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.)

 

[Mournblade94]

I've only very rarely encountered sealed airtight tombs in D&D. And if you did, the air would be deadly. Not form sickness, but from a poorchemical concentration.

Do you think sneezing without covering your mouth is evil? Why are we talking about disease? Disease is a bunch of living (or living adjecent) things trying to live.

Hard to tell, them being liquid and on fire and all. There have been dumber D&D monsters.

Money is evil. Got it.

It almost as if all proclamations of evil are pointless and arbitrary.

The Geneva convention puts limits on how we make war. It doesn't go around saying .50 cal guns are evil.

No, I'm pretty sure that by the standard of 'breaking the natural order' we're all evil. Just gonna have to deal with it.

Or reevaluate the worth of such definitions of evil used wholly to enforce a boring fantasy trope.

Does our real world have a cosmic alignment game construct? If it did the Geneva convention would call it evil.

Why do I talk about disease because people using disease as a weapon IS in fact considered evil and we don't even have an alignment game construct.

By saying sneezing is evil you're not even bringing up good faith arguments. It's pretty obvious it's the weaponization of disease where the evil lies.

Necromancy is evil by D&D alignment construct. If you make all your humans evil go ahead.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does our real world have a cosmic alignment game construct?

No, and nor should D&D.

Necromancy is evil by D&D alignment construct. If you make all your humans evil go ahead.

Yes, perhaps. But that construct is nonsensical and doesn't correspond to actual sensible morality.

 

[Fifinjir]

Corpses, skulls, and bones have been used for a long time to represent death by disease (and just death in general). Walking skeletons originally symbolized the Bubonic Plague, for instance.

Just something I remembered from all this disease talk.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Does our real world have a cosmic alignment game construct?

I mean, not really a game construct in 5e either. Just bad flavor text.

Why do I talk about disease because people using disease as a weapon IS in fact considered evil and we don't even have an alignment game construct. By saying sneezing is evil you're not even bringing up good faith arguments. It's pretty obvious it's the weaponization of disease where the evil lies.

Even if they rotted, zombies and skeletons don't use disease as weapons.

If you make all your humans evil go ahead.

I'm not doing it. The mental gymnastics to justify 'evil' is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK. The your 'good' character doesn't need Revivify or Raise Dead either!

I would be extremely happy to see both those spells set to evil. Especially Revivify. REVIVIFY!!!!

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, prolonging life beyond the fate set aside for you by the Gods? You're no better than a Lich! Oh uh, sorry Micah Sweet. Didn't see you there.

 

[Maxperson]

3.5 those types of spells are conjuration, because healing is conjuring energy from the positive material plane and calling back souls(?) is conjuring them into the body, while inflict light wounds and the old reverses of raise dead such as finger of death are necromancy because they conjure negative energy from the negative material plane.

So close to a coherent symmetry.

Healing spells never should have switched from necromancy to conjuration. It was a silly change in my opinion, so I changed it back. Necromancy =/= evil. Creating evil undead = evil.

 

[James Gasik]

I do miss when Necromancy was described as powers that manipulate LIFE and death.

 

[Mournblade94]

I'm not doing it. The mental gymnastics to justify 'evil' is.

No its not. Its actually quite easy to see why making undead is an evil act.

So I will 100% amend that Necromancy is not evil. WHo cares if its life drain vs fireball. I've actually never argues necromancy itself was evil even if I have mentioned disease conditions and such here.

But if you are creating or commanding undead through it, that is an evil act. its desecration of the dead. Something I think just about every real life culture has taboo against.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But if you are creating or commanding undead through it, that is an evil act. its desecration of the dead. Something I think just about every real life culture has taboo against.

~Stitches just a mountain of corpses together into a neutral flesh golem~