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.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Did any incarnation of the suicide squad turn out particularly well? Is Amanda Waller a "good" person.

Most of the team they were ripped off from, Thunderbolts, did pretty well, actually.

 

[Mort]

Have you met a tiger? I know we humans like to pretend moral superiority over all other animals, but if we're going to pretend evil exists, tigers are cats, man.

I have an acquaintance who breads Bengal cats, which means she keeps servals at her cat farm. One of the servals got mad that she (my acquaintance) was paying too much attention to another serval, and with one swipe broke her (acquaintance's) nose. Servals are decent size but weight only about 10% of the average tiger. I'd hate to see what a jealous tiger would have done!

And that's the point, sure animate dead provides for control, but control can go away - and then a mean, evil serial killer is released of the leash!

Can a see a society (or even just group) that uses the undead and has all sorts of safeguards in place to ensure the undead stay controlled? Sure, could be very interesting. But I'll bet rule #1 in that society is control your undead at all times, failure to do so is on you and punishable accordingly. And even then, if it were standard issue undead, I'd still have trouble seeing the group as "good."

 

[Maxperson]

If they want to, why not?

Because the taboo is still the taboo. Believing in it is still an integral part of the class. Maybe breaking it in a pinch is a lot different than chucking it altogether.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have an acquaintance who breads Bengal cats, which means she keeps servals at her cat farm. One of the servals got mad that she (my acquaintance) was paying too much attention to another serval, and with one swipe broke her (acquaintance's) nose. Servals are decent size but weight only about 10% of the average tiger. I'd hate to see what a jealous tiger would have done!

Has your friend tried not being evil?

Assuming 'doing something that could be dangerous' is evil as we've been discussing.

Can a see a society (or even just group) that uses the undead and has all sorts of safeguards in place to ensure the undead stay controlled? Sure, could be very interesting. But I'll bet rule #1 in that society is control your undead at all times, failure to do so is on you and punishable accordingly. And even then, if it were standard issue undead, I'd still have trouble seeing the group as "good."

Is there even a way in 5e to lose control of your raised undead chumps without being straight up killed?

At which point, killing someone controlling undead is evil, which removes the point of calling raising dead evil because the whole point of the evil label is making them safe to serial kill for so-called good people.

 

[Maxperson]

I own both Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, and I...never had much use for either of them. Feats that required you to be "gooder than good, beyond even a Paladin" to use. "poisons" and "diseases" that we don't call those things so good guys can use them (they only work against evil guys, so it's ok!). Feats that require you to be the worst scum in the multiverse to use. Super evil true damage that can't be resisted by anything. The ability to willingly carve your body up to get advantages. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think the only thing I ever actually used out of either book were the Coure Eladrin (I really like the Ghaele, but they were too powerful for any of my campaigns).

We used the feats a lot, and I used the monsters and some of the poisons/drugs from the Vile Darkness book. We talked about some of the prestige classes for characters, but never got around to using them.

 

[Mort]

Because the taboo is still the taboo. Believing in it is still an integral part of the class. Maybe breaking it in a pinch is a lot different than chucking it altogether.

So our sole guideline is the PHB line "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." That seems pretty firm (not "prefer not to", not "won't unless it's an emergency..." etc.). What does that actually mean? Well, it seems left to the DM. So the DM, if he thinks Druids might play a role in the campaign (especially as PCs), should decide. Heck in a game where nature plays an active role and Druids can commune with it? Wearing metal armor, even once, could mean - all powers stripped.

 

[Mort]

Has your friend tried not being evil?

My friend isn't walking around, off leash, with the serval. The serval NEVER leaves it's specific enclosed area except under rigid controlled conditions. Even then, it's a big cat not an undead evil killing machine.

Assuming 'doing something that could be dangerous' is evil as we've been discussing.

Is there even a way in 5e to lose control of your raised undead chumps without being straight up killed?

Sure, if 24 hours has elapsed and you don't have a raise dead spell prepared or available to use to assert control. (either because you plain forgot, because you devoted it to something else, because you've blown all your spells and can't rest yet - lots and lots of reasons). It's actually a pretty easy situation to be in, particularly for the unpredictable life of an adventurer.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So our sole guideline is the PHB line "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." That seems pretty firm (not "prefer not to", not "won't unless it's an emergency..." etc.). What does that actually mean? Well, it seems left to the DM. So the DM, if he thinks Druids might play a role in the campaign (especially as PCs), should decide. Heck in a game where nature plays an active role and Druids can commune with it? Wearing metal armor, even once, could mean - all powers stripped.

 

[Maxperson]

Notice how necromancy is not like the others. All others directly harm other people, necromancy doesn't.

Necromancy does in fact directly harm other people.

Bestow Curse
Blindness/Deafness
Blight
Chill Touch
Finger of Death is a good one. Kills people AND adds evil to the world through the creation of a zombie.
Many more spells that directly harm people.

That puts it in the same category as rape, murder, etc.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, by this logic, many spell effects are evil because they could get out of hand and accidentally harm people if you're careless.

Casting Gate and summoning an entity from beyond that is specifically not under your control must be inherently evil, because whatever it is -could- do something we consider to be evil (even if it is not evil itself per se, like a Red Slaad, which, left to it's own devices, would recreate the scenario of an Alien movie).