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.)

 

[Maxperson]

The idea that a plane “wants” anything is kinda silly IMO.

It might just be condensed malevolence, which would still be evil, even if it doesn't have a consciousness.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Somebody has to set the moral tone (whatever it may be) for the setting; and the DM - being the one who creates the rest of the setting elements - seems the logical person to do so.

Whether the setting's moral tone directly reflects that of the DM or not is another question entirely. A DM might be fine with [insert contentious element x] in the setting while abhorring it in real life, and ideally that bludgeon is being used to enforce the setting's morals.

Why this setting has some universal morals and why they need to be enforced? Why doesn't the setting just contain different people with varying and contradicting opinion on morals like the real world does?

 

[Maxperson]

It's neutral in the same way a singularity is neutral. It will totally destroy you and everything that gets sucked into it, as it is spaghettified and compressed and compacted to the Nth degree, and all that will be left of you will be released as Hawking radiation...but it's not evil. It just IS.

The singularity is not malevolent. As you note, it just is. The negative energy plane on the other just isn't. It's actually malevolent, even if it isn't consciously focused malevolence.

 

[Oofta]

Are we arguing about druids again?

All I can say is that druids will not wear armor in a game I DM. If you run a druid in my game and insist on wearing armor you will not continue to be a player in my game.

 

[Maxperson]

A focred-by-the-game-state choice.

It has never been forced. In 1e the druid class noted that metal removed the magical powers of druids. That means that they could in fact wear metal armor, but suffered that mechanical effect.

Not without violating the game state, in which a Druid simply would not make that choice.

They can and have. That's how we know that metal took away their powers.

It's part and parcel of what a player signs up for when deciding to play a Druid.

No. What's part and parcel of deciding to play the druid is that you choose not to wear metal armor because if you do, you can't use your abilities. You can still opt to lose them for a bit and wear the armor.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think Animate Dead should be evil. I do think that most people will be disturbed that you're turning the corpse of Great-Uncle Sid into slave labor. Many societies will be disturbed buy this- but not all societies. Maybe it's a necessary evil, like the nation of Karnnath in Eberron, who, during the Last War, were so unable to withstand an army of robots that they turned to Necromancy. Maybe death is seen as a part of life, and the dead are proud to serve from beyond the grave.

I used to play a Priest of the Death God who would perform a special ritual before he animated any dead corpse, where I would ask the soul if they would be willing to aid me in my travels. Some accepted. Some didn't. Those that did I treated as my loyal retainers, and I saw no evil in my actions.

When 3.5 suddenly said, no, no matter what the ultimate goal, using Animate Dead is EVIL, I felt a great disturbance in the Force. So if I command a skeleton to rescue a child from a fire, I'm serving the purpose of evil?

(then the great Descriptor War began, which Vaalingrade alluded to, where I could counteract my evil deeds by summoning Celestial Dogs and send them to attack innocent bystanders- we don't talk of this time, for it was very silly).

There is a cosmic Good and a cosmic Evil. It may be that Animate Dead really does serve Cosmic Evil. But I'm inclined to say Animate Dead is a tool, like any other. If you misuse it, heck yes, it's bad. But if you use it responsibly, maybe not so much?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It might just be condensed malevolence, which would still be evil, even if it doesn't have a consciousness.

Malevolence requires intention.

 

[Lanefan]

Why this setting has some universal morals and why they need to be enforced?

The setting has universal morals because in D&D there's elements that need such in order to exist and-or be playable; those being the outer planes. That universal morality extends into the Prime Material plane.

Why doesn't the setting just contain different people with varying and contradicting opinion on morals like the real world does?

It does, but they're all still subject to the underlying morality that runs the universe; meaning that while tey can still argue all they like some of those varying and contradicting opinions (often by random chance, and unknowingly) are in fact going to be correct while others will be wrong.

 

[James Gasik]

From a cosmic standpoint, a plane of existence can be intrinsically Lawful, Good, Evil, or Chaotic, as can creatures native to those Outer Planes. I have no problem with this, because that's how these realities have been defined for a very long time.

But ascribing these forces to an elemental plane, or a plane of energy, or a plane of "anti-energy" seems a bit backwards. Any of these things can be good or bad. You may not like existing on the negative material plane, and it may be full of undead and nastier things.

However, you wouldn't like being on the positive material plane or the plane of fire either, and they are also full of dangerous things.

 

[Lanefan]

It has never been forced. In 1e the druid class noted that metal removed the magical powers of druids. That means that they could in fact wear metal armor, but suffered that mechanical effect.

They can and have. That's how we know that metal took away their powers.

No. What's part and parcel of deciding to play the druid is that you choose not to wear metal armor because if you do, you can't use your abilities. You can still opt to lose them for a bit and wear the armor.

OK, now I'm confused: people are saying there's no mechanical consequences for this in 5e, yet loss of abilities looks like a pretty big mechaniical consequence to me. Which is it?

And if 5e has removed that mechanical consequence then all that's left to enforce the no-metal rule is fluff, which is why it's phrased as a forced choice "will not" rather than an external "can not".