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.)

 

[James Gasik]

Do Deathless taste great, and are they less filling?

 

[Maxperson]

Finally, the worst official D&D book ever penned, the Book of Vile Darkness, came out and declared undead creation is evil because it being Negative Energy from the Negative Energy Plane (canonically a Neutral plane in the MotP and 3.5 SRD) into the world.

Where are you getting that from. The Manual of the Planes says the Negative Energy plane is crawling with undead and...

"The greatest immediate danger on the Negative Energy Plane is the plane itself—its brooding malevolence and soul-sucking nature are a threat to all who cross it."

I mean, that doesn't sound either good or neutral to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No to the first part.

In fact, the entire point of Deathless as a type is to be anti-flavor.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Where are you getting that from. The Manual of the Planes says the Negative Energy plane is crawling with undead and...

"The greatest immediate danger on the Negative Energy Plane is the plane itself—its brooding malevolence and soul-sucking nature are a threat to all who cross it."

I mean, that doesn't sound either good or neutral to me.

It is still neutral aligned, just like the positive energy 'pop you with cancer' plane.

 

[Maxperson]

It is still neutral aligned, just like the positive energy 'pop you with cancer' plane.

That's just dumb. If a plane is malevolent and wants to suck your life from you and turn you into an undead, it's not neutral. It was silly to make it neutral in the first place.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's just dumb. If a plane is malevolent and wants to suck your life from you and turn you into an undead, it's not neutral. It was silly to make it neutral in the first place.

The idea that a plane “wants” anything is kinda silly IMO.

 

[James Gasik]

It's neutral in the same way a singularity is neutral. It will totally destroy you and everything that gets sucked into it, as it is spaghettified and compressed and compacted to the Nth degree, and all that will be left of you will be released as Hawking radiation...but it's not evil. It just IS.

 

[Lanefan]

And this is one of the major reasons why people hate the alignment. The GM using it as bludgeon to force their personal morals on the players.

Somebody has to set the moral tone (whatever it may be) for the setting; and the DM - being the one who creates the rest of the setting elements - seems the logical person to do so.

Whether the setting's moral tone directly reflects that of the DM or not is another question entirely. A DM might be fine with [insert contentious element x] in the setting while abhorring it in real life, and ideally that bludgeon is being used to enforce the setting's morals.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's neutral in the same way a singularity is neutral. It will totally destroy you and everything that gets sucked into it, as it is spaghettified and compressed and compacted to the Nth degree, and all that will be left of you will be released as Hawking radiation...but it's not evil. It just IS.

5e would use “unaligned” for that rather than “neutral.” But otherwise I agree.

 

[Lanefan]

If your counterargument is yet another fallacy, you've lost your position. Stop with the False Equivalences.

It doesn't say "can't" it says "won't," which is a CHOICE. Nothing you can argue will alter that it's a CHOICE.

A focred-by-the-game-state choice.

One that they can CHOOSE to break.

Not without violating the game state, in which a Druid simply would not make that choice.

And yes this impacts player agency. So what? It's part and parcel of what a player signs up for when deciding to play a Druid.