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.)

 

[Greg Benage]

Kinda. If there were nothing in the spells that's inherently evil, no amount of castings would make the caster evil. Only evil casters use the spells frequently indicates that there's at least some small stain of evil involved in the casting of such spells.

I think it just means that you won't frequently use such spells unless you're the kind of person who simply doesn't care about the concerns and norms of others or of society.

 

[payn]

I'm using established lore and spell rules to accurately depict a nonevil society revolving around the animate dead spell.

I get that. My mind just keeps going to its well tread ground.

Townsperson 1: "The undead separatists attacked us again and our workforce got loose and killed some townsfolk.
Townsperson 2: "I dont know why the good nercomancers keep making them!

 

[Seramus]

Dragonlance has an entire church of necromancer merchants that pay you or make contracts for your body after you die. That God is actively evil of course, but publicly worshiped in Taladas.

Thenol Empire

 

[Voadam]

Kinda. If there were nothing in the spells that's inherently evil, no amount of castings would make the caster evil.

I would argue that summoning angels to do your will, say with a 3e wizard summon monster spell which is not inherently evil, but casting the spell to do evil ("I summon you to kill these innocent orphans and puppies!") enough would make the caster evil.

 

[Oofta]

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.


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.

There was a lot of controversy over bones 9,000 years old of an indigenous American that was reburied at the tribes insistence. How we treat the remains of the dead, even ones thousands of years old, is complicated.

 

[Lanefan]

A spell whose only possible use is to generate evil beings (undead, as defined) must by default itself be flagged as evil.

 

[Scribe]

I mean as always, and I mean literally ALWAYS, you need to set some context here.

Are your undead (typically) evil? Are they always evil? Are they Evil (as cosmic force) or just evil (as morally not nice)?

How are they made? What is the cost in terms of moral behavior in making it happen? Are they cultural? Is there room to explain good purposes, or is it an inherently selfish act to create Undead?

Me? I'm a fan of thinking undead, with morality that is varied as well, but then my definition of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, as cosmic force, may not be the same as yours.

 

[Voadam]

I'm using established lore and spell rules to accurately depict a nonevil society revolving around the animate dead spell.

In 3e there was Hollowfaust City of Necromancers in the OGL Scarred Lands setting where a society of LN necromancers used only non-predatory animated dead to protect their research haven which flourished into a thriving city where the citizenry voluntarily give up their bodies at death for the mutual defense of the city from the many violent enemies that threaten it.

2e official D&D had a similar necromancer and animated dead defense society in Jakandor.

It takes a bunch less effort to keep the walking dead controlled in 2e and 3e than it does in 5e though.

In 3e and 2e the animate dead spell control did not terminate after 24 hours, it was a permanent effect unless the necromancer created more undead than they could control, at which point the oldest ones created became uncontrolled. If the necromancer stayed within their level based limit of HD of animated dead the animated dead were permanently controlled and could only execute their commands.

 

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I get that. My mind just keeps going to its well tread ground.

Townsperson 1: "The undead separatists attacked us again and our workforce got loose and killed some townsfolk.
Townsperson 2: "I dont know why the good nercomancers keep making them!

1: If there are politically motivated skeletons they must have a master who is controlling them. Now of course you could say this is horrible because terrorists can make a bunch of "animated" to fight for them. But so can law enforcement. This transformation occurs on the matrix, not just the object.

2: Assuming all the security measures failed and there was no one there to protect the citizens. Some townsfolk got killed by a bucket with legs?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I'm increasingly curious how much of D&D's morality is rooted in the religious beliefs of its first creators. For necromancy in particular it was deemed an evil act in the Bible, and the one time someone did consult a witch to raise the spirit of a dead king from the underworld the spirit's response was basically "what are you even doing, bro?"