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.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

To go back to the original question: generations of unimaginative writing that ranges way outside the scope of just D&D.

 

[NotAYakk]

This indeed is metaphysics that would be a reasonable justification for considering it evil. But I don't think the current description of animate dead implies that this is what's happening.

We know it is an evil act, it prevents resurrection, and it uses anti-life energy. The beibgs are distinct from flesh golems or animated objects, and have evil alignment, even if mindless. Intelligent undead retain the memory and personality of the living being, but become evil.

It really isn't a stretch to say all undeath involves the soul of the being killed. Clearly the inteligent undead do, and how the soul remains trapped is continuous into the less intelligent (beastial like ghouls) and brainless (like zombies).

And it explains why it is evil.

We start with knowing the act is evil in and of itself. This is a relatively simple and consistent reason why. You can attempt to find another.

I mean if it was just summoning evil spirits to animate corpses, then lots of other spells become evil. And many of them are not.

So there must be something objectively evil about creating undead. Not situationally evil, but in the act itself.

 

[MGibster]

One cannot ultimately understand why undead are considered evil if one starts with the assumption that the body of the dead is "just meat" with no other psychological or spiritual significance. That the body is just base material is mostly a modern conception, and the tropes we are discussing are not modern. They are ancient.

I think this is the most salient point that's been made in this thread. Throughout most of history, a corpse hasn't just been a piece of meat. Even prehistoric people such as Neanderthals took the time to specifically care for their dead with some including flowers and specific burial arrangements in their funerary rites.

During the American Civil War there was something of a crisis in regards to the wounds and what it meant for the afterlife. If a soldier had his leg amputated, did this mean he would be missing a leg come the resurrection? We might think it a silly question today but this caused some anxiety back in the 1860s. That was also one of the more controversial aspects of cremation. How can you take part in the resurrection when your body has been destroyed?

So that's why most of us think of raising the dead as being evil. We have customs that beliefs that dictate what we're supposed to do with a corpse. If I saw some random skeleton walking down the street I'd want to find that necromancer and kick his butt until he stopped making skeletons.

 

[tomBitonti]

I will say this for about the fifth time. There would be procedures to prevent the skeletons from rebelling in the worst-case scenario. I've covered everything you have said in previous posts. But in summary, the undead wouldn't be big ol skeletons. They would be optimized for work, not battle. Like a bucket with skeletal legs or a pair of arms that pulls on a rope. Before you ask, yes this is possible with the reanimate undead spell.

I’m thinking that in many campaigns, having undead around, even chained in a cell, would have consequences. Nature spirits would avoid the area. Disease and decay would increase. Misfortune would increase.

None of that is written in to the spell as a consequence. Nevertheless, such consequences seem entirely appropriate.

D&D worlds are filled with spirits and the supernatural, and the moral and physical seep into each other with considerable frequency.

TomB

 

[TheSword]

To go back to the original question: generations of unimaginative writing that ranges way outside the scope of just D&D.

There are lots of poetic reasons for animation of the dead being evil. Who wants to be reminded daily of their own mortality. The creeping decay and consumption by worms that most of us try to ignore with a constant and unchanging headstone. It’s no coincidence that people use phrases like work us to the bone, or you can sleep when you’re dead.

If people are interested, the adventure Something Rotten in Kislev deals with the issue. It is split into three adventures, the first details elemental spirits in the land of Kislev. The second details a neutral isolationist wizard who bind elemental spirits into bodies. The third details a community on the border of a dangerous and evil land that uses the research to make walking dead to defend itself and for labour. With the consent of the people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm having a troublesome time understanding why the animate dead spell is considered evil.

Undead take one of two forms in D&D cosmology:

1. New beings (whether sapient or not) "made" of negative energy, at least in essence (the physical body is less important than the energy which permits it to be animated). Creating a being made of negative energy--that is, a being for which its very existence requires that it attempt to negate the life-energy of ordinary living beings--is considered an innately evil act. You are, in a sense, not just destroying things, but producing a new being for which the only purpose IS to destroy other living things. Some cosmologies may paint this differently, or permit the possibility that negative-energy beings (such as undead) and positive-energy beings (such as basically all living things) can (at least theoretically) coexist, but such universes are rare.
2. Trapping the spirit of a previously-living being and bending it to your will as an undead (sapient or otherwise). This is obviously mind control and slavery, of a particularly vicious kind since you do it to dead bodies which can't fight back. As a result, any form of this, e.g. making a vampire, is automatically evil on its face.

