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.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

If I recall the wording the original spell for 1E was something like it is largely evil so good clerics should consider long and hard before animating the dead. I can't remember the precise wording. But I think it was trying to say something like there is something inherently evil about animating a dead corpse, yet there could be circumstances where using such a power is balanced out by the good it can do.

That said, I think good and evil in a game like D&D isn't really like good and evil in philosophy or theology. Gygax and the other designers who came a long are speaking much more casually and they aren't, I think, laying out a rigid moral philosophy step by step. This to me seems to be an example that is just based on a a general sense that desecration of corpses is a bad thing. Maybe that does or does not carry easily into the thought experiment of the D&D cosmology (I find D&D often doesn't get into the finer details of the religions that would help address that kind of concern), but I think a lot of times we carry our own morality into the game when we talk about good and evil (and that makes sense: if a PC murders a small child you don't stop and have a debate about why that act would be evil in this particular cosmology, you all just agree it is evil).

With desecration of the dead, that seems like one that most of us probably have some taboo about. Just ask yourself, would you be okay with someone else going into a cemetery and digging up a body and affixing it with robotic gadgetry so they can control it remotely? Would you be okay with them doing that if they found a body in the countryside? (and even assume there are no laws against such acts for this example). I think most of us would feel that is wrong for some reason. Our reasons might be culturally engrained, or perhaps they are something people just innately feel about the dead (I am not sure how universal this sort of thinking is). There is something inherently bad and disrespectful about the act. Now you can make all kinds of arguments why there is nothing inherently wrong with this in the absence of good cosmological reasons, but I think it is pretty deeply ingrained for most people and you are going to find yourself in an uphill battle trying to persuade anyone. I am not saying that animate dead needs to be inherently evil. I just think it isn't like this is a big surprise that designers would label it such. Most readers probably come across that spell and think 'yeah, that seems inherently evil'. You don't even need to reference an alignment system to reach that conclusion. But I do think the original entry had a common sensical approach: it acknowledged there were times it could be warranted. Just like you wouldn't go cutting open a corpse, but there might be medical or scientific contexts where it feels like the knowledge one is gaining is appropriately beneficial that it is permissible (such as an autopsy). Or it has enough sanction or is part of ritual for dealing with the dead (such as the embalming process or cremation). I think the point is roughly that there is something about just treating human corpses as objects and means to an end, that seems wrong. This is why we probably laugh in movies like Total Recall when he uses the body of a bystander as a shield for gunfire (it is outrageous, and we know he is doing something you aren't supposed to, and the character is doing it in a way that he doesn't even seem to acknowledge that line is being crossed: he is just treating the body as something to be used like any other potential shield from gunfire).

 

[Maxperson]

It's usually murder though. And often of the sovereign rulers of places and their servants. So assassinations.

Well, no. It's usually the killing of evil monsters. And I can count on one hand a with multiple fingers left over how many sovereign rules I've assassinated as a PC or had PCs assassinate in my games in the nearly 4 decades that I've been playing. "Often" is not the word for how often assassinations like that happen. And when it does, it's almost always of an evil person or evil monster masquerading as the ruler or servant AND it was sanctioned by another lawful source, so not murder.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Only in the real world. In D&D it's the fact of the situation. You can homebrew alignment to be subjective, but then you have to change demons, devils, celestials, modrons and all the rest, as well as the outer planes themselves. All of that changes as soon as you make alignment subjective.

Alignment doesn't actually do anything, so it is meaningless. If all the people in the setting think that a thing is not evil, then it doesn't matter one bit what the alignment says.

 

[Maxperson]

Alignment doesn't actually do anything, so it is meaningless.

Alignment not having any mechanical teeth does not make it meaningless. I get that you don't see any meaning, but there are a whole lot of us that do. Your dislike of alignment does not remove its meaning.

If all the people in the setting think that a thing is not evil, then it doesn't matter one bit what the alignment says.

This is completely false in default D&D. Alignment is not subjective, no matter how you personally view it. Your dislike of it doesn't change the way the game is written and played by default.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Alignment not having any mechanical teeth does not make it meaningless. I get that you don't see any meaning, but there are a whole lot of us that do. Your dislike of alignment does not remove its meaning.

