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]

Solution:

Be Good. Enslave Ghosts.

 

[Mort]

Some of those points aren't really valid. I mean, in D&D, alignments are cosmic forces. A society doesn't get to decide what is cosmically Good or Evil.

Also, and this is a big one. Just because something is undead and can be detected by a Paladin doesn't mean it is evil. GHOSTS CAN BE GOOD.

But Zombies and Skeletons, what the spell creates, cannot be good - they are EVIL (barring any DM changes etc.).

Can a DM have a village, town, country etc. Where there is an undead labor force that does good things for the community - of course. Can the DM have the resident necromancers be experts who never lose control of their creations? He can. Can the DM even have a community where people willingly donate their bones etc. for reanimation - sure.

But it's not the norm - and PCs (and players) will be weirded out. Why? Because, generally, necromancers are bad guys playing with evil forces. Heck, their entire stay in such a place, the PCs will certainly be expecting something to go wrong with the undead. Having that not happen? That's unusual enough that it will be noteworthy.

 

[James Gasik]

Now, yes, the undead Animate Dead creates are evil. And if that's the justification for something being inherently evil, that's fine. And if you follow what the book says about Necromancy being evil, despite my reservations on that topic (so Astral Projection is evil? Huh), I find it's disingenuous for WotC to say Wizards with the School of Necromancy need not be evil, but at the same time saying only evil people cast Necromancy spells often.

 

[James Gasik]

Along these same lines, if not being able to raise people who have become undead is evidence of evil, so is the act of casting Raise Dead in the first place!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Now, yes, the undead Animate Dead creates are evil. And if that's the justification for something being inherently evil, that's fine. And if you follow what the book says about Necromancy being evil, despite my reservations on that topic (so Astral Projection is evil? Huh), I find it's disingenuous for WotC to say Wizards with the School of Necromancy need not be evil, but at the same time saying only evil people cast Necromancy spells often.

There are other spells for necromancers. I mean... yeah, we generally understand what most people are going to want to do it for.

But I think it's important to note that distinction. I can imagine an "incantrix" type necromancer (or a John Constantine type) who learns the arts of necromancy to battle other necromancers, and only makes new undead in absolute extreme situations, understanding the evil he has engaged in- a dark, shady, neutral character.

You can play with the concepts, of course, but the question asked was about the rules and why. I think that's pretty clear absent the utilization of handwavium.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Along these same lines, if not being able to raise people who have become undead is evidence of evil, so is the act of casting Raise Dead in the first place!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Returning people to life also goes against the natural order. Better get the burnin' stake warmed up.

 

[James Gasik]

And thus the great Cleric/Druid war began, as the Druids rose up against the Life Clerics.

 

[Mort]

I guess, I just feel that is a fairly fine line to walk. I mean, take a spell like Weird. It torments it's victims with visions of their deepest fears, not only causing them mental trauma and PTSD, but actually inflicting 4d10 psychic damage to them.

On it's face, this is a horrible, nasty spell, but I'm sure if I asked "how is using this spell ever not an evil act?" I'd get an answer straight away (likely, using it to kill evil monsters).

Lots of magic is easily abusable and usable for evil - heck most of the enchantment school is as or more problematic than most of the necromancy school.

 

[Maxperson]

Again D&D has very little grasp on morality.

Enslaving people, destroying their agency, causing mass anguish and torture are completely okay as far as the game cares. But by god, they will write paragraphs to change skeletons and zombies into something evil.

Where are you getting that from. None of those is okay as far as the game cares.