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.)

 

[Iry]

OK, next stupid question - which I-as-player would raise if no-one else did:

Does a lifeless corpse count as an "object" for purposes of Animate Object? If no, why not? If yes, then we're possibly right back in the same rabbit hole you thought you'd just escaped...

A corpse is an object. An unconscious creature is a creature.
So sayeth the 20% dubious Crawford.

 

[TheSword]

OK, next stupid question - which I-as-player would raise if no-one else did:

Does a lifeless corpse count as an "object" for purposes of Animate Object? If no, why not? If yes, then we're possibly right back in the same rabbit hole you thought you'd just escaped...

My answer to this question were it to come at my table, would be to look at the questioner silently, with a blank expression, and without blinking, until they withdrew it. If they didn’t withdraw it I would ask the party to roll initiative as Demogorgan walks around the corner.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, next stupid question - which I-as-player would raise if no-one else did:

Does a lifeless corpse count as an "object" for purposes of Animate Object? If no, why not? If yes, then we're possibly right back in the same rabbit hole you thought you'd just escaped...

That's iffy in the rules. The rules say, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."

A body is composed of lots of different things, so would not technically be an object under the 5e DMG rules. However, I can see an argument for it being an object, so... Rulings over rules!!!

 

[Maxperson]

A corpse is an object. An unconscious creature is a creature.
So sayeth the 20% dubious Crawford.

I can see that, or the argument that by RAW it isn't because it's composed of other objects(bones, muscles, organs, blood, etc.).

 

[Iry]

I can see that, or the argument that by RAW it isn't because it's composed of other objects(bones, muscles, organs, blood, etc.).

I love how that description includes "book" which is composed of potentially several hundred objects.
But yes, rulings over rules either way.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah it's pretty weak. But I mean, what do we expect from Crawford anyways?

 

[tomBitonti]

OK, next stupid question - which I-as-player would raise if no-one else did:

Does a lifeless corpse count as an "object" for purposes of Animate Object? If no, why not? If yes, then we're possibly right back in the same rabbit hole you thought you'd just escaped...

I’d say it’s an object. But gross and a bit fragile. You’ll have bits of rotting meat scattering all over. Maybe clumsy, too — all those tendons would not be pulling in a natural way, and muscles would not have any tone.

TomB

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A corpse is an object. An unconscious creature is a creature.
So sayeth the 20% dubious Crawford.

A corpse is a pre-undead.

 

[Maxperson]

A corpse is a pre-undead.

Would that make a buried corpse an under achiever?

 

[Iry]

Yeah it's pretty weak. But I mean, what do we expect from Crawford anyways?

I honestly have tremendous respect for Crawford and what he's managed to accomplish, both mechanically and with representation. The amount of spreadsheet crunching he's done is pretty intense, and not something many game designers (who are also networked well enough to get assigned to bigger games) are willing to do.

But he is fallible, especially when he's answering questions away from his books. And in some cases, I outright disagree with him on issues like Passive Perception. So I call him the 20% Dubious Crawford. Because I 80% like him.