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.)

 

[Zaukrie]

I mean that sounds more like constructs made out of bones rather than actual skeletons and zombies.

It is possible to posit a society that doesn't have the same concerns about bodily remains that most of us do. Such a society probably would have no issue with body parts animated as constructs or bodies animated like Animate Objects does.
They would still probably have issues with the standard animate dead spell however: remember how dangerous skeletons and zombies would be to the average group of commoners.

You could introduce a homebrewed animate dead spell that creates neutrally-aligned undead, which just stand and do nothing when uncontrolled rather than seeking out and murdering as many people as they can.

Amusingly enough despite Eberron's general attitude to alignment, undead are one of the very few exceptions (the others being other extraplanar beings: celestials and fiends) where alignment is generally fixed. Animated undead are powered by the plane of Mabar, which is actively inimical to life, and even a free-willed undead is likely to have their empathy eroded away over time.

The leaders of an elven society would like a word with you.....

 

[Umbran]

I think that if one wants necromancy to be 'evil' in the setting it might be good idea to add such spiritual and metaphysical connotations.

You can certainly feel free, but I don't think it is necessary. The majority of folks in our culture already believe that doing things with corpses is nasty, and the horror tropes of undead are pretty broadly recognized.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

No, but I do think its dangerous. Some people consider it too dangerous to even use. There is nuance in the opinion.

I mean, if you really want a setting where nobody cares about undead at all, then you can do that. To me, its more interesting to have places that view it differently.

Of course, it's dangerous, just about everything we own is dangerous to a degree. You could log onto google and have your credit card number stolen, you could be driving your car to work and crash. Just because something has an inherent danger doesn't mean it shouldn't be made/done.

 

[payn]

Of course, it's dangerous, just about everything we own is dangerous to a degree. You could log onto google and have your credit card number stolen, you could be driving your car to work and crash. Just because something has an inherent danger doesn't mean it shouldn't be made/done.

This has gotten pretty obtuse. Lets look at it this way, if raising undead is as common as driving a car or shopping online, what makes having it in the game at all interesting?

 

[Umbran]

The animate dead spell doesn't affect the spirit at all. It nearly animates the corps, much like the animate object spell.

So, the spell as written in 5e doesn't state that it does this, no. I was giving you a historical perspective - there are several versions of Animate Dead spanning back nearly half a century now.

But, let us remind you, the spell as written in 5e doesn't say it is Evil either. The word "evil" does not appear in the spell. So, if your basis is what the spell says, then we have no need for this thread. YOur answer has been given, and you are done.

If you want to know why so many players and GMs, past and present, have viewed it as evil, then the history is relevant.

So, what, actually, do you want out of this discussion? Are you looking to understand the spell as written in the current edition? Are you looking to understand how and why many people use it as they do, as if it were Evil? Or are you saying, "This spell is not evil, prove me wrong?"

I personally, have no interest in the last of those.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

This has gotten pretty obtuse. Lets look at it this way, if raising undead is as common as driving a car or shopping online, what makes having it in the game at all interesting?

I admit you caught me off guard with this one. In a game where guns are extremely common, it's still pretty fun to have one.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I feel like the better question is 'why has D&D bent so far over backwards to make undead evil?'.

We've gone from bone robots to skeletons animated by some sort of depraved, life-hating energy with all sorts of 'dark' buzzwords attached to make darn sure it's clear that this specific monster type is Very Naughty. It reminds me of the Ecology of the Drow article that tries to make them extra evil by saying drow kill their twins in the womb. Maximum Edge.

 

[payn]

I admit you caught me off guard with this one. In a game where guns are extremely common, it's still pretty fun to have one.

Oh, like folks could sabotage your workforce and send it at you interesting? The firearm comparison is that firearms are interesting because they are used in conflict, not because you can shoot clay pigeons or scavenge for food with them.

 

[Voadam]

For example, in prior editions (iirc) if you turned a person's corpse into undead, that could prevent their soul from reaching their final rest in the afterlife. In addition, doing so would mean that Raise Dead could not be used to bring the person back to life. We currently don't have such rules, but they speak a bit to the intent applied previously.

I am not aware of any such effects in prior editions. 1e to 3e had petitioners on the outer planes and some turning into specific outsiders as an afterlife and I do not recall any discussions of bringing someone back as an undead messing with that. There is a lot of D&D lore though and some of it is inconsistent. I have not read the Planescape Ethereal or Astral plane books for example, which might have some discussion of that type of issue.

In 4e the actual afterlife was a full mystery. It also had some Egyptian like systems of different parts of the soul which could animate as different types of undead (the animus being different from the corpse and such).

5e has some rules the other way, that if the body is turned into an undead certain spells to bring them back from the dead will not work.

For instance raise dead "The spell can’t return an undead creature to life." The way I interpret this is you would have to kill the undead first so it is no longer undead then cast raise dead on the corpse.

 

[Jer]

So, the spell as written in 5e doesn't state that it does this, no. I was giving you a historical perspective - there are several versions of Animate Dead spanning back nearly half a century now.

And now I need someone to cast Animate Dead on me as I dry up and blow away.

(D&D and I were born in the same year so ... nearly a half century. Yup...)