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.)

 

[Voadam]

Creating a zombie to dump Sauron's Ring into Mount Doom? Of course!

Give the corrupting artefact Ring of Power to an undead evil killing machine and send it off into the heart of the Necromancer's land where his power is greatest?

Don't give it to the determined pure of heart halfling to resist the ring's pull at the end, but to a +0 wisdom saving throw undead?

That is the plan?

Actually I can think of multiple groups I DM'd that might try it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Give the corrupting artefact Ring of Power to an undead evil killing machine and send it off into the heart of the Necromancer's land where his power is greatest?

Don't give it to the determined pure of heart halfling to resist the ring's pull at the end, but to a +0 wisdom saving throw undead?

That is the plan?

Actually I can think of multiple groups I DM'd that might try it.

To be fair, the halfling also failed and needed not just one but two back-up halflings to correct this and one of those two ended up cooked.

Better to wire together a dozen screaming corpses together with an unwilling fire elemental and send a flesh golem. Not only is it immune to magic, but you get the moral purity only desecrating multiple corpses and enslaving someone can provide.

 

[Flamestrike]

That’s not what the quote says.

It pretty much does. Elsewhere, the rules also expressly state that the magic used to animate the dead is described as 'foul' magic, 'black magic' and 'unholy'.

There is also the fact you're deliberately creating a murderous monster that would eat babies, by using such inherently evil 'foul, unholy black magic' while at the same time desecrating a corpse to consider.

The rules are pretty clear though, animating the dead via necromancy magic is an inherently evil act (due in large part to the very nature of the magical energy used) and no good person does so regularly (indeed if at all).

 

[tomBitonti]

Well, in eberron there is an elven society with undead leaders and guards. Not rotting away. There are others examples too.... But I guess you could assume that's what I meant, rather than intelligent undead, which was what I meant. My bad for not being clear.

That elven society didn’t catch on with everyone. The folks that I played with thought it was nonsense and ignored it.
TomB

 

[Charlaquin]

It pretty much does.

It doesn’t. It says they’re “not good,” which is a very different thing than “inherently evil.”

Elsewhere, the rules also expressly state that the magic used to animate the dead is described as 'foul' magic, 'black magic' and 'unholy'.

Sure, but that’s all judgment from an in-character perspective. As I said, many characters might consider necromancy evil, and not without good reason. There’s just nothing in the rules that makes it inherently evil (or any spell inherently tied to any alignment for that matter.)

There is also the fact you're deliberately creating a murderous monster that would eat babies, by using such inherently evil 'foul, unholy black magic' while at the same time desecrating a corpse to consider.

Yeah, for sure! All good reasons someone might consider necromancy evil.

The rules are pretty clear though, animating the dead via necromancy magic is an inherently evil act (due in large part to the very nature of the magical energy used) and no good person does so regularly (indeed if at all).

The rules don’t identify any act as “inherently evil.” Alignment has almost no mechanical significance in the 5e rules at all.

 

[Flamestrike]

It doesn’t. It says they’re “not good,” which is a very different thing than “inherently evil.”

The inference is clear. It's expressly NOT a good act, and ONLY Evil creatures do so frequently.

The game elsewhere (in the zombie and skeleton entry) describes the magic used to animate them as 'foul' and 'unholy' and 'black magic'.

Sure, but that’s all judgment from an in-character perspective.

No, that's an entirely different question. Your PCs 'in character' perspective is not relevant to his alignment.

For example, your PC could genuinely believe they're a Good person, but have an Evil alignment. In fact, most Evilly aligned people probably think just this.

Most RL murderers and rapists think they're good people (who made a mistake, or it's someone elses fault, or they're 'justified' etc). They're not. They're evil.

As I said, many characters might consider necromancy evil,

It's irrelevant what the character thinks is evil or is not evil.

Just like its irrelevant if a character thinks slavery, rape or murder are 'not evil'.

They are evil. As is animating the dead via necromancy magic. Regardless of what you (the character) thinks about it, it's not a good act, and no Good person does so frequently.

If your Good aligned Necromancer animates the dead frequently with Necromancy, you're not Good aligned. As a DM I pick up an eraser and alter your alignment accordingly.

Now your PC can think differently if he wants, and that's fine. But he's deluded and is (in fact) evil.

 

[Maxperson]

As much as I crack on it, 3e had some sweet creative stuff in it between its Savage Species and ToXDs.

Ghostwalk, Bo9S, Stormwrack, Frostburn... Eberron! Eberron was so good at shedding the bad parts of it I sometimes forger Eberron was built for 3e.

Frostburn was one of my favorite books of the edition. I never got Stormwrack but I heard good things about it. Nine swords was amazing, but pretty broken. Ghostwalk was a mixed bag for me. There was stuff I really liked and stuff that I didn't. I also didn't care much for Eberron, but that's just personal preferences, not quality. The quality of it was good, but I don't like magic to be common and the every day magical parts of society kind of turned me off to the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, in eberron there is an elven society with undead leaders and guards. Not rotting away. There are others examples too.... But I guess you could assume that's what I meant, rather than intelligent undead, which was what I meant. My bad for not being clear.

You mentioned created and the thread was about animate dead, so I assumed that was what was being referred to.

 

[Charlaquin]

The inference is clear. It's expressly NOT a good act, and ONLY Evil creatures do so frequently.

You can repeat it if you want, but doing so doesn’t make “not good” mean “inherently evil.”

The game elsewhere (in the zombie and skeleton entry) describes the magic used to animate them as 'foul' and 'unholy' and 'black magic'.

Which are judgments, not game rules.

No, that's an entirely different question. Your PCs 'in character' perspective is not relevant to his alignment.

For example, your PC could genuinely believe they're a Good person, but have an Evil alignment. In fact, most Evilly aligned people probably think just this.

Most RL murderers and rapists think they're good people (who made a mistake, or it's someone elses fault, or they're 'justified' etc). They're not. They're evil.

It's irrelevant what the character thinks is evil or is not evil.

I agree! In-character judgments are indeed irrelevant, which is why I say statements like “necromancy is foul” are also irrelevant. There are no actual game mechanics that tie any action, much less any spell, to any alignment.

Just like its irrelevant if a character thinks slavery, rape or murder are 'not evil'.

They are evil.

Can you cite where the rules say so?

As is animating the dead via necromancy magic. Regardless of what you (the character) thinks about it, it's not a good act, and no Good person does so frequently.

And yet, a Good character can cast them and nothing will happen. The spells are therefore not inherently evil by the rules.

If your Good aligned Necromancer animates the dead frequently with Necromancy, you're not Good aligned.

That is incorrect. No rule exists that says casting necromancy spells (or any other spells… or any other action…) can result in your alignment changing.

As a DM I pick up an eraser and alter your alignment accordingly.

Then you are house ruling. A reasonable house rule to make, if you want certain actions to be inherently connected with certain alignments.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Well, in eberron there is an elven society with undead leaders and guards. Not rotting away. There are others examples too.... But I guess you could assume that's what I meant, rather than intelligent undead, which was what I meant. My bad for not being clear.

Yeah but that's explicitly not necromancy. In fact, the Undying Court led the effort to expel the actual necromancers from Aerenal. The Undying Court are sustained by the devotion of their people - they are not rotting meat puppets controlled by unnatural magic.