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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, “murdering an innocent is bad” is a hard line. One I think most people would agree with, but a hard line nonetheless.

I think the disagreement tends to happen in defining 'innocent' part. D&D has a long history of things being seen as non-innocent due their alignment which in turn is tied to their species. And that's nasty.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is wrong. Objective just means factual. Alignment doesn't require a mechanic to be factual.

What facts are you relying on to establish what acts correspond to what alignments if not the game rules?

I've already proven that. If alignment were subjective, demons, devils, celestials and all the aligned planes can't exist as they do. Only objective good and evil result in these things.

Certain beings in the D&D setting have inherent alignments, yes. But actions in the D&D setting do not have inherent alignments, at least not in 5e.

Really? You haven't seen enough quotes in enough threads about how the DM decides what is what for the game in 5e?

Sure, rule zero exists. But the rules themselves don’t assign any alignments to any actions. Ergo, the DM can only rely on rule zero to establish objective rules for alignment (beyond “these creatures are this alignment,” which is in the rules.) It is therefore house-ruling to say any given action is inherently good or inherently evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the disagreement tends to happen in defining 'innocent' part. D&D has a long history of things being seen as non-innocent due their alignment which in turn is tied to their species. And that's nasty.

Indeed! That’s why it’s important for the rules to clearly establish these things, if alignment is to have mechanical consequences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that will only lead to arguments. Intuitive morality is too hairy to work as a game rule with meaningful mechanical implications.

not if it is done well. If it requires people agree something was evil, then argument means you don’t agree so you move on. It needs consensus for the act to be regarded as evil basically.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They don't, really. Worshippers end up there and are eventually absorbed into them to augment their power.

Someone set up this system. Also, the god eating the souls of mortals don't make them sound like good guys...

Riiiiiiight, all gods are just judgmental jerks that their clerics aren't going to believe.

I'm sure their clerics will believe them or they wouldn't be their clerics. But people don't need to believe the clerics. And of course even the 'evil' gods will claim to be good, so from perspective of mortals there are a bunch of clerics who claim that their gods are good and demand certain behaviour, and these demands contradict each other. So they need to use their subjective judgment on what sounds just to them.

Punishment for evil acts is unjust?

The people have no reason to agree with the gods' or universe's definition of 'evil'. And in this case the gods are simply punishing innocent people who refuse to worship them and thus empower the unjust system. But you indeed have managed to demonstrate the alignment on its worst. Things are arbitrarily degreed 'evil' thus making torturing and killing them 'good.' And that's monstrous.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, “murdering an innocent is bad” is a hard line. One I think most people would agree with, but a hard line nonetheless.

I am not saying it can’t be. It should just be one you can easily grasp and easily applied to a broad range of circumstances. If the guideline is: for something to be evil, it needs to be something on par with murdering an innocent, for me as a gM, I find that much easier than dozens of enumerated acts. A good contrast is the original Ravenloft powers check rules verdis try later more elaborate system

 

[Maxperson]

What facts are you relying on to establish what acts correspond to what alignments if not the game rules?

Objective alignment in D&D has been based on western morals since the game was created. So it's pretty easy to figure out what the objective answers are for most questions.

Certain beings in the D&D setting have inherent alignments, yes. But actions in the D&D setting do not have inherent alignments, at least not in 5e.

This says that you are wrong. Note that demons are not just CE inherently, but also the embodiments of chaos and evil. That says that chaos and evil are objective things, that the Abyse represents them both, and that the demons spawned there reflect those objective things.

"Spawned in the Infinite Layers of the Abyss, demons are the embodiment of chaos and evil."

Were alignment to be subjective, the Abyss and demons could not exist, since there would be nothing to embody.

And, "An angel slays evil creatures without remorse. As the embodiment of law and good, an angel is almost never mistaken in its judgments."

Sure, rule zero exists. But the rules themselves don’t assign any alignments to any actions. Ergo, the DM can only rely on rule zero to establish objective rules for alignment (beyond “these creatures are this alignment,” which is in the rules.) It is therefore house-ruling to say any given action is inherently good or inherently evil.

I wasn't talking about rule 0.

 

[Maxperson]

Someone set up this system. Also, the god eating the souls of mortals don't make them sound like good guys...

They don't consume them. They are absorbed and become one with their god. It's a subtle, but important difference.

I'm sure their clerics will believe them or they wouldn't be their clerics. But people don't need to believe the clerics. And of course even the 'evil' gods will claim to be good, so from perspective of mortals there are a bunch of clerics who claim that their gods are good and demand certain behaviour, and these demands contradict each other. So they need to use their subjective judgment on what sounds just to them.

Then the people don't believe and when the adventurer they hire to find good ole grampa brings back a dretch... Their belief doesn't change the objective nature of good and evil in D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am not saying it can’t be. It should just be one you can easily grasp and easily applied to a broad range of circumstances. If the guideline is: for something to be evil, it needs to be something on par with murdering an innocent, for me as a gM, I find that much easier than dozens of enumerated acts. A good contrast is the original Ravenloft powers check rules verdis try later more elaborate system

Unless there is some metaphysical soul torturing horror related to animate dead (and the RAW doesn't imply this) then I don't think using the spell is obviously evil to this degree. It is dangerous and it may in many circumstances go against social taboos. But it also allows you to create minions that you can use to in situations that may be very dangerous, thus not having to send actual living people into harm's way. Skeleton soldiers, firefighter etc all could save human(oid) lives. I think it could reasonably argued that saving actual lives is more important than social taboos, and of course a society that has practiced this sort of thing for a long time probably wouldn't have such taboos in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then the people don't believe and when the adventurer they hire to find good ole grampa brings back a dretch... Their belief doesn't change the objective nature of good and evil in D&D.

But that 'objective nature' doesn't actually do anything, so it is meaningless.