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.)

 

[Maxperson]

That's not homebrew though - that's rules as written. Homebrew is saying that the default alignments for monsters are the only alignments they can have

The defaults alignments for undead are in the MM. The default for necromancy is that bringing evil undead into the world is evil. You can change the alignments of undead and therefore the default necromancy assumptions, but that is home brew. Home brew is a changing of the defaults into something else. A zombie is never, ever anything other than NE unless the DM changes the default.

 

[Oofta]

A murderous bucket with arms and legs that will try (hilariously) to murder you when inevitable oversights happen.

 

[Cadence]

Is this the Dr. Who thread?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Actually, having a pair of skeletons that are walking a gerbil wheel could be a fantastic source of power or pumping action.
You could even nail them into the wheel so they can't get out if that's a concern.

 

[Lanefan]

Undead are only usually evil even by the book - the DM is free to assign whatever alignment they want to any creature they want.

I've had good undead in my games in the past.

As have I; but a) they all started out evil and then over time became neutral or good, and b) none of them were of the types normally generated by a simple Animate Dead.

 

[Lanefan]

I will say this for about the fifth time. There would be procedures to prevent the skeletons from rebelling in the worst-case scenario. I've covered everything you have said in previous posts. But in summary, the undead wouldn't be big ol skeletons. They would be optimized for work, not battle. Like a bucket with skeletal legs or a pair of arms that pulls on a rope. Before you ask, yes this is possible with the reanimate undead spell.

How is the bucket-with-legs possible?

Animate Dead, if memory serves, requires enough of a corpse that just animating two legs would Do Nothing. And animating a whole skeleton and then cutting it apart such that only the legs remained would destroy it.

I've never heard of any Reanimate Undead spell - is that something new? (and what would be the point when you've already got Animate Dead in the hopper?)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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?

Because it creates opportunities to explore what the world would look like with cheap, unlimited unskilled labor. How would local living labor react to some necromancer setting up a factory or hiring out their skeletons to chop wood, dig pits, act as porters, etc.

What would a society that fully embraced this look like? There was a country in some game I played in that relied almost exclusively on undead labor and headed by necromancers and sentient undead. The general populace was given aptitude tests at various stages in life to place into various higher skilled programs, either for magic, skilled labor, etc, with an option to be converted to undeath later for the particularly gifted so their skills could be preserved for the future. The remainder were given basic income, housing, necessities, and a life of relative leisure, with the understanding that their meatsuit was the property of the government after death. Certain evil factions were encouraging a more hedonistic lifestyle (procreate then eat/drink/abuse yourself to death) to speed up the cycle for those they deemed less desirable, and opposed by others who valued the living more than just a source of future corpses. Sentient undead that fed on the living were typically considered dangerous addicts at best, and generally hunted down and destroyed to avoid damaging the flock.

Incorporating fantasy elements helps avoid the "Reed Richard is Useless" trope, where fantastic magic exists but the world is still somehow stuck as a medieval Europe replica.

 

[Smackpixi]

but by that same coin, they could create a labor force that needs no form of sustenance

The Dwarven Miners Union Local 42 would consider replacing their skilled labor with a bunch of shambling undead scabs who lack the capacity to protest unsafe mining conditions an inherently evil act.

 

[payn]

Because it creates opportunities to explore what the world would look like with cheap, unlimited unskilled labor. How would local living labor react to some necromancer setting up a factory or hiring out their skeletons to chop wood, dig pits, act as porters, etc.

What would a society that fully embraced this look like? There was a country in some game I played in that relied almost exclusively on undead labor and headed by necromancers and sentient undead. The general populace was given aptitude tests at various stages in life to place into various higher skilled programs, either for magic, skilled labor, etc, with an option to be converted to undeath later for the particularly gifted so their skills could be preserved for the future. The remainder were given basic income, housing, necessities, and a life of relative leisure, with the understanding that their meatsuit was the property of the government after death. Certain evil factions were encouraging a more hedonistic lifestyle (procreate then eat/drink/abuse yourself to death) to speed up the cycle for those they deemed less desirable, and opposed by others who valued the living more than just a source of future corpses. Sentient undead that fed on the living were typically considered dangerous addicts at best, and generally hunted down and destroyed to avoid damaging the flock.

Incorporating fantasy elements helps avoid the "Reed Richard is Useless" trope, where fantastic magic exists but the world is still somehow stuck as a medieval Europe replica.

I guess. To me it just reduces undead to washing machines and dont get the appeal.

 

[overgeeked]

People are weird about dead things. Dead people especially.

Bodily autonomy is a big deal. We tend to think it should apply to the dead.

Necromancy and animate dead combines the two into a horror trope. People tend to not like that.