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.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again D&D has very little grasp on morality.

1. D&D has a world with devils, demons, and outerplanes that correspond to true good and evil.

2. If you are learning your real-world morality from a mass-market game made by Hasbro, I would suggest ... well, maybe you're not doing it right. The morality thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

~Casts Dominate Person~

~Casts Fireball~

~Casts Dissonant Whispers~

 

[Oofta]

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.

I try not to make light of religious beliefs. Setting up a scenario that forces the druid to wear metal armor is IMHO making light of religious beliefs. In your soldier scenario* I would invent some alternative if I hadn't thought of it ahead of time, I improvise things all the time I don't see this as any different.

*Which I have never seen anything even close in decades of play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not a religious belief. The game never explains what the hell it's supposed to be besides useless nostalgia bait.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Alignment is the reason this thread and the stupid 'kill everything' line exists in corpse robots.

Therefore it is evil and it is okay to kill it.

1. D&D has a world with devils, demons, and outerplanes that correspond to true good and evil.

2. If you are learning your real-world morality from a mass-market game made by Hasbro, I would suggest ... well, maybe you're not doing it right. The morality thing.

I mean, in the end, that's it. The game is not meant to be an ethics course, it is a game where violent vigilantes* forcefully end hopefully-mostly-bad-guys** and do so using general fantasy tropes. The game has devils, demons, zombies, and skeletons and so-forth and those are supposed to stay over in side bad guy. The guy that walks around with an army of zombies is wearing a sign saying 'PCs come get me.' Full Stop. The end. That's all it is. Pulling it apart will only reveal that it is held together with vaguery straws and tropish chewing gum. It, along with the druid armor thing, are a well-meaning but ultimately poor strategy to give DMs encouragement to modify the situation if it doesn't fit their campaign premise.
*Leading to all sorts of 'how is this violent tool more evil than the ones you use' debates, and no there are no simple answers.
**Or at least when this is subverted and you are playing 'the bad guys,' it is deliberate and noted.

 

[James Gasik]

Now that's a fun idea. Run an evil game and try to decide what spells are "inherently good" and, if cast too much, will cause you to become good.

 

[Mort]

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.

I REALLY dislike that! If the taboo can be discarded for mere expediency (which this sure seems like) it's too weak.

I mean, you're a druid, why not just shift into a dog or a rat and accompany the "guards?" Probably better than you having to make deception or performance checks anyway!

Point is, there should almost always be another way. I generally detest DM "damned if you do, damned if you don't" setups.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, those always segue into "Paladin falls" discussions, where the DM puts the Paladin into a Catch-22 situation. At least that can't happen anymore. Actually, I need to check if Paladins CAN fall now- I know the Oathbreaker exists, but is that optional rules?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The question is who even wants to engage in this taboo in the first place?

It's one thing for a players to come up with their characters' ideals, then ignore them. It's another for there just to be a blur in the book saying 'characters of your type always wears shows on their head' and ignoring that.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, I guess they can, and they suggest what the DM could do about that. Weird that this sidebar exists, but not a peep about Clerics, Druids, or Warlocks who offend their patrons.