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.)

 

[Maxperson]

Once you remove the alignment any patron can be good, evil, neither or both.

This is wrong. The lack of alignment does not prevent good and evil. Tyr is not suddenly going to be evil along with his good. Asmodeus is not suddenly going to be good along with his evil. Who they are will remain the same. Alignment just describes what is already there. It isn't what made them what they are.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Or make the core setting agnostic and leave the Volo-style commentary to supplements.

I like this idea a lot.

 

[Seramus]

Villains have always been allowed to pet dogs and love their families, while Heroes have often been racists or worse. Even fiends and celestials have exceptions, once in a while.

For me, alignment will always be a quick estimate / average of deeds.

 

[Maxperson]

Villains have always been allowed to pet dogs and love their families, while Heroes have often been racists or worse. Even fiends and celestials have exceptions, once in a while.

For me, alignment will always be a quick estimate / average of deeds.

That's all alignment has ever been. It has never constrained someone from acts outside the alignment. Back in the day too many outside acts allowed the DM to change the PC's alignment and hit him with penalties, but it has never been a straightjacket.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not even sure why a gradual shift in alignment would even be noteworthy as anything more than character development.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not even sure why a gradual shift in alignment would even be noteworthy as anything more than character development.

I completely agree.

However, in fairness, alignment back in ye olde days could be a lot more punitive. It was a gate to quite a few classes .... it could make leveling harder if you drifted, many magic items were coded by alignment, it affected your hirelings and henchmen, and so on.

But that's from long ago, and even then, most tables weren't policing alignment.

 

[James Gasik]

Paladins usually got the DM's attention. I've played in groups where a Ranger or Druid comes close to an alignment shift, and the DM never batted an eye. But if a Paladin should so much as not stop to pet a puppy on the side of the road?

REPENT YE SINNER!

And the sad part is, the Paladin's special abilities were never really all that to write home about. A few spells at higher levels. The super amazing ability to heal a few hit points with Lay on Hands. A couple uses of Cure Disease. +1 to AC against evil creatures (a little better since they are at -1 to hit, so this ignores the AC cap, but...yeah). Immune to disease (but only most of the time)...you know the drill.

And you couldn't specialize without a Kit, and you had super strict ability score requirements, and limits on treasure, and a slower xp track.

Honestly, the real winner I always felt was a +2 on saves. Most of what the Paladin could do was greatly outstripped by a multiclass Fighter/Cleric.

But because they had so much text devoted to their code, DM's read that and said "oh man, this is serious, obviously Paladins are super strong, and if I don't enforce this, they'll run all over my game!".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And the sad part is, the Paladin's special abilities were never really all that to write home about.

Dude..... the 1e* Paladin was a terror. Compare to the 1e Fighter (who was also quite good).

The Paladin got all the good stuff of the fighter- the saves, the ability to get higher con hit points, the percentile strength, the use of any weapons or shields or armor, and unlike the Ranger, the same multi-attack progression.

But ... in addition, the Paladin also:
1. Could eventually use cleric spells.
2. Could get that sweet war horse.
3. Could turn undead.
4. Had a continuous protection from evil (!!!). (Seriously, this was massive ...)
5. Could cure any kind of disease (and was also immune to it).
6. Could cure hit points (again, big deal in 1e).
7. Had +2 on all saves.
8. Could detect evil at will.

And, of course, the Holy Sword benefit (in addition to all the other awesome benefits, could dispel magic). Have you met a Paladin without a Holy Sword. Yeah, me neither.

The Paladin's benefits were crazy good. But this was part of the ... interesting design philosophy behind 1e. First, to restrict the number of "awesome" characters by making the ability requirements crazy high (17 charisma????) ... which just meant that the average Paladin player was a cheater ....

Second, by requiring "cool" classes to have restriction so that people would have to suffer to play them. Which probably reached its apotheosis with the UA Barbarian.




*Note that I am dealing with pre-UA 1e, because things got weird with the Paladin-as-Cavalier subclass.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Paladins usually got the DM's attention. I've played in groups where a Ranger or Druid comes close to an alignment shift, and the DM never batted an eye. But if a Paladin should so much as not stop to pet a puppy on the side of the road?

REPENT YE SINNER!

Or even worse, they could stop to pet an evil puppy!

 

[Oofta]

Or even worse, they could stop to pet an evil puppy!

Well evil puppies would be an oxymoron. Evil cats on the other hand are pretty much a given.