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.)

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Dont be so sure about that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But it is nonsensical categorisation. It assumes that NPCs generally would have same reaction to murdering innocent children in cold blood, and animating a slain enemy to save the lives of those children. I mean sure, people that have such a reaction could exist, but that would be far from universal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Dont be so sure about that.

Meaning that you would use your GM powers to contrive adverse effects so that you could punish the player for not taking the alignment nonsense as seriously as you do.

 

[TheSword]

The disagreement is because you are trying to throw out the western morals the game defaults to.

I think the interesting thing is that the most significant ‘western morals’ are pretty universal. Most societies have injunctions against stealing, murder, messing around with the dead, and promotions to respect the family and partnerships.

“Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself” has its equivalents in Bhuddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Taoism. These aren’t western morals at all, they are far more widespread.

Sure there are exceptions with some outlier societies that think it’s normal to eat the dead, or encourage polygamy, but they are exceptions and by no means standard. I find it refreshing and a sign that folks more often can get along when they move between cultures because the core morals are the same.

 

[TheSword]

But it is nonsensical categorisation. It assumes that NPCs generally would have same reaction to murdering innocent children in cold blood, and animating a slain enemy to save the lives of those children. I mean sure, people that have such a reaction could exist, but that would be far from universal.

Yes. If I saw you animate the bodies of townsfolk killed in a fire to save some children trapped in the fire. I would be grateful with what you had done, but horrified with the way you had done it, and would want you far away from me. Even if we didn’t imprison/execute you for such an abomination we would absolutely if you carried on doing it.

Equate it to the real world technology of cloning. Despite the substantial benefits society could gain from it, most people would be disgusted and repulsed by the ramifications of using that kind of technology on humans for even simple results.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Oh good, on top of the already contentious animate dead rules we dropped druid armor in? Oh well, they are a pair of unique outliers, in that the deliberately leave open-ended consequences (not actually something that stops something from being a rule), but more importantly dictate character decision. This too does not stop them from being rules (5e does not have a fluff-crunch distinction in the same way that 4e does. If it is words printed in the books, they are all rules, and theoretically all have the same weight). That said-- they really grate. Earlier editions had these in spades -- much of the basic/classic characters were class-limited to certain weapons with no answers to 'but what if they have to?'; AD&D Rangers and Paladins and Barbarians had to follow certain edicts regarding with whom they could associate or what treasure they could own (here the xp to level and cost to train rules did show some consequences to playing a class against type, but otherwise it was mostly just 'they wouldn't do so'). All in all, games (D&D especially) have moved away from this, and towards a 'you can attempt anything, here are the consequences...' model with things like penalties for non-proficient weapons, losing spellcasting ability, and so on. I tend to prefer the new model, as it gives players autonomy -- if nothing else, they can always make their character's decisions (barring mind-control, which is supposed to be an extreme personal violation), even if they can't succeed at a given endeavor. These two outliers seem like throwbacks to an earlier age (although I think the real reason was to be deliberately wishy-washy, so that DMs would feel empowered to change these rules more readily than others).

 

[Charlaquin]

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>>

Yep, I agree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh good, on top of the already contentious animate dead rules we dropped druid armor in? Oh well, they are a pair of unique outliers, in that the deliberately leave open-ended consequences (not actually something that stops something from being a rule), but more importantly dictate character decision. This too does not stop them from being rules (5e does not have a fluff-crunch distinction in the same way that 4e does. If it is words printed in the books, they are all rules, and theoretically all have the same weight). That said-- they really grate. Earlier editions had these in spades -- much of the basic/classic characters were class-limited to certain weapons with no answers to 'but what if they have to?'; AD&D Rangers and Paladins and Barbarians had to follow certain edicts regarding with whom they could associate or what treasure they could own (here the xp to level and cost to train rules did show some consequences to playing a class against type, but otherwise it was mostly just 'they wouldn't do so'). All in all, games (D&D especially) have moved away from this, and towards a 'you can attempt anything, here are the consequences...' model with things like penalties for non-proficient weapons, losing spellcasting ability, and so on. I tend to prefer the new model, as it gives players autonomy -- if nothing else, they can always make their character's decisions (barring mind-control, which is supposed to be an extreme personal violation), even if they can't succeed at a given endeavor. These two outliers seem like throwbacks to an earlier age (although I think the real reason was to be deliberately wishy-washy, so that DMs would feel empowered to change these rules more readily than others).

Yeah, I fully agree. These rules seem like weird atavistic vestiges.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Right, and obviously it’s not an internally-made choice for me not to wear metal armor.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, and obviously it’s not an internally-made choice for me not to wear metal armor.

It is. You made that choice when you decided to play a druid.