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]

Not allowing that premise [that evil is a tangible thing] because the real world is more complex is a lost opportunity.

A lost opportunity for what? Evil being a tangible thing is an incoherent idea, and I can't think of a single story that uses it. Often, it's a catchall for "stuff the author thinks is bad." But most of the time it is given meaning through context. At which point it is really a story about vengeance, or cruelty, or jealousy, or whathaveyou.

Paradise Lost, for example, is not really about evil. It's about pride.

 

[Voadam]

Evil being a tangible thing is an incoherent idea, and I can't think of a single story that uses it.

I remember as a kid being freaked out by the chunk of Evil at the end of Time Bandits.

It also had David Warner as personified Evil

So many cool D&D inspirations for me from Time Bandits

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Because in my game there's things that play off your alignment - places you don't want to be (or that you'll feel extra-comfortable in), items that'll bite you if you're the wrong alignment and pick them up, spells that can detect alignment, etc - and therefore I need to know what alignment each character is. And by that I mean the alignment as shown through the character's actions in play, which always overrules what's written on the character sheet once the character's been in play for a short while.

And so, I quietly keep notes (mostly in my head).

 

[Lanefan]

To the contrary, we never argue about morality in our games because we don't worry about alignments. We just try to play our characters as people and have their moral choices be consistent with who they are. So no one cares if an action is "chaotic evil" or "lawful good" and we don't need to argue about it.

There's a disconnect here, in that even if you don't use formal alignments there's still fertile ground for argument between characters of differing ethics on both an individual-action and broad-philosophy basis.

The players has their character do what makes sense to them, and the other players and DM react according to what makes sense to whoever they are RPing.

Which, as I said, can lead to the exact same moral arguments you'd have had before, only without using the words "lawful" and "chaotic". (though "good" and "evil" might still arise in their small-letter meanings)

 

[Vaalingrade]

To quote Brennan Lee Mulligan, “Really hard to be a freshman year relativist in a world with Baator and Mount Celestia.”

Until Planescape shows up and reveals Mount Celestial lets the Blood War wreck lives because it kills demons and devils.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because in my game there's things that play off your alignment - places you don't want to be (or that you'll feel extra-comfortable in), items that'll bite you if you're the wrong alignment and pick them up, spells that can detect alignment, etc - and therefore I need to know what alignment each character is. And by that I mean the alignment as shown through the character's actions in play, which always overrules what's written on the character sheet once the character's been in play for a short while.

And so, I quietly keep notes (mostly in my head).

So the intention is to eventually reveal to them that you've been silently judging them, sparking the ISO standard Big Alignment Argument because clearly the two of you don't see eye to eye with one another over alignment.

When again, you could still have the same effects and spells with the 'pick your team' original approach minus the 'judge your friends' and start arguments' aspect.

 

[Lanefan]

So the intention is to eventually reveal to them that you've been silently judging them,

They're told right up front that their characters' alignments as seen by the game/setting will be based on what the characters are (as evidenced by what they've done in play), not on what they might be trying to be (i.e. what's written on the character sheet).

sparking the ISO standard Big Alignment Argument because clearly the two of you don't see eye to eye with one another over alignment.

Haven't had one of those in many a year now...and we're a crew who likes to argue.

 

[Ellorghast]

Until Planescape shows up and reveals Mount Celestial lets the Blood War wreck lives because it kills demons and devils.

I would say that's more of a consequentialism vs. deontological ethics thing, rather than to do with relativism.

I've actually had a very similar argument to this come up in a campaign I'm in. My PC, who falls much more on the deontological side, found that it's very difficult to argue ethics with a tome archon.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's a disconnect here, in that even if you don't use formal alignments there's still fertile ground for argument between characters of differing ethics on both an individual-action and broad-philosophy basis.

Which, as I said, can lead to the exact same moral arguments you'd have had before, only without using the words "lawful" and "chaotic". (though "good" and "evil" might still arise in their small-letter meanings)

Yes, they might have such arguments in character, just like people in real life, and there is no known "correct" answer. This is usually good roleplay. Alignment arguments tend to become OOC arguments instead.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would say that's more of a consequentialism vs. deontological ethics thing, rather than to do with relativism.

Yes. And I am not even saying that consequentialism is correct, there are issues with both approaches. I just don't think whether consequentialism or deontology is the correct moral framework is a thing that needs to be defined by the game rules. In real world people have argued about these things for millennia, let the fantasy people do the same!