D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

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.)

log in or register to remove this ad

log in or register to remove this ad


Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Do they? It feels like there are a bunch of threads where the argument is that there is no reason they need to.
There isn’t a reason they need to, and a group is free to break that assumption if it suits their needs. Like I said, I’d be willing to talk to a player to figure out how their hovering character concept would work.
If a player knows all the pieces for making explosives or toxins, can their character if the parts are easy to find?
Generally? Sure. I wouldn’t blame a DM for ruling otherwise in their game though.
Do germ theory and evolution work like IRL?
Well, those examples are biology, not physics. But it’s also not really relevant to gameplay. The various creatures that exist in the world exist, whether they arose through evolution by natural selection, evolution by intelligent design, or direct creation. Characters become ill by exposure to diseases, whether they are transmitted by microorganisms or miasma or some other means. The characters don’t really have the means to verify or falsify these possibilities and it really doesn’t make a practical difference to their experience either way.
Should electricity really mess with psionics given brain activity is electrical?
Do electrical impulses in the brain have anything to do with how psionics work? Since psionics aren’t a thing in real life, there’s nothing to fall back on to answer that question, so either the creator of the setting or the DM will have to make a ruling on that. I would default to no, since there’s no rule that says it does.
Do all the animals without the ridiculously low movement rates and jumping distances from the rules run and jump as fast as the real world counterparts?
Movement speed is specific to combat, and in combat, animals can only move as fast as their speed allows, as per the rules. Out of combat, sure, they can move as fast as they can move, unless I missed a rule that says otherwise.


Let's not pretend that 'monster that does the thing the PCs do only to the wrong people' is equivalent to describing lurid snuff.
This monster the PC creates will, in all likelihood, at some point kill innocent people is better?

In any case, my point is that as a DM I make the final ruling on a lot of things. That includes declaring something evil. Creating a monster that will murder innocents given the chance, along with the fact that you're desecrating the dead, is evil at my table and I would not allow it. It doesn't have anything to do with alignment. Feel free to handle things differently at your table.


Morkus from Orkus
No, I interpret it as “the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act” (that part is literally consistent with my interpretation that spells are not inherently tied to alignments), and an unenforceable statement about what characters “will” do, which is why I used the druid armor comparison. It is inarguable that the player of a good PC can choose for their character to cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently. Since this statement indicates no consequences for doing so, I can only conclude that good PCs can in fact cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently. Of course, a character who does cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently is most likely not both good and an NPC, since the text in question indicates that good characters don’t do that. Much like how a character wearing metal armor is probably not both a druid and an NPC.
If ONLY evil beings create undead frequently, there must be evil attached to the act or that wouldn't be an absolute. Ignoring that to declare that the designers were wrong in what they wrote for their game and you are right is very flawed logic. Logic dictates that casting spells that create undead are evil acts.
It doesn’t say good characters can’t cast necromancy spells like animate dead frequently, it says only evil characters do cast them frequently, which is just demonstrably untrue when it comes to PCs. Same as Druids and metal armor.
Yes. ONLY evil. As in no one BUT evil. It is not demonstrably untrue when it comes to PCs, since we know from that statement that there is evil attached to the casting or it wouldn't be true. Also, it's a False Equivalence to compare the druid choice not to wear armor to a spell that must have evil attached to it.

An Advertisement