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.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

i can understand the angle that animating a corpse may prevent the person from being revived, or that someone who needs and uses corpses to animate is therefore likely to go out and make some corpses but in a world where the afterlives and souls are a confirmed and known thing to exist what happens to the body after death may be a lesser concern.

Yeah, this is why necromancy is an EXTREMELY big no-no in my Jewel of the Desert setting. The body remains linked to the soul after death, at least for a (variable) time, and thus it is possible for a necromancer to unjustly deny someone their deserved rest. Further, the souls of the restless dead don't need any further encouragement--it's already a problem that the desert deals with, as neither Wizard (the Waziri order) nor Cleric (the Safiqi priesthood) magic can fully lay to rest the spirits of the unquiet dead. Only Shaman and Druids (Kahina) can do that properly, returning their soul-energy to the cycle of life.

Part of the reason the deep desert is so dangerous is that few to no Kahina or really people of any kind go there (it being, y'know, inhospitable and rather barren), allowing both unclean beings and dangerous monsters to fester in the faraway places. That's why the Hunters of the Wastes (Rangers and "Slayers," a Grim World playbook) are a frustration but still tolerated by the upper-class folks who maintain private estates outside the cities. The Hunters often exploit the guest-rite for a good meal, or poach things on private hunting grounds, but they also help keep the Very Nasty Things in check and thus indirectly help support those ultra-rich folks who want a private hidey-hole away from the prying eyes of city rulers.

 

[MGibster]

The wider context is that I don't use alignments because I think that anything being objectively, or inherently, good, evil, etc. is incoherent. Those are always subjective values. As evidence, I point to thousands of years of philosophers trying, and failing, to come up with a logically coherent definition of "good."

Your attitude is in alignment with 5th edition D&D. While I kind of dig the idea of a fantasy setting where good and evil are palpable forces, since 2014 alignment has meant next to nothing in D&D. I still use it as a useful shorthand for NPCs, but I don't ask players about it.

Attitudes towards death and the dead are pretty interesting and vary widely. During the American Civil War, a lot of soldiers lost arms & legs which caused a spiritual crisis. If you lost an arm at Antietam, when you were resurrected for the Last Judgment, would your arm still be missing? Were you destined to have a mangled body for all of eternity? This is one of the reasons cremation was so controversial as it started gaining popularity in the United States during the latter half of the 19th century. Even in the 21st century, there are those who are bothered by cremation as I found out when my father-in-law died.

When it comes to world building for games, I try to think of what would make for interesting campaigns or adventures. When it comes to the dead, I prefer the malevolent kind like we see in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Just a bunch of pissed off people eating and drinking nothing but dust and awaiting for gates to fall so they can come kill the living. That's just me. If you're going to have a world where the dead are routinely raised to tend crops or serve as machinery for industry, try to think of ways to incorporate that into the campaign/adventure.

 

[Clint_L]

Attitudes towards death and the dead are pretty interesting and vary widely. During the American Civil War, a lot of soldiers lost arms & legs which caused a spiritual crisis. If you lost an arm at Antietam, when you were resurrected for the Last Judgment, would your arm still be missing? Were you destined to have a mangled body for all of eternity? This is one of the reasons cremation was so controversial as it started gaining popularity in the United States during the latter half of the 19th century. Even in the 21st century, there are those who are bothered by cremation as I found out when my father-in-law died.

I know, and those arguments are incomprehensibly weird to me. Like, no one disputed that bodies still decomposed. So if God could resurrect someone and fix all the cellular decay and everything else, why would they leave an arm off? So freaking strange.

The D&D version of resurrection makes so much more sense: "This spell closes all mortal wounds and restores any missing body parts."

The kind of resurrection those old-timey folks were worried about sounds a lot more like animate dead, ironically. Zombies!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

TBH, depends on method and technique.

Oh, for sure. No one yells about Obi-Wan ignoring the consent of Stormtroopers in Star Wars when he's just using enchantment-style abilities to have them all move past each other without violence.

And most necromancers in fantasy games remain the weird creeps stealing bodies of unwilling subjects to do extremely bad things with.

It's just that the conversation has changed around each, and neither specialty is now seen as purely good or purely evil -- and probably never should have been.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, it is this lovely thread, back from the grave!

A while ago in my game the characters allied with a necromancer, who provided them with some undead thralls to help them take down a mind flayer coven. The necromancer was annoyed with the mind flayers as the brainless corpses they kept dumping in the sewers were unsuitable for turning into zombies or ghouls.

 

[MGibster]

I know, and those arguments are incomprehensibly weird to me. Like, no one disputed that bodies still decomposed. So if God could resurrect someone and fix all the cellular decay and everything else, why would they leave an arm off? So freaking strange.

I guess the mindset is that there has to be something there to resurrect. The past is a strange country, they do things differently there. As far as the Civil War was concerned, most theologians settled on you being resurrected in your most glorious form.

The D&D version of resurrection makes so much more sense: "This spell closes all mortal wounds and restores any missing body parts."

When it comes to magic, I'm not really sure how one thing makes more sense than another. Generally speaking, magic has rules that must be followed in order to get the proper effect. Does it make any sense that you need a diamond valued at 1,000 gp to resurrect someone?

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, because D&D deities actually exist and they take bribes!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does it make any sense that you need a diamond valued at 1,000 gp to resurrect someone?

Depends on whether you compare it to American or European healthcare!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When it comes to magic, I'm not really sure how one thing makes more sense than another.

The joys of flexible metaphysics, where it is a choice why reality works one way and not another.

 

[NotAYakk]

When it comes to magic, I'm not really sure how one thing makes more sense than another. Generally speaking, magic has rules that must be followed in order to get the proper effect. Does it make any sense that you need a diamond valued at 1,000 gp to resurrect someone?

You need a certain size and quality of diamond. The demand for such diamonds for resurrection purposes means that their market price is generally 1000 gp.

If a new source of such diamonds where to be found, more people would get resurrected, and if the supply dried up, fewer people would get resurrected.

Clearly this means that the number of people who can afford 1000 gp to get resurrected is large, the number that can afford more than 1000 gp is extremely rare. Alternatively, there is a cartel with huge cash and diamond reserves that buys and sells diamonds to maintain that price, possibly a circle of moon druids from Chicago.