, doesn't seem all that applicable to the real world. I mean, if you take that quote at face value, it says that every act, no matter how heinous, is good if the person doing it prefers it. It's a fun thought project, but is clearly wrong.

I'm not an expert on Aristotle, or even philosophy in general, but overall I think his stance on morality would be a bit more than whatever you happen to prefer is good. I can tell you that was Ted Bundy's stance. With Aristotle, I'm pretty sure the idea is that someone well grounded in the virtues of justice, temperance, courage, etc., etc. will find that what they prefer is good.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think the quote is saying the same thing if you change it from a comparison of a lesser evil to a greater evil to a comparison of an evil that you prefer to a good that you prefer less. It is no longer a lesser evil.

""For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good."
-Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics"

""For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil[a good] as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable [to you] to the greater one[good], and whatever preferable is good."
-Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics"

How does that actually change what he said? HE said two evils and evil becomes good. Changing it changes what he said.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not an expert on Aristotle, or even philosophy in general, but overall I think his stance on morality would be a bit more than whatever you happen to prefer is good. I can tell you that was Ted Bundy's stance. With Aristotle, I'm pretty sure the idea is that someone well grounded in the virtues of justice, temperance, courage, etc., etc. will find that what they prefer is good.

That may be, but it isn't what that quote says. If there's more to it, then that quote is inapplicable here. It only applies to this discussion if it is complete in and of itself.

 

[Voadam]

How does that actually change what he said? HE said two evils and evil becomes good. Changing it changes what he said.

Because you are changing it from what is objectively preferable to what you subjectively prefer. And the change turns the lesser evil into the greater evil of the choices.

A lesser evil is objectively preferable to a greater evil by definition.

You can subjectively prefer an evil to a good but that does not make the evil preferable to the good.

Given the choice of an evil you prefer to a good the good choice is the good and the evil choice is the evil.

Given the choice of two evils the good choice of the two options is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Maxperson]

Because you are changing it from what is objectively preferable to what you subjectively prefer. And the change turns the lesser evil into the greater evil of the choices.

A lesser evil is objectively preferable to a greater evil by definition.

You can subjectively prefer an evil to a good but that does not make the evil preferable to the good.

Given the choice of an evil you prefer to a good the good choice is the good and the evil choice is the evil.

Given the choice of two evils the good choice of the two options is the lesser of two evils.

There can be no good choice. There can be a better choice, but it does not become good just because it's the preferred one. Especially since "lesser" and "greater" are themselves subjective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That may be, but it isn't what that quote says. If there's more to it, then that quote is inapplicable here. It only applies to this discussion if it is complete in and of itself.

Of course there is more to it, it is quote from a four hundred page book on ethics!

"Preferable" here doesn't mean individual preference, the point of the quote is merely that if you have two bad choices, the less bad is the good one. Everyone else seemed to get it just fine, even if they might not agree with the sentiment. Now how to determine which evil is "lesser" is obviously often complicated, hence the four hundred page treatise on the matter. (Or actually several; Nicomachean Ethics is on of the three books Aristotle wrote on the matter.) But according to Aristotle the right thing to do depends on the details of a particular situation, rather than just dogmatically applying a law. And I agree with him on that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

However, one of those outcomes might be me writing a quiet note-to-self that this particular character's alignment might not be quite what the player claims it to be.

I mean the question here is 'why?.

What is it adding for either player or DM for the DM to be directed by the game to quietly pass moral judgement on the player's in character choices disconnected from anything actually going on in the game?

Like, would the game be made better if the DM was quietly taking notes on the characters' poor fashion choices too?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is there a bad faith good guy problem that you see?

I have issues with any class whose lore has them beholden to a more powerful being for their power (so, clerics, paladins, warlocks and maybe druids) that has no mechanical brake on their behavior, such that their ostensible obligation to said being is meaningless mechanically.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Bold take, Maxperson - Aristotle? Pff! He's just wrong. Why is anyone listening to this guy?

Who died and put Aristotle in charge of ethics?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who died and put Aristotle in charge of ethics?

Socrates and Plato who came up with the concept, but technically no one as it was Aristotle who named it ethics.