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.)

 

[Umbran]

I certainly do not mean unded in the sense of a soul trapped in a rotting corps. When I heard mimicry of life I thought "This is a fake "soul" that will inhabit the body and perform my commands."

So, the game lore I'm referring to did not imply that the soul of the dead person was trapped in the corpse either. Just that the soul's journey to the afterlife was not instantaneous, and certain supernatural effects on the body could have an impact on the soul.

This creates a reason why we care about what happens to the dead (that is mirrored in the beliefs of some real-world cultures - Ancient Egypt being an example) - failing to treat the body properly may have eternal impact on the soul.

One cannot ultimately understand why undead are considered evil if one starts with the assumption that the body of the dead is "just meat" with no other psychological or spiritual significance. That the body is just base material is mostly a modern conception, and the tropes we are discussing are not modern. They are ancient.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, your second point is completely true. When I thought of a little town powered by necromancy I was mostly thinking of things like a bucket with skeletal legs. The idea that the dead could turn against us is something that would be put into account. There would likely be contingency plans set in place on the off chance that they lost control of the skeletons. The skeletal machines would be made with the purpose of efficient labor and minimal threat.

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.

that to me tells me that in 5e, yup, undead are evil.

Not in Eberron, of course....but most everywhere else.

I don't see a reason why it should be.....but it is.

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.

 

[Bluebell]

And there are many cultures where it is OK to use corpses for utilitarian purposes such as medical school training or organ donation.

I think the key here, if we were to extrapolate that into a culture that's permissive of undead, is to look at when and how use of corpses is considered acceptable. In modern times, there are strict rules around organ donation, for example. Harvesting somebody's organs must be done only with their explicit permission prior to their deaths. Consent and bodily autonomy are huge driving principles behind how modern secular culture approaches the dead, even though the person in question is no longer present to care about what happens to their body.

On the other hand, some historical societies have considered certain people acceptable to use for such utilitarian purposes as medical study regardless of whether those people consent. Namely, prison populations.

I'm imagining a culture of necromantic wizards who operate under the strict principle that only the worst criminals are deserving of the indignity of having their bones reanimated. To see a skeleton walking around is to know that this is all that's left of what was once a notorious murderer.

But what if the loved one had donated their bones to necromancy? What if they made a contract that a part of the profits of their undead labour went to support their still living relatives? Or what if the bones were from some ancient centuries old burial cite? After all, we display such stuff in museums, and most people don't seem to mind.

I think a system of donation of the dead could definitely be a valid way to go. It raises a lot of questions about, for instance, whether only the wealthy are afforded the dignity of a restful death.

To the last point, the topic of human remains being displayed in museums is actually a huge point of contention among Indigenous peoples who have had their burial sites raided by colonialism. Even a centuries-old burial site might have people who care if it is disturbed.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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

Some "realistic" perspective:

Since at least the Thirty Years War, so at least the early 1600s or late 1590s, human teeth were used in dentures. Great battles drastically increased supply, and dentists and those who sourced for dentists would go out and harvest teeth from the cadavers. Teeth carved from ivory were considered best (excellent fit and beauty), but a well fitting denture of cadaverous teeth was exceptional and lasted longer. (Being washed in the saliva of the new owner kept them strong, although the teeth's root tissue was dead and usually missing.)

People were outraged by this practice, although the turned a blind eye if they needed teeth and the source was likely from a different country. Resurrectionists who performed grave-robbing to supply medical schools with cadavers was also highly frowned upon, if not outright illegal.

If the parts were from grandad or grandma, there was a big problem with you defiling their grave. Defiling someone's grave over 500 miles away was far more tolerable. Especially if you needed their teeth to chew your stew.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

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.

As it turns out you can have the bones in any form you want, however, if you want them to communicate properly they will need to be from the same corps.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

We have procedures to stop nuclear power plants form melting down, but it still happens. Some folks see it as a necessity for the future, and others work against it being used at all.

Do you believe nuclear power is inherently evil?

 

[Oofta]

That escalated insanely fast. Mate, we already established that said loved ones sold their bodies so that when they die their bodies would be animated. There is a huge difference between selling your corps for cheap labor and murdering someone. A difference I don't believe I need to explain.

I'm just trying to explain the morality behind it and how I think people could view it. It doesn't matter if any individual recognizes the skeleton, it's still violating the dead and in most real world cultures that would be considered a violation of the dead. Whether you consider it evil, whether the fantasy society people live in consider it evil, many people would consider it desecration of the dead and evil in the real world.

In addition, look at the description in the MM for skeleton

• Whatever sinister force awakens a skeleton infuses its bones with a dark vitality,
• Although they lack the intellect they possessed in life, skeletons aren’t mindless.
• Independent skeletons temporarily or permanently free of a master’s control sometimes pantomime actions from their past lives
• When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so.

So we know that there must be some sort of animating spirit powering skeletons. They do have some connection to their past lives. They hate the living and will attack on sight unless controlled. Skeletons are LE for a reason, creating LE creatures is an evil act.

Do what you want in your campaign of course, but you asked an open ended question so I'm giving my response. I've always considered animate dead evil in my campaign, do with the explanations of why that is what you will.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

So, the game lore I'm referring to did not imply that the soul of the dead person was trapped in the corpse either. Just that the soul's journey to the afterlife was not instantaneous, and certain supernatural effects on the body could have an impact on the soul.

This creates a reason why we care about what happens to the dead (that is mirrored in the beliefs of some real-world cultures - Ancient Egypt being an example) - failing to treat the body properly may have eternal impact on the soul.

One cannot ultimately understand why undead are considered evil if one starts with the assumption that the body of the dead is "just meat" with no other psychological or spiritual significance. That the body is just base material is mostly a modern conception, and the tropes we are discussing are not modern. They are ancient.

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

 

[payn]

Do you believe nuclear power is inherently evil?

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.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I'm just trying to explain the morality behind it and how I think people could view it. It doesn't matter if any individual recognizes the skeleton, it's still violating the dead and in most real world cultures that would be considered a violation of the dead. Whether you consider it evil, whether the fantasy society people live in consider it evil, many people would consider it desecration of the dead and evil in the real world.

In addition, look at the description in the MM for skeleton

• Whatever sinister force awakens a skeleton infuses its bones with a dark vitality,
• Although they lack the intellect they possessed in life, skeletons aren’t mindless.
• Independent skeletons temporarily or permanently free of a master’s control sometimes pantomime actions from their past lives
• When skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so.

So we know that there must be some sort of animating spirit powering skeletons. They do have some connection to their past lives. They hate the living and will attack on sight unless controlled. Skeletons are LE for a reason, creating LE creatures is an evil act.

Do what you want in your campaign of course, but you asked an open ended question so I'm giving my response. I've always considered animate dead evil in my campaign, do with the explanations of why that is what you will.

Yes, I now know why animate dead would be looked at in a negative light. However, I do not believe the spell is immoral.