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.)

 

[Dausuul]

It is at the very least criminally reckless. Any time you slip up and fail to maintain control, which is easy to do, you've released an immortal killer bent on slaughtering any living thing that stumbles across it.

However, plenty of other spells also raise serious moral issues (like the entire school of Enchantment), so it's odd to single out this one spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

Pretty much this. In the past I believe its because you are creating mindless evil beings that just go around killing things unless controlled. That and you are messing with the natural and/or cosmic order and thats simply not good.

Yeah, in past editions alignment was more intrinsically linked to a lot of things. Undead were inherently evil (which is arguably still true in 5e), so creating them was an evil act.

 

[Umbran]

2: if it was, does that mean beings from the negative realm aren't sentient?

Not generally. Create Undead makes creatures with intelligence high enough to consider sentient.

 

[Zaukrie]

It is at the very least criminally reckless. Any time you slip up and fail to maintain control, which is easy to do, you've released an immortal killer bent on slaughtering any living thing that stumbles across it.

However, plenty of other spells also raise serious moral issues (like the entire school of Enchantment), so it's odd to single out this one spell.

Are skeletons intent on killing the living, or do they obey the commands of their creator? I'm asking, I don't know.

 

[Voadam]

Are skeletons intent on killing the living, or do they obey the commands of their creator? I'm asking, I don't know.

In 5e? Both.

From the 5e MM page 272:

"Obedient Servants. Skeletons raised by spell are bound to the will of their creator. They follow orders to the letter, never questioning the tasks their masters give them, regardless of the consequences. Because of their literal interpretation of commands and unwavering obedience, skeletons adapt poorly to changing circumstances."

"Although they lack the intellect they possessed in life, skeletons aren't mindless. Rather than break its limbs attempting to batter its way through an iron door, a skeleton tries the handle first. If that doesn't work, it searches for another way through or around the obstacle."

"When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation."

The 5e animate dead spell puts them under the caster's control for 24 hours. The next day the caster can reassert control for another 24 hours by casting the spell again or let the control lapse and they become free-willed.

 

[Umbran]

A bit melodramatic don't you think?

No, not really.

If you have a pet, one of the things you can, technically, do after they die is have them taken to a taxidermist and stuffed. The result is, to many, deeply disturbing.

The simplest is probably to say that not all that many people actually think that the body is meaningless flesh when a person dies. It is, at least meaningful flesh, if not supernaturally important in some way, and it is inappropriate to muck with it.

In psychological terms, humans have complicated thoughts and feelings about death, and undead things do not generally play well with those thoughts and feelings.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I don't think being an omniscient observer, per se, has much to do with it. Rather, what is that omniscient observer observing?

I apologize for my vagueness, I mean to say do you believe (knowing exactly how the spell works) that using it is immoral. I do not mean specific uses, I mean the action itself. Think of the fireball spell, it is not considered immoral, casting it is fine but it can be used to kill someone which in many cases is considered immoral. I am not talking about the fireball hitting someone or lighting a fire, I'm talking about the simple inherent properties of the spell. I'm not sure if this is the best way to explain it but it can suffice for now.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

Not generally. Create Undead makes creatures with intelligence high enough to consider sentient.

Something can have sentients but not life. Well, I suppose this is a similar dilemma with AI.

 

[Umbran]

Are skeletons intent on killing the living, or do they obey the commands of their creator? I'm asking, I don't know.

They follow commands, when they are under command.

They are listed with an alignment of Lawful Evil, which suggests that, when not under command, they are intended to generally be looking to do things that hurt people.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Are skeletons intent on killing the living, or do they obey the commands of their creator? I'm asking, I don't know.

Both. They obey their creators, but there's nothing against them being created spontaneously. Either way, they're driven to destroy the living:

"When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed, for skeletons possess little sense of self and even less sense of self-preservation."

Zombies are similar:
"A zombie left without orders simply stands in place and rots unless something comes along that it can kill. The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters."

Many other types of undead actively seek out and destroy life. Wights, shadows, and wraiths feed on the living. You're creating murder monsters which spread more murder monsters that all persist beyond your life span and beyond your control. It's difficult to justify as not so negligent that it's evil.

Additionally, some undead are described as spirits prevented from passing to the afterlife. So you're enslaving a creature's soul and preventing it from passing on. That's really quite horrific, and, again, it's pretty difficult to justify as not an evil action.

Yes, that does suggest that mind control spells and disease creation spells should also be evil, and I don't really see any reason to argue against that.

But that's why the book says, "Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently." (Sidebar on PHB p203.)