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]

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.


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.

"I just forgot" Yeah, that would be reckless endangerment, but I wouldn't assume average necromancer to be that incompetent. And even if you don't have the spell available, all you need to do is to cantrip the undead to pieces when the control is about to run out.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Do you know what also directly harms people? Hitting them with a longsword! Longswords are evil, man! If you have ever rolled an attack roll, you're evil!

 

[Maxperson]

Why are you eating the fries? Because they were part of a Happy Meal? Because if you don't someone will blow up the local orphanage? If it's the former, you aren't taking your oath/taboo seriously and I have an issue with that. The latter will never happen in a game that I DM.

I don't put players into no win situations. I'm not going to set up a scenario where a druid is forced to wear metal armor. I also think you're making light of religious edicts and taboos, there are people that would die before they violate their beliefs. Just because I don't understand why my friend won't eat pork, or what that taboo means to them, it doesn't mean I'm going to sneak bacon into a dish just to prove them wrong.

You don't have to intend the situation to happen, though. Take the example I gave earlier of the tower guarded by lots of plate wearing bad guys. You didn't intend to force me into wearing plate, but we must get inside in order to save the day/find the macguffin, etc. WE determine that the best way to accomplish that is to sneak in wearing the plate as a disguise. Other ways are in our opinion much more likely to fail and we have to succeed. My druid decides that wearing armor this once in order to accomplish the goal, as distasteful as it is to him, is something he will do.

You didn't set it up as some sort of Kobayashi Maru test, but it still came about and is a lot more than just munching on some fries in a happy meal because fries are good.

 

[Maxperson]

The harm is pretty direct! Forgetting for a moment the taboo stuff, you are releasing an evil force into the world that WILL attempt to murder anyone it meets unless directly controlled.

Especially since control and precautions are doomed to eventual failure for some reason or another.

If I raise, train and then release (accidentally or not) an intelligent animal that malls everyone in it's path, how is that not 100% evil?

People get charged and sent to prison for doing that. It's a crime.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you know what also directly harms people? Hitting them with a longsword! Longswords are evil, man! If you have ever rolled an attack roll, you're evil!

Show me a normal longsword that lusts after murdering the living and will do so by itself.

 

[Mort]

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.

How is this even debatable?

Bad guy runs into a building, I can see him through an open window enough for line of site. I cast fireball into the building to make sure to get him. If I kill a bunch of innocent people in the building, yep that's evil (It doesn't matter that I didn't know they were in there)!

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).

Slaadi are basically killing and breeding machines. Guaranteed to kill or infect everything in their path. Yes, releasing an uncontrolled slaad into the world would be an evil act!

 

[James Gasik]

A Red Slaad is Chaotic Neutral.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So in this thread we learn that longswords and fireballs are inherently evil. Cool.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, anyone who raises and then lets out, especially off leash, a dangerous animal might only be deluded in believing it's safe . If they do it, the animal mauls someone and then they do it AGAIN? then it really is evil.

But it's not an exact comparison, because the animal is not likely ACTUALLY evil. The undead 100% are. It would be more like grabbing a serial killer from prison as your manservant, giving him nights off and then being "surprised" when he's out murdering people at night!

So THAT'S what he's being doing! He never talks to me anymore

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A Red Slaad is Chaotic Neutral.

And that's why it is not evil to let them murder people!