I have my quibbles with alignment, but I never understood the 'it doesn't have teeth' argument. It has all kinds of teeth in the game: you can lose class abilities over alignment, some magic items and spells affect characters differently depending on alignment (some magic items have alignment requirements to use) and all kinds of additional setting specific features interact with alignment (Ravenloft's powers check is a perfect example of that).

 

[Vaalingrade]

And when it does, it's almost always of an evil person or evil monster masquerading as the ruler or servant AND it was sanctioned by another lawful source, so not murder.

So.... assassination.

Whether some other jackhole tells you they're evil or not doesn't make it not an assassination.

Ignore the 'legal' definition. You're ending sapient lives left and right for shaky as hell reasons. Basically everyone in D&D is some kind of murderous monster or another and the amount of good PR one puts on those murders doesn't stop them from being murders. 'Evil' is a balm for a guilty soul.

 

[Charlaquin]

You really thinking making more evil in the world isn't an evil act?

So my PC can go around doing anything I want that adds more evil to the world and remain good or neutral?

Can you point to a rule that says otherwise?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alignment not having any mechanical teeth does not make it meaningless. I get that you don't see any meaning, but there are a whole lot of us that do. Your dislike of alignment does not remove its meaning.

This is completely false in default D&D. Alignment is not subjective, no matter how you personally view it. Your dislike of it doesn't change the way the game is written and played by default.

Even if it objectively existed in theoretical sense, there are no longer alignment detection spells etc. So to the people in the setting it in practice doesn't exist. Hell, perhaps in the real world there is unknowable objective morality (made of dark matter!) It still wouldn't matter, if it is not accessible to us. The necromancer in the setting has to explain their behaviour to people using their own subjective understanding of morality, just like a person developing a potential dangerous technology would have to do in the real world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So.... assassination.

Whether some other jackhole tells you they're evil or not doesn't make it not an assassination.

Ignore the 'legal' definition. You're ending sapient lives left and right for shaky as hell reasons. Basically everyone in D&D is some kind of murderous monster or another and the amount of good PR one puts on those murders doesn't stop them from being murders. 'Evil' is a balm for a guilty soul.

My view on this is a large part of why we give killing a lot these monsters different moral weight is because it is a game (also it is set in largely uncivilized settings where these monsters are attacking you and it is do or die: a lot different from how we encounter violence in our regular world). It is sort of like genre movies where we give characters room to do things we wouldn't in real life. Like my Total Recall example. In an action movie we let the character shoot and kill 'the bad guys' even if we would be a lot more conflicted about that kind of behavior in real life. In a game, I am fine not feeling conflicted about someone killing a sapient monster that poses a threat. I am also fine with an RPG exploring the moral complexity of that action. Games and movies can explore these things in different ways. I think when violence is used the way it is in D&D, it isn't to excuse murder, it is more about catharsis (similar to watching a gangster movie or action flick).

Even in cases where player characters do evil things, you aren't jugging them the same way you would in real life. You might even find it amusing in the way you would enjoy watching a particularly over the top villain behave in an old horror movie

 

[Maxperson]

So.... assassination.

Whether some other jackhole tells you they're evil or not doesn't make it not an assassination.

Depends on whether the lawful political execution of an evil bastard is objectively evil or not. The D&D universe decides.

Ignore the 'legal' definition.

Why? You're not. Assassination is as much a "legal" definition as murder is. What it boils down to is what kinds of killing are evil and what kinds are not.

You're ending sapient lives left and right for shaky as hell reasons.

Ending the lives of evil monsters(human or monster variety) to save the innocent from their predations is a "shaky as hell" reason?

Basically everyone in D&D is some kind of murderous monster or another and the amount of good PR one puts on those murders doesn't stop them from being murders. 'Evil' is a balm for a guilty soul.

This is wrong. The overwhelming majority of beings in D&D are elves, humans, dwarves and so on that are not murderous monsters. Those are also the overwhelming majority of beings that the PCs encounter in various towns and cities.

If you were to say that the overwhelming majority of beings that PCs kill are some kind of murderous monster or another, that I would agree with. That doesn't make the PCs evil, though.