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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It creates a creature that is worse than a serial killer, by disrespecting the dignity of the dead by imbuing the corpse with unholy black magic in a process akin to (but worse than) necrophilia.

There was a shark attack recently in Australia where I'm from, captured on film. I didnt watch the video out of respect for the dignity of the poor bastard that was eaten alive. I dont know him, but he deserves that.

Ditto with raping someones corpse by filling it with unholy black magic, turning it into a baby killing murder machine. While it doesnt physically harm them person (as in inflict any pain on them) it still harms the dignity of the person, and potentially seriously harms others if the monster gets out of control and goes on a murderous rampage.

Right. So no actual direct harm, just 'if it goes wrong' and some vague spiritual taboo. I agree that is distasteful and risky, but not really 'evil'.

 

[Mort]

Right. So no actual direct harm, just 'if it goes wrong' and some vague spiritual taboo. I agree that is distasteful and risky, but not really 'evil'.

The harm is pretty direct! Forgetting for a moment the taboo stuff, you are releasing an evil force into the world that WILL attempt to murder anyone it meets unless directly controlled.

If I raise, train and then release (accidentally or not) an intelligent animal that malls everyone in it's path, how is that not 100% evil?

 

[Vaalingrade]

They're the ones I punish. In an effort to help them become better players.

Ugh.

This is not the DM's place.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If I raise, train and then release (accidentally or not) an intelligent animal that malls everyone in it's path, how is that not 100% evil?

Don't people rise chimps and tigers all the time?

Tigers love the big, big taste of human.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The harm is pretty direct! Forgetting for a moment the taboo stuff, you are releasing an evil force into the world that WILL attempt to murder anyone it meets unless directly controlled.

If I raise, train and then release (accidentally or not) an intelligent animal that malls everyone in it's path, how is that not 100% evil?

So don't release it? Undead are useful remote controlled drones you can use for protecting and helping people without having to put real living people in the harm's way. Not having to send living soldiers to fight and die against rampaging owlbears, not having to let real firefighters to risk their lives in order to save kittens from a burning building. Can it backfire? Sure, but a lot of useful technology can. This is far cry from intentionally and directly harming people like all the other examples of evil listed. We make all sort of exceptions for use of violence too. It is not inherently evil, there are situations where violence is justified, but of course reckless use of indiscriminate violence is bad. Same with necromancy.

 

[Mort]

Don't people rise chimps and tigers all the time?

Tigers love the big, big taste of human.

Yes, anyone who raises and then lets out, especially off leash, a dangerous animal might only be deluded in believing it's safe . If they do it, the animal mauls someone and then they do it AGAIN? then it really is evil.

But it's not an exact comparison, because the animal is not likely ACTUALLY evil. The undead 100% are. It would be more like grabbing a serial killer from prison as your manservant, giving him nights off and then being "surprised" when he's out murdering people at night!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, anyone who raises and then lets out, especially off leash, a dangerous animal might only be deluded in believing it's safe . If they do it, the animal mauls someone and then they do it AGAIN? then it really is evil.

We're now adding repetition to force the point though.

But it's not an exact comparison, because the animal is not likely ACTUALLY evil. The undead 100% are.

Have you met a tiger? I know we humans like to pretend moral superiority over all other animals, but if we're going to pretend evil exists, tigers are cats, man.

It would be more like grabbing a serial killer from prison as your manservant, giving him nights off and then being "surprised" when he's out murdering people at night!

I'm honestly surprised how much use they got out of the garbage flavor text they appended to the unintelligent undead just to drive the narrative. I just assume that bit was written by Volo, it's so dumb and weirdly dogmatic.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, anyone who raises and then lets out, especially off leash, a dangerous animal might only be deluded in believing it's safe . If they do it, the animal mauls someone and then they do it AGAIN? then it really is evil.

But it's not an exact comparison, because the animal is not likely ACTUALLY evil. The undead 100% are. It would be more like grabbing a serial killer from prison as your manservant, giving him nights off and then being "surprised" when he's out murdering people at night!

I don't think most of the opposition to the idea that raising the dead to be mindless servants, unable to ever be resurrected, and quick to kill all the living should they ever escape your control ... is actually due to any principled rules analysis or thought about the metaphysics.

I think it's mostly the usual, "DM NOT GONNA TELL ME HOW THE WORLD WORKS!"

Anyway, if you want to play in a D&D game where necromancy is the same as playing Ye Olde Lawful Stupid Paladin, just agree on it ahead of time. Then you can play with your desiccated corpses and skeletons to your heat's content. Maybe have another person in the party play a Bard that just endlessly plays Bela Lugosi's Dead, because ... at that point, why not?

(In fairness, killing the bard and turning him into a mindless undead? Probably a good act. I wouldn't complain)

 

[Mort]

So don't release it? Undead are useful remote controlled drones you can use for protecting and helping people without having to put real living people in the harm's way.

A drone lies inert when not directly controlled. These undead will happily murder all the people you're trying to save. It's a fairly big distinction.

Not having to send living soldiers to fight and die against rampaging owlbears, not having to let real firefighters to risk their lives in order to save kittens from a burning building. Can it backfire? Sure, but a lot of useful technology can.

One more time, you are not using passive tech. You are releasing an active malignant evil into the world that will happily murder everything in it's path. The difference is HUGE.

This is far cry from intentionally and directly harming people like all the other examples of evil listed. We make all sort of exceptions for use of violence too. It is not inherently evil, there are situations where violence is justified, but of course reckless use of indiscriminate violence is bad. Same with necromancy.

Again, you are releasing a murderous evil directly into the world. It's at BEST dangerous, neutrally it's reckless.

Did any incarnation of the suicide squad turn out particularly well? Is Amanda Waller a "good" person.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, anyone who raises and then lets out, especially off leash, a dangerous animal might only be deluded in believing it's safe . If they do it, the animal mauls someone and then they do it AGAIN? then it really is evil.

But it's not an exact comparison, because the animal is not likely ACTUALLY evil. The undead 100% are. It would be more like grabbing a serial killer from prison as your manservant, giving him nights off and then being "surprised" when he's out murdering people at night!

The undead tiger or the serial killer are under your control for 24 hours. During that time they will not go on random kill spree. When the time is about to run out, you can safely dispose of them. This is not a concentration, spell, people act like these creatures could snap out of control any moment. They cant. The situation where they would become dangerous is when the necromancer is unable to reassess control or dispose of them before the spell runs out. That certainly could happen, but also a pilot of an airplane could have a hearth attack and the plane could crash and everyone could die, yet we don't think building airplanes is evil.