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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

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."

That doesn’t say the DM can decide that certain actions are tied to certain alignments.

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.

I didn’t say the players decide either. Actions are not, by RAW, tied to alignments. Feel free to rule otherwise in your home game.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn’t say the DM can decide that certain actions are tied to certain alignments.

It says the DM decides everything for the setting. Hard not to include alignment and actions under "everything."

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It says the DM decides everything for the setting. Hard not to include alignment and actions under "everything."

I do tend to agree with this. It does vary from group to group, but in just about every group I have been a part of, the GM's setting cosmology for the world we are playing in, kind of trumps everything. Obviously the GM still needs by in from the players. There is only so much one can stretch some of these things to fit a particular cosmology. But on the particulars we are likely to ask the GM whether X or Y is considered good or evil in this world.

 

[Charlaquin]

It says the DM decides everything for the setting. Hard not to include alignment and actions under "everything."

That’s not just a setting decision though. Sure, the DM can decide that the people, the gods, etc. consider an action evil, that’s setting information. What they can’t do (without house ruling) is say, “your character’s alignment has changed to evil as a result of performing this action.” And if actions can’t change the alignment of the character that performs them, it isn’t meaningful to say that action is “inherently evil.”

 

[Charlaquin]

I do tend to agree with this. It does vary from group to group, but in just about every group I have been a part of, the GM's setting cosmology for the world we are playing in, kind of trumps everything. Obviously the GM still needs by in from the players. There is only so much one can stretch some of these things to fit a particular cosmology. But on the particulars we are likely to ask the GM whether X or Y is considered good or evil in this world.

Right, so let’s say you, as DM decide that Animate Dead is an “inherently evil” spell in your world. If I, as a player in this game, play a Lawful Good character and cast Animate Dead all the time, what happens?

 

[Bedrockgames]

That’s not just a setting decision though. Sure, the DM can decide that the people, the gods, etc. consider an action evil, that’s setting information. What they can’t do (without house ruling) is say, “your character’s alignment has changed to evil as a result of performing this action.” And if actions can’t change the alignment of the character that performs them, it isn’t meaningful to say that action is “inherently evil.”

Just a point of clarify for the current edition: In 5E the GM can't change the player's alignment based on their actions in game?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, so let’s say you, as DM decide that Animate Dead is an “inherently evil” spell in your world. If I, as a player in this game, play a Lawful Good character and cast Animate Dead all the time, what happens?

Well, in Ravenloft, which is what I would likely be running, you'd get a powers check. If it were a home-brew setting, it would depend on the details, but I think one possible in game consequence of you casting a spell deemed evil is, if you were a cleric, you could lose your clerical powers or receive some rebuke from your god. Or it might lead to an alignment change if it is a consistent thing

 

[Charlaquin]

Just a point of clarify for the current edition: In 5E the GM can't change the player's alignment based on their actions in game?

No one has yet cited a rule that says they can. Obviously rule zero is a thing, but that’s be house ruling. Again, if someone can cite where the rules actually say the DM can do this, I’ll concede this point.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

What class abilities? Paladins lose their abilities based on oaths, not alignment and that's the only class I can think of that has any class ability loss involved with it. What spells? Other than the necromancy school strongly implying that casting undead creation spells is evil, I don't know of a 5e spell that interacts with alignment. There are a couple of artifacts/magic items that interact with alignment, yes.

As for Ravenloft, I'm discussing the game defaults. Settings can and do often change things. I haven't seen the 5e Ravenloft setting since they changed too much for my tastes. I'm going to stick with the 2e stuff I have.