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]

Messed up edit completely

 

[Voadam]

Are there any games that are honest and just called them Adam Frankenstein?

There is the flesh golem Adam in Ravenloft. It does not have a Dr. Victor von Frankenstein, just a Dr. Victor von Mordenheim.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Evil descriptor was to interact with class abilities and feats, not an alignment action. Deathwatch was an [Evil] spell too.

That's how this whole thing got started because I smarted off to a designer (without knowing they were a designer) about that and the fact Animate Dead at that point created Neutral skeletons and zombies.

Then in 3.5, they were changed to Neutral Evil, becomes like a PC if uncontrolled BS.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is the flesh golem Adam in Ravenloft. It does not have a Dr. Victor von Frankenstein, just a Dr. Victor von Mordenheim.

View attachment 154222

Excellent.

NOSE BAD!

 

[Willie the Duck]

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

I would love to see a game where it was a reference to mostly communicating with the dead for divination purposes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would love to see a game where it was a reference to mostly communicating with the dead for divination purposes.

We could give that another name. If only there was a term for divination via the dead...

 

[Voadam]

We could give that another name. If only there was a term for divination via the dead...

A classical language translation could give it that esoteric occult feel.

Dead talking. "Mortui loquentes" to turn it into Latin. Or "divinatio per mortuos." A super sub category of necromancy. Probably not worth coming up with a term for the one spell in D&D that can do that, which necromancers cannot even cast.

 

[Maxperson]

Do golems still berserk? It might not be 'bag of hit points' enough for the current game, so I have to ask.

Yes they do.

.... Which is described as 'not a good act', but people keep insisting it's 'evil' despite it not being described in that way.

It is described as an evil act. They use non-good, but the rest of the sentence rules out neutral. If it wasn't evil, the phrase "and only evil casters use such spells frequently." wouldn't be part of the sentence, since no amount of casting non-evil spells can make you evil.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is described as an evil act.

It's described as 'Not a Good Act'. We've seen it said many time.

If it wasn't evil, the phrase "and only evil casters use such spells frequently." wouldn't be part of the sentence,

If it WAS evil, they would have said evil instead o wasting words for no good reason.

since no amount of casting non-evil spells can make you evil.

It also doesn't say it makes you evil. It Proscribes casting it frequently to evil people in the same way the game nonsensically proscribes 'will not wear metal armor' to druids.

It's a poorly written game.

 

[Maxperson]

It's described as 'Not a Good Act'. We've seen it said many time.

If it WAS evil, they would have said evil instead o wasting words for no good reason.

It also doesn't say it makes you evil. It Proscribes casting it frequently to evil people in the same way the game nonsensically proscribes 'will not wear metal armor' to druids.

It's a poorly written game.

So you're theory is that it's poorly written because druids, but cannot be poorly written because evil?