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.)

 

[Bupp]

This is a fantasy world, and you could have worlds were they don't have those particular beliefs or taboos.

"The soul is the defining spark, the body nothing more than a vessel."

It would have to be an agreed upon belief with your table, though.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

Have you ever had anyone close to you die? It may not be logical but if I saw the corpse of a lost loved one - even a skeleton of one if I knew whose it was - I would have a visceral negative reaction to it. Desecrating corpses has long been taboo unless it's done as punishment or warning to others in most cultures. Paying for the corpse doesn't make it less evil from that perspective.

But you do you. I'm simply explaining why people think it's evil even if you don't "get" it.

Would you recognize the skeleton of your wife? I don't mean this in a skeptical way, I mean this in a plainly curious way. I don't believe I've ever met someone who could recognize someone (even a loved one) by their skeleton alone. Or did you mean (in your scenario) that the necromancer pointed out which one was your wife/kid ext?

 

[Umbran]

I'm having a troublesome time understanding why the animate dead spell is considered evil.

As others have noted, in 5th Edition, the notion of particular spells being evil doesn't really exist.

However, broadly speaking, it has negative connotations because death matters to people, so mucking with death is hinkey, and because the creatures created by the spell have a habit of trying to chew people's faces off if they are not kept under control.

Having your beloved Grandmama come back as a half-rotten implacably shambling corpse trying to chew your face off... most people aren't fans.

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.)

Well, the game doesn't define Necromancy the same way you do. You're free to define it how you want in your own games, but don't expect that to be relevant in broad discussion.

 

[Lyxen]

So 3e have mindless undead as neutral because it actually followed its own rules for how monster alignment worked.

But then the actual Animate Dead spell had the [Evil] tag, which allowed it to interact with things like the Evil domain and certain magic items. Some people decided that having the tag made the spell an act of that tag (So Fireball is a Fire act and should move your alignment toward Fire, you see).

Good point, I sort of remember the discussions generated, I still remember how interesting I thought the take was on 3e at start, so I use it as an example although you are right about the way the rudder turned later on.

 

[billd91]

Among numerous other good reasons above, animating the dead is considered evil because D&D morality draws a lot on real world morality - and in a whole lot of cultures, desecration of the dead, even when the body is just the vessel of the soul, is considered a vile and/or criminal act. The specific reasons vary - some because it disrupts the natural order of returning to the dust whence we come, some because the completeness of the body is reflected by the soul's completeness in the afterlife, a whole lot of variations. And there are numerous examples of messing with someone's dead body as an ultimate act of disrespect for the dead person. Mussolini's corpse says "Hi".

It's certainly possible to imagine cultures or find real cultures where there is very little consideration given to the body of the deceased. In a setting like that, animating the dead might be perfectly fine. And if that's what you want in your campaign, that's your business as a DM. But cultures with significant burial or ritualized corpse disposal customs probably wouldn't consider any violation of those norms good behavior, they'd probably consider that evil behavior.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

As others have noted, in 5th Edition, the notion of particular spells being evil doesn't really exist.

However, broadly speaking, it has negative connotations because death matters to people, so mucking with death is hinkey, and because the creatures created by the spell have a habit of trying to chew people's faces off if they are not kept under control.

Having your beloved Grandmama come back as a half-rotten implacably shambling corpse trying to chew your face off... most people aren't fans.



Well, the game doesn't define Necromancy the same way you do. You're free to define it how you want in your own games, but don't expect that to be relevant in broad discussion.

I've touched upon most of what you stated in other posts so if you feel like rummaging around you can see my answers to those questions. As for you're commenting on my postscript, yes you are correct in saying I cannot use my theory as an argument.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't know if it is anymore.

I mean it CAN be world to world setting to setting, but defult it doesn't have the evil descriptor, and there is a PHB subclass that is assumed to be for PCs that references it.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

Among numerous other good reasons above, animating the dead is considered evil because D&D morality draws a lot on real world morality - and in a whole lot of cultures, desecration of the dead, even when the body is just the vessel of the soul, is considered a vile and/or criminal act. The specific reasons vary - some because it disrupts the natural order of returning to the dust whence we come, some because the completeness of the body is reflected by the soul's completeness in the afterlife, a whole lot of variations. And there are numerous examples of messing with someone's dead body as an ultimate act of disrespect for the dead person. Mussolini's corpse says "Hi".

It's certainly possible to imagine cultures or find real cultures where there is very little consideration given to the body of the deceased. In a setting like that, animating the dead might be perfectly fine. And if that's what you want in your campaign, that's your business as a DM. But cultures with significant burial or ritualized corpse disposal customs probably wouldn't consider any violation of those norms good behavior, they'd probably consider that evil behavior.

Excellent answer! On another note, do you believe animate dead is immoral from the standpoint of the omniscient observer?

 

[Umbran]

Excellent answer! On another note, do you believe animate dead is immoral from the standpoint of the omniscient observer?

That will depend on the metaphysics of the setting. The omniscient observer, being omniscient, will know them, where the general population of the game world may not.

 

[billd91]

Excellent answer! On another note, do you believe animate dead is immoral from the standpoint of the omniscient observer?

I don't think being an omniscient observer, per se, has much to do with it. Rather, what is that omniscient observer observing?