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.)

 

[James Gasik]

You have to go back even further! To ancient texts that talk of druids using shields rimmed with metal and transforming into animals partially made of iron. Nothing more recent than several hundred years ago will suffice!

Keith Baker and his metal wildshape not withstanding.

But I like my Beast Wars Warforged!

 

[Mort]

Don't leave your zombies unattended! Seriously, it is not hard to destroy them if you don't want or can't reapply the spell. I feel people apply completely unreasonable standard of safety here. It is mildly risky, sure, but hardly to a degree that you could reasonably call the thing obviously evil based on this. If they were funny looking artificer's bots with the exact same rules no one would be arguing that it is somehow inherently evil.

Sentient, intelligent artificer's boots that, if not fed at least 3+ levels of arcane energy per day throw off their control and go on a murderous rampage until put down? Yeah, they're probably evil (they're intelligent, after all) and so is creating them again after having learned the flaw.

 

[Lanefan]

As for crazy rulings, I vaguely recall a discussion on Freedom of Movement where someone asked if a person under it's effect jumped in a pool of water if they would immediately sink to the bottom and take falling damage because water does not hinder your movement under the effect of the spell!

IMO that's not a crazy ruling at all.

If water doesn't hinder your movement when you're standing on the bottom it shouldn't hinder your movement when you're falling through it. Hence, I long ago ruled exactly this: someone wearing a Ring of Free Action in water will fall to the bottom as if the water was air.

 

[Lanefan]

Have you considered that maybe prisons are not good?

It's not a question of being good, it's a question of being relatively better than the alternatives.

 

[Iry]

This is purely a thought experiment. There is probably no DM that would do this in a real game. But...

If you can only benefit from one Long Rest in a 24 period of time, and Animate Dead must be cast before your 24 hour period of control ends, you can only maintain control over (slightly less than) half your capacity, or there will eventually come a time where you will need to re-up your Animate Deads before you finish a Long Rest and not have enough spare slots.

Or you can demolish your army once you hit the breakpoint. That works too.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Don't leave your zombies unattended! Seriously, it is not hard to destroy them if you don't want or can't reapply the spell. I feel people apply completely unreasonable standard of safety here. It is mildly risky, sure, but hardly to a degree that you could reasonably call the thing obviously evil based on this. If they were funny looking artificer's bots with the exact same rules no one would be arguing that it is somehow inherently evil.

D&D's consuming need for undead in particular to be evil is weird. They've been escalating for years trying to make them worse and worse, making less and less sense (skeletons are sentient now?!) to get this result like they're Wendy's trying to get one over on Burger King. It's a little pathetic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D's consuming need for undead in particular to be evil is weird. They've been escalating for years trying to make them worse and worse, making less and less sense (skeletons are sentient now?!) to get this result like they're Wendy's trying to get one over on Burger King. It's a little pathetic.

I agree. No one can beat the King.

Seriously though, 5e does seem to be pushing an agenda for undead to be Evil beyond what was done previously. Mindless undead are supposed to be mindless!

 

[Lanefan]

And that would be pretty evil. But one doesn't need to do that, just like one doesn't need to blast kindergarten with a fireball.

One doesn't need to, sure; but someone asked how a caster could lose control of their own undead without getting killed and I gave what seemed like an obvious answer.

 

[Lanefan]

Sentient, intelligent artificer's boots that, if not fed at least 3+ levels of arcane energy per day throw off their control and go on a murderous rampage until put down? Yeah, they're probably evil (they're intelligent, after all) and so is creating them again after having learned the flaw.

Now this I've just gotta see!

 

[James Gasik]

But you can still have Lawful Good ghosts!