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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Not by the rules it isn’t.

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.

I don’t have to change the alignments, because no rule says that creating them is inherently evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

The correct answer is d) n/a, because no spell in D&D 5e is inherently tied to any alignment.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I didn’t get that impression from the OP’s question, but sure.

To understand you better, are you not basing your argument as the OP does but strictly from a mechanical PoV?

Yes.

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

That is an accurate extrapolation of my argument, yes. D&D characters kill people all the time, and that doesn’t necessarily cause them to have an evil alignment, ergo killing is not inherently evil by the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Not by the rules it isn’t.

You really thinking making more evil in the world isn't an evil act?

I don’t have to change the alignments, because no rule says that creating them is inherently evil.

So my PC can go around doing anything I want that adds more evil to the world and remain good or neutral?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

How a church or society view the spell is academically interesting, but has no bearing on whether the spell is good or evil. Good and evil are objective in D&D, not subjective based on the views of a church or society.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Killing and murder aren't the same, though. It depends on who or what the PCs kill, and if they really are committing murder or not.

 

[Vaalingrade]

wait what did you make then?

I don't mean to leave the impression that I was a finalist. I submitted my original version of my World of Ere setting (which is slowly but surely growing closer to release as its own game).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Killing and murder aren't the same, though. It depends on who or what the PCs kill, and if they really are committing murder or not.

It's usually murder though. And often of the sovereign rulers of places and their servants. So assassinations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How a church or society view the spell is academically interesting, but has no bearing on whether the spell is good or evil. Good and evil are objective in D&D, not subjective based on the views of a church or society.

That's total nonsense though.

 

[Maxperson]

That's total nonsense though.

Only in the real world. In D&D it's the fact of the situation. You can homebrew alignment to be subjective, but then you have to change demons, devils, celestials, modrons and all the rest, as well as the outer planes themselves. All of that changes as soon as you make alignment subjective.