Some of this arises from the fact that undeath is necessarily a violation of the natural order. Other aspects of it arise because, if creating undead were not so problematic, it would seem to be a great kindness to turn many people into undead--after all, undead usually cannot die unless actively slain, they can't get sick or grow old, and (at least in theory) they never tire or need food or rest. Even if you can only create non-sapient undead, it would seem to be an axiomatic good to turn all dead people into zombie-slaves for performing rote manual labor, obviating the need for such tasks and permitting a society where no person ever needs to fill a menial job.

Finally, there's the simple "respecting a corpse" thing. Many religions have taboos against desecrating corpses or behaving inappropriately with dead bodies, even though dead bodies are (empirically speaking) simply objects. Given that D&D explicitly has souls and an afterlife and the possibility of resurrection, it is somewhat understandable that they would have even stronger taboos against disrespecting the dead in this way.

 

[see]

In 3rd edition, this was a perfectly good question, which was only answered "Because".

In 5th edition, which is what the tag on this post is, what animate dead does is permanently create a sapient homicidal maniac (per the skeleton and zombie monster descriptions) that is under only control for 24 hours. And 5th edition does not say making them is always evil. It says it's not a good act, and that only evil casters use it frequently.

If you say you can't figure out why it's not a morally good act to knowingly create a being that will seek to destroy all life, I will marvel at you. After you make arguments that it can be done under carefully-controlled circumstances, I will nod and point out that a neutral act is not the same thing as a good act. D&D has a three-valued good-evil axis, not a two-valued one.

Then, given that frequent creation of skeletons and zombies will involve 1) a huge mortality rate among the sapient beings you created, 2) creating more homicidal maniacs than you can carefully control, or 3) both, I will suggest that it is entirely obvious why only evil casters do it frequently.

 

[Composer99]

If you want routine use of animate dead to not be evil in your game setting, well and good.

If that's the case, just say that in the game setting you are crafting, mindless undead are not inherently murderous and possibly also that the magic animating them is not inherently corrupting/life-draining and have done with it.

 

[Jackdaw McGraw]

Imagine a necromancer trying to explain to horrified villagers that a deceased's soul always makes a clean separation from the body - thus making postmortem animation a morally neutral enterprise - because a spellbook told him so.

"No no, good villagers, there's no need to drag the town cleric into this debate. The undead's famous fear of confidently presented holy symbols, or their tendency to crumble under the flashing blade of a paladin, shouldn't be misconstrued as a moral position taken by the gods or their most faithful champions.

It's merely a clash of disharmonious energies, vibrating at different wavelengths. Yes, one is classically represented as "dark" - like the lovely robes I'm wearing - and "light", but these are merely metaphors for elemental forces that have no more will or malevolence than, say, oil and water.

People. Please listen to reason. I'm a good necromancer. We're much more common than you think. And none of use would dare animate a pinky if we thought there was an iota of a chance that your loved ones' souls hadn't departed swiftly to the hereafter the moment they perished. Poof and they're gone.

I think we can all agree that what happens to us after we die is one of the most well understood aspects of the mortal experience. Completely precise, knowable and not at all fraught, mysterious or in need of protective taboos. The whole ritual of grieving and preparing the body for a "sacred" burial seems a tad bit silly when you think about it, now doesn't it? Reverence for meat? I mean...

...dammit, I've said too much.

Don't come any closer, you soulbots!"

 

[Flamestrike]

If we’re talking about 5e here, it isn’t “inherently evil.” Some characters would probably consider it evil for any number of reasons, but there are no actual game rules connecting any particular spell to any particular alignment.

Yeah there is. In the PHB it expressly states animating the dead with necromancy is an evil act, and no good person does so regularly.