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.)

 

[Oofta]

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 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.

Not to get too deep in the weeds, but the reality that we know is just our perception of the world around us. Living things developed senses that helped them survive, they didn't necessarily develop an accurate understanding of the world around us. I would say that the keyboard I'm typing this on is solid, a physicist would tell you that it isn't solid, it's made of atoms and it feels solid because of the interaction of the atomic forces at play between the keyboard and the atoms in my fingers.

In order to function, we create constructs, assign meaning and value to what we perceive and experience. Whether that a specific spectrum of light (or spectral range if you're being pedantic) being interpreted as blue, another as green and yet another in the ultraviolet range as something we don't even see even if many other animals do. So we assign meaning to good and evil as language constructs; there is of course no inherent meaning any more than there is inherent meaning to the color blue. We can better describe how light works because of it's physical properties but even our explanations break down a bit because of quantum weirdness, but that's another story.

I think alignment is useful as a quick guideline that can be easily ignored. Is it "real"? No. Alignment is no more real than philosophical definitions based on utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontological ethical theories. Those other theories, of course have much more thought and rigor put into them. But alignment, concepts of good and evil in D&D are vast oversimplifications of real world complexity much like hit points.

The question for me is, can it be useful? I think it can. As the MM states "... alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation." Is it the sole arbiter of behavior? Everything we need to know about a complex personality? A straight jacket that must be followed to the letter? No. It provides a clue to disposition. One descriptor of many. Same way that concepts of good and evil are fuzzy nebulous things that can still be useful descriptors. Just like the color blue.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

I just call it late 80's early 90's edge where everyone is scumbags but one side is scumbags that say things like 'good isn't nice' or 'I'm a hard man making hard choices' and the setting si better off on fire than anyone 'winning'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Isn't it about his pride and his envy though. I haven't read this book in a very, very long time. So I can't comment much on the particulars. You are probably right that it focuses on a key aspect like pride. But also this is satan who is the embodiment of evil and it makes sense Pride would be the focus because that is regarded as the source of the other deadly sins. I don't think tangible evil is quite the right idea here, as Satan is a being of pure spirit like all angels. But anyone familiar with Christianity understands how evil can be embodied in a figure even in a place like hell. And here I would generally think of evil as the absence of Good or God. Also when we respond to specific evils, I think we often have an overwhelming sense of a more general wrongness, we would call evil. I am not arguing for this being the case in reality. But I do think the notion of evil as a kind of force in the world, can work. A story like the exorcist makes sense because there is evil (and arguably it is a story where evil even manifests tangibly). The faith trilogy is almost entirely about the problem of Evil and faith faltering in the face of it

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 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 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 assume that the fact that the word "blue" didn't exist means 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 for that thing not existing. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I am with you on this one. I think people were perceiving blue. Just like I can perceive lighter and lighter shades of red, even though I may not know the specific terms for those gradients, not may I be able to even properly distinguish them. But I can see the difference if two different shades are shown to me.

 

[MGibster]

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

Pride is one of the cardinal sins, a.k.a. the seven deadly sins, and is one of the vices that leads one to eternal death (i.e. Hell). In Christian theology, pride is the mother of all sins, it's the original sin, and that's evil. I'm certainly not going to ask you to agree that pride is evil, but from a Christian perspective, the perpsective Milton and his 17th century audience would have understood, pride was an evil.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I haven't seen an alignment argument(outside of the forums) in 20+ years.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't seen an alignment argument(outside of the forums) in 20+ years.

Especially since we no longer have the strict rules around alignment with things like paladins needing to be LG and so on.

I don't remember the last time it came up other than when I tell my players "no evil PCs" (which doesn't really have anything to do with alignment) or I'll describe a monster or organization as typically CE. The players know what I'm talking about, it's a handy shortcut. But arguments? Nah. I've discussed ideas about alignment and how I use it now and then, that's about it. People that hate alignment can ignore it but seem to always try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Maxperson]

Especially since we no longer have the strict rules around alignment with things like paladins needing to be LG and so on.

Even during 3e I didn't see it. But by then folks had mostly grown out of the 1e/2e mindset.

I don't remember the last time it came up other than when I tell my players "no evil PCs" (which doesn't really have anything to do with alignment) or I'll describe a monster or organization as typically CE. The players know what I'm talking about, it's a handy shortcut. But arguments? Nah. I've discussed ideas about alignment and how I use it now and then, that's about it. People that hate alignment can ignore it but seem to always try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Yep!

 

[Baron Opal II]

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

Much like Slytherin house isn't evil, but all the dark wizards have come from Slytherin house.

As far as myth and legend concerning the innate evil of animating dead, you have the zombi myth of Haiti. The malevolent bokor, magicians, create them to use as their personal slaves.

There is also a commonality of belief that what happens to the corpse has influence upon the soul. Thus animating the dead could torment or disgust the soul of the departed, leading to haunting until the body is put back to its appropriate rest.

But, if that doesn't bother you and you want a modern, mechanistic approach to the utilization of the dead it's your game.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've never considered Animating Dead to be inherently evil, but it's an act that generally offends people, and evil people will often delight in (or just not care about) offending people. So, while it's possible that one could participate in Necromancy in a respectful way, it's often perpetrated by evil sorts, which only serves to make society see it as an evil act, in a vicious cycle.