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.)

 

[Seramus]

That doesn't help: it's just powerful subjects telling me what's true and false. Such subjects could exist and tell me the same things, whether moral facts actually existed or not.

One the one hand, settings like Forgotten Realms maintain continuity so spells that consult multiversal constants did previously exist even if they no longer do / can no longer be accessed. On the other hand, those multiversal constants exist because the fallible game designers said so.

Whether a game designer putting something on paper makes it objective to the setting is a worthy question.

 

[Greg Benage]

One the one hand, settings like Forgotten Realms maintain continuity so spells that consult multiversal constants did previously exist even if they no longer do / can no longer be accessed. On the other hand, those multiversal constants exist because the fallible game designers said so.

Whether a game designer putting something on paper makes it objective to the setting is a worthy question.

Yeah, to be clear, I absolutely agree that good and evil are supposed/designed to be "objective" in D&D. @Maxperson is right that the books say stuff like "such-and-such is the plane of goodness." Trying to take that seriously and actually work out what it means in a setting is...challenging. Probably best not to think about it too much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Well I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more explanation of these things in games. But the reason could be as simple as respecting the wishes of the people who laid the person to rest or respecting that there will be people who will want to properly lay the person to rest and not. And the 'think long and hard about' part could be as simple as the cleric or magic user in question asking themselves "Will Gerald be okay with me using his uncle's corpse to help save Tabitha?" or something along those lines

 

[Seramus]

Yeah, to be clear, I absolutely agree that good and evil are supposed/designed to be "objective" in D&D. @Maxperson is right that the books say stuff like "such-and-such is the plane of goodness." Trying to take that seriously and actually work out what it means in a setting is...challenging. Probably best not to think about it too much.

Hilariously, it used to be if too many X started living on plane Y, it would go sliding around The Great Wheel until it matched a 'position' closer to the majority occupants. Complete with the landscape changing and everything.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't help: it's just powerful subjects telling me what's true and false. Such subjects could exist and tell me the same things, whether moral facts actually existed or not.

I've said it multiple times before, and I'll say it again. Look at grandpa. Did the adventurers find grandpa's spirit in the Abyss? Well then all those heinous things grandpa did were evil. Did they find grandpa's spirit in Mount Celestia despite a lifetime of killing evil monsters and taking their stuff? Then killing evil monsters and taking their stuff is good.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've said it multiple times before, and I'll say it again. Look at grandpa. Did the adventurers find grandpa's spirit in the Abyss? Well then all those heinous things grandpa did were evil. Did they find grandpa's spirit in Mount Celestia despite a lifetime of killing evil monsters and taking their stuff? Then killing evil monsters and taking their stuff is good.

No, it doesn't mean that. That you got punished doesn't mean you necessarily did anything wrong. It can just mean that the judge is a biased jerk. Perhaps it is a fairly working rechtsstaat, but it could also be a totalitarian dystopia that unfairly punishes dissidents. And things like Wall of the Faithless definitely strongly imply the latter.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, to be clear, I absolutely agree that good and evil are supposed/designed to be "objective" in D&D. @Maxperson is right that the books say stuff like "such-and-such is the plane of goodness." Trying to take that seriously and actually work out what it means in a setting is...challenging. Probably best not to think about it too much.

And I'd like to be clear that in my game I only really use alignment on the DM side of things. It's a quick way for me to get a basic idea of how a monster or bad guy is supposed to behave and then I tweak it a bit from there on the fly to give the NPC character.

On the player side of things it's 100% up to the player whether or not to use alignment as an RP aid. The world is going to react to the PC actions based on what the perceiver believes. The citizens aren't going to be like, "That guy just punched the little old lady in the head and knocked her out. He's evil!!!" They're going to be like, "Gods! He just knocked out old Millie for no reason! Larry, Curly, Moe, Shemp, go get the guards!"

 

[Greg Benage]

I've said it multiple times before, and I'll say it again. Look at grandpa. Did the adventurers find grandpa's spirit in the Abyss? Well then all those heinous things grandpa did were evil. Did they find grandpa's spirit in Mount Celestia despite a lifetime of killing evil monsters and taking their stuff? Then killing evil monsters and taking their stuff is good.

Yeah, so some form of divine command theory: It's "good" because the gods say so. Notably, this can be a pragmatic "rule of thumb" even or especially if there are no moral facts or "objective morality." This is more of a "transactional" approach to alignment in D&D settings: If you want to go to the Good Place, do Good Stuff.

"Act rightly and let God decide."

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

“Western Morals” is a nebulous thing with inconsistent standards, so no, that doesn’t make it easy to answer most moral questions. It’s also still talking about subjective moral judgment. If there are rules in D&D for which acts are which alignment, all you have to do is cite them and I will gladly concede this point.

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."

Yes, as I said, some beings in the setting are inherently aligned. This says nothing of the actions of mortals, which no rules ascribe any alignment to.

I wasn't talking about rule 0.

Then what rule grants the DM the authority to define what actions are tied to what alignments? If it exists, cite it.

 

[Maxperson]

“Western Morals” is a nebulous thing with inconsistent standards, so no, that doesn’t make it easy to answer most moral questions. It’s also still talking about subjective moral judgment. If there are rules in D&D for which acts are which alignment, all you have to do is cite them and I will gladly concede this point.

Yes, as I said, some beings in the setting are inherently aligned. This says nothing or the actions of mortals, which no rules ascribe any alignment to.

Then what rule grants the DM the authority to define what actions are tied to what alignments? If it exists, cite it.

Page 9 of the DMG. The big picture, "As you create your own world, it's up to you to decide where on the spectrum you want
your world to fall." Also, "It's your world." Not the players. Yours. The DMs. The DM decides per the setting creation rules what is what, and that includes alignment and all acts that fall under it. I don't need rule 0, since the DMG provides all the rules I need to be able to decide as the DM. The players don't by RAW decide anything about the game world other creating the PC and then deciding what their players do. The DM gets to interpret those actions.