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.)

 

[John R Davis]

In my games I've always said it can be used as a punishment
Your crime was terrible, you will serve a sentence in this life, and never reach the everafter as the moment after your execution you will be animated as undead to serve an extra X years for the public good.

 

[Maxperson]

You can repeat it if you want, but doing so doesn’t make “not good” mean “inherently evil.”

And you can argue "not good" doesn't mean inherent evil if you want, but adding evil permanently to the world through the creation of evil zombies, evil skeletons and/or evil ghouls is evil. If you change the alignments of the undead so that they are not evil, your argument gains some legs, but then you're involved with homebrew.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I never got Stormwrack but I heard good things about it.

It was really fun and had both orca and orangutan people because of course it did.

I also didn't care much for Eberron, but that's just personal preferences, not quality. The quality of it was good, but I don't like magic to be common and the every day magical parts of society kind of turned me off to the setting.

Eberron did exactly what I wanted all the way around basically. Practical, common magic, places for pulp fantasy, steampunk and monster stuff, walking fortresses, drow without Lloth and plus scorpions, ontological mysteries like the Mourning and where Warforged tech really came from, a religion run by a demon, a big snake and an unstable lady all stapled together, the Go'auld for some reason, and mad scientists.

I felt so much better losing the setting search when I saw what did win.

 

[Raduin711]

1. Animate Dead is instantaneous, but really should be considered permanent as the undead, once created, exists until destroyed. They cannot be dispelled via dispel magic, etc. So, unlike animate objects, they continue to go on once made.

The spell is instantaneous, because the spell exists, does what it says (creates a zombie/skeleton) and then exits. The skeleton or zombie is not magical, as peculiar as that is to say. If you cast dispel magic or throw it in an anti-magic zone, the undead continues to function.

If it were permanent, then there would be a permanent magical aura on the zombie or skeleton, and if it encountered a dispel magic or anti-magic zone, the spell would be undone and the undead would stop its function.

This also means that the function of the spell to maintain command is also not an ongoing spell... so you can't dispel a necromancer's ability to command his undead. Which is weird. This means that the spell appears, tells the undead "You will follow his orders for 24 hours" the undead says "okay" and the spell goes away. The undead does as it's told even though there is no spell there compelling it. So there must be something knitted innately into the undead that makes them work that way.

 

[Flamestrike]

You can repeat it if you want, but doing so doesn’t make “not good” mean “inherently evil.”

If I said [this act] is not a good act, and only evil creatures do it frequently, and also describe [this act] itself elsewhere as employing 'foul, unholy, black magic', and if [this act] also involves the literal creation of inherently evil baby eating undead monsters, via the desecration of a corpse, is [this act] most likely:

a) Good
b) Neutral
c) Evil

Feel free to argue other than 'c', but you're wrong.

 

[AnotherGuy]

You can repeat it if you want, but doing so doesn’t make “not good” mean “inherently evil.”

Which are judgments, not game rules.

I agree! In-character judgments are indeed irrelevant, which is why I say statements like “necromancy is foul” are also irrelevant. There are no actual game mechanics that tie any action, much less any spell, to any alignment.

Can you site where the rules say so?

And yet, a Good character can cast them and nothing will happen. The spells are therefore not inherently evil by the rules.

That is incorrect. No rule exists that says casting necromancy spells (or any other spells… or any other action…) can result in your alignment changing.

Then you are house ruling. A reasonable house rule to make, if you want certain actions to be inherently connected with certain alignments.

This is an interesting position you've taken.
I have not read the entire thread, but I'm sure the OP was asking, it appears, from a valued judgement perspective. To understand you better, are you not basing your argument as the OP does but strictly from a mechanical PoV?

EDIT: Killing someone from a mechanical PoV is not inherently evil. That seems to be the position you have taken.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It was really fun and had both orca and orangutan people because of course it did.

Eberron did exactly what I wanted all the way around basically. Practical, common magic, places for pulp fantasy, steampunk and monster stuff, walking fortresses, drow without Lloth and plus scorpions, ontological mysteries like the Mourning and where Warforged tech really came from, a religion run by a demon, a big snake and an unstable lady all stapled together, the Go'auld for some reason, and mad scientists.

I felt so much better losing the setting search when I saw what did win.

wait what did you make then?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

EDIT: Killing someone from a mechanical PoV is not inherently evil. That seems to be the position you have taken

Killing people is something good aligned characters do all the time in D&D. If you say "murder is inherently evil" then all D&D PCs are evil. But really, so what? What it says in a box on your character sheet has no effect.

The real answer to the OP is, alignment is stupid, don't use it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Killing people is something good aligned characters do all the time in D&D. If you say "murder is inherently evil" then all D&D PCs are evil. But really, so what? What it says in a box on your character sheet has no effect.

The real answer to the OP is, alignment is stupid, don't use it.

Its fair if you do not see the value in the question but this discussion may assist someone who wishes to answer the question in game. I certainly see the value in addressing that for one's table/setting.
i.e. how does the church view animate dead? how does society view the spell?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

i.e. how does the church view animate dead? how does society view the spell?

I see the value in that, yes (although talking about "the Church" doesn't make much sense in a typical polytheistic D&D setting).

But "how it is viewed" is a completely different thing to "changing what is written on your character sheet".