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]

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.

That isn't a problem with alignment itself. That is a problem with the game developing in a way where it has made alignment somewhat obsolete (I don't play 5E so I can't comment on the accuracy of this here). That might mean, if they want to continue with the trajectory, alignment might not be very useful anymore (though I have observed a lot of players still seem to want it in these discussions). But it might also mean they made a mistake in taking away its teeth.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if it objectively existed in theoretical sense, there are no longer alignment detection spells etc.

So what. That just brings back around to what I said. It's an interesting academic exercise to figure out how a church or society views something. It doesn't make them correct. Objective D&D alignment does.

A church and all of society could view the creation of undead as a grand and good thing, but it wouldn't be.

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.

Okay. Ignoring things like Commune and Contact other Plane which can objectively answer these questions, playing the game as if alignment were subjective can be fun. It doesn't make alignment subjective, though. I

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.

I agree. And if the necromancer is adding a lot of evil to the world by creating evil undead that want to murder everything alive, those explanations are going to likely fall flat. Even if the explanations are accepted, that evil necromancer is still going to end up on a lower plane when he dies, assuming he doesn't become some sort of intelligent and evil undead.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

I just find it really funny passing judgement on people casting spells that call on 'super icky and cringe, seriously naughty energy guys' while absolutely draped in the guts of hundreds of sapient beings you gutted because they were between you and your goal but justify because they sit t the gross kids table.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you point to a rule that says otherwise?

Can you think of any sensible reason that says it isn't evil to go around adding evil to the world? I mean, "The game doesn't actually say that setting an orphanage filled with helpless babies on fire is evil, so it's not." isn't a very convincing argument.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what. That just brings back around to what I said. It's an interesting academic exercise to figure out how a church or society views something. It doesn't make them correct. Objective D&D alignment does.

No, what the people in the setting believe is what actually matters in the game, as those are the NPCs the PCs interact with. Whether something is 'good' or 'evil' in some objective but unobservable sense is the meaningless academic exercise. Whether it is or isn't has no effect on the events in the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

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 know this was directed at @Crimson Longinus, but it might surprise you to learn that I actually don’t dislike alignment at all. It just doesn’t matter in 5e. I’d like it if it did, but it doesn’t. It has no effect on anything, whatsoever, the only purpose it serves anymore is “a shorthand,” which it isn’t very good at because the terms involved are so poorly defined and carry so much baggage.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I just find it really funny passing judgement on people casting spells that call on 'super icky and cringe, seriously naughty energy guys' while absolutely draped in the guts of hundreds of sapient beings you gutted because they were between you and your goal but justify because they sit t the gross kids table.

I am not saying it is logically consistent. Like I said before, this isn't the laying down of a moral philosophy brick by brick. But i htnkn there are a lot of unspoken reasons why we can turn a completely blind eye to characters killing things in volume, but still be more disturbed by raising the dead. I think a lot of it is we area unconsciously filing the killing of orcs into a box like 'action movie stuff' but we are treating the raising of the dead as much different movements int he game. Still I don't think anyone at the table is passing judgement on the player for doing this. It just seems more like a 'vincent price move' to animate the dead.

And there are still lines in the game when it comes to killing. We might turn off our moral judgement for killing a three eyed monster trying to devour us (the same way we do for a hero in an adventure movie), but is a PC struck a child or killed an old lady, people would be taken aback (just like you can watch a hero kill a monster but if he is being an abusive husband in the next scene it is going to feel decidedly unheroic). And there is also a moral difference between killing a monster bent on destruction versus harming someone who is innocent. But I think your point is more these are just convenient labels for plot reasons, which is why I think the action movie analogy is appropriate.

 

[Maxperson]

No, what the people in the setting believe is what actually matters in the game, as those are the NPCs the PCs interact with. Whether something is 'good' or 'evil' in some objective but unobservable sense is the meaningless academic exercise.

Until the "good" person ends up spending eternity in the Abyss for his evil ways. Which leads to yet more ways that the world knows what is evil. When the heroes hired to find the soul of "good" grandpa track the soul to the Abyss, people are going to know that what many of what they thought were good acts were really evil. Talks with extraplanar creatures will also help them figure out what's what.

You don't need spells like Know Alignment and Detect Evil in order for the people of the D&D universe to find out what acts are objectively good and what acts are objectively evil. Contact other Plane, Commune, talking to extra planar creatures and more will all let these societies know.

Alignment, good and evil are not the unknowable things you are making them out to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can you think of any sensible reason that says it isn't evil to go around adding evil to the world?

A sensible reason doesn’t matter. Alignment is a mechanical construct and no mechanics ascribe alignment to any action. If we’re talking about sensible reasons an action might or might not be evil, we’re talking about subjective moral judgment, not the objective game mechanical construct of alignment.

I mean, "The game doesn't actually say that setting an orphanage filled with helpless babies on fire is evil, so it's not." isn't a very convincing argument.

It isn’t evil in a game mechanical sense though. You can certainly judge it as morally evil, but then we’re making subjective philosophical arguments, which as you rightly observe, is not relevant to D&D alignment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Until the "good" person ends up spending eternity in the Abyss for his evil ways. Which leads to yet more ways that the world knows what is evil. When the heroes hired to find the soul of "good" grandpa track the soul to the Abyss, people are going to know that what many of what they thought were good acts were really evil. Talks with extraplanar creatures will also help them figure out what's what.

You don't need spells like Know Alignment and Detect Evil in order for the people of the D&D universe to find out what acts are objectively good and what acts are objectively evil. Contact other Plane, Commune, talking to extra planar creatures and more will all let these societies know.

Alignment, good and evil are not the unknowable things you are making them out to be.

It just shows that certain divinities are despots that punish people arbitrarily according to their whims. People don't need to agree with them. In FR 'good' deities allow perfectly decent atheist to be tortured in the Wall of the Faithless, so I'd definitely wouldn't trust their opinion on what's 'good'! Furthermore, I suspect most people in the setting do not commune with deities or visit underworlds, so this simply isn't relevant to them.