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.)

 

[Lanefan]

So what you’ve effectively done is broken it into more than nine categories. But again, in practice there must come a point where a character crosses the threshold from one category into another.

True, but that point isn't precise. It's like asking at what exact point does a rainbow go from red to orange - yes, it was red and then we went this way and now it's orange, but there's no way to say exactly when it changed from one to the other.

For sure. I mean, even a rule specifying that the DM can decide to change a character’s alignment if they think the character’s actions generally reflect a different one than they have written would be more than currently exists

Ayup.

It means I care about consequences, or if you like, outcomes, over motivations. To put it very simply, if you step on my foot, I can’t know if you meant to step on my foot or not, but my foot got stepped on by you either way, so an apology is in order even if it wasn’t intentional. The outcome is what matters.

There are plenty of other schools of thought surrounding ethics, and most people don’t really have a coherent ethical framework, they just rely on intuition. But I am a pretty hardline consequentialist, so we aren’t going to be able to agree on whether or not motivation matters more than outcome.

Fair enough.

 

[Lanefan]

In these cases, the player is the one who has not correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure, by fudging their roll or whatever. The DM need only point out that this error has been made. In the case of the druid armor and the good necromancer, the player has correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure by describing what their character does.

I'm going to nitpick this just a bit: to be true, the last word "does" in the above quote needs to be replaced with the word "tries".

A player can have a character try anything, no matter how hopeless or ridiculous. The game-state is going to doom some of those attempts to automatic failure (e.g. a pure Fighter trying to cast a Wizard spell) while the fiction-state is going to auto-doom some more (e.g. trying to jump to the moon or walk into a cliff as if it wasn't there). I don't think anyone has a problem with this.

So in these two examples, the Necromancer and the Druid, I posit that the game-state dooms the Necromancer's attempt to failure as the game does not allow them to be Good just the same as the game does not allow Fighters to cast spells; and the fiction-state dooms the Druid's attempt because Druids can't wear metal armour in the fiction. But yes, the players are perfectly free to have characters try these things.

The problem is, the rules don't give any clue as to what's supposed to happen next in either of these cases*, and while some are saying that because the rules give no guidance these attempts should be allowed to succeed I just can't buy that. Instead, I see it as a flat-out error of omission in the rules.

* - and in one case Sage Advice at best just punts the question straight back into the DM's lap, and a fat lot of help that is:

DM: "I'm stuck here - what do I do?"
Sage Advice: "Yes, what do you do?"
DM: "I don't know, which is why I'm asking."
Sage Advice: "It's your decision."
DM: "Yes, but I'd like some guidance, please."
Sage Advice: "The guidance is it's your decision."
DM: <<facepalm>>

 

[Lanefan]

The rules DO NOT SAY they aren’t supposed to do those things. If the text said druids can’t wear metal armor, or that only evil characters can cast animate dead, this would be a very different discussion.

Not really, as in many cases "can not" and "will not" are synonymous in their effect.

The only difference is that "can not" is externally imposed while "will not" is an internally-made choice.

 

[Lanefan]

Is an unwinged player prevented from attempting to fly?

No.

They are, however, prevented from succeeding.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The druid thing isn't a mechanical game rule. It's an in game taboo that they voluntarily abide by, which means that one can voluntarily violate the taboo.

Sure. And adding sneak attack only one per turn under certain conditions is just politeness, but the rogue can just ignore that and add it to every attack roll as many times as they like! It's a rule buddy, printed in the rule summary section of the class. That the designer gives a background justification for the rule's existence doesn't stop it being a rule, majority of rules has such a justification for their existence. It also is utterly hilarious that you think this is not a rule but the way more vague bit (but using similar logic) about animate dead's evilness is!

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm waiting for the arguments on what "frequently" entails.

DM's call.

 

[Flamestrike]

In these cases, the player is the one who has not correctly fulfilled their role in the gameplay procedure, by fudging their roll or whatever. The DM need only point out that this error has been made.

And if the player refuses to follow the rules in this case, and just does it anyway?

Are you honestly saying a DM has his hands tied at this point due to there being no rule in place for when a player just puts values of 30 in each of his stats?

And if the DMs hands are not tied, how does this differ from the player who chooses to ignore the prohibition on only evil PCs animating the dead frequently?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In any case, as alignment doesn't actually mean anything, there is really no problem with writing 'chaotic evil' or whatever on the character sheet, and then just playing the necromancer as a decent person who uses their undead minions for helping people and protecting innocents. All that demanding alignment chance for such behaviour does is showing what incoherent arbitrary nonsense the alignment is.

 

[tomBitonti]

Except the book DOESN’T SAY THAT!

But it does. “Only evil casters use Animate Dead frequently“ is an axiom of the game state. “My character‘s alignment is good” a proposition, to be shown true or false by my character’s actions.

If my character uses Animate Dead frequently we are left with a contradiction. Both “My good character uses Animate Dead frequently” and “Only evil casters use Animate Dead frequently” cannot be true. The proposition must yield to the axiom. Since “My character casts Animate Dead frequently” is unequivocally true, the only thing left to change is my character’s alignment. Only “My character is evil” makes the statements consistent.

TomB

 

[TheSword]

In any case, as alignment doesn't actually mean anything, there is really no problem with writing 'chaotic evil' or whatever on the character sheet, and then just playing the necromancer as a decent person who uses their undead minions for helping people and protecting innocents. All that demanding alignment chance for such behaviour does is showing what incoherent arbitrary nonsense the alignment is.

From a PC point of view. Alignment is a short hand to help the DM categorize behavior and come up with reasonable responses to that behavior. Do NPCs approve of your behavior or not. Do some items and abilities affect you or not.

From an NPC point of view alignment helps the DM determine general tendencies and behaviors. Evil probably won’t be very nice. Good probably will be nice (unless maybe you’re evil).

It becomes very useful if tables want to have a more heroic game and don’t want edgelord’s bringing everyone else down. Instead of specifying every action that might annoy/offend the table agrees no evil. Incidentally I see this more often as a table decision than a DM decision. Certainly in king standing groups anyway.

Changing alignment is just a way of codifying that reaction in response to the players decision. It’s just another form of description. If your player changes their hair style that description on their character sheet changes. No rule needs to tell us to do that, the DM referrees the decision.