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.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Desecrating with a corpse is generally considered immoral and is illegal in all states in the U.S. making one move around like a puppet would be an extreme form of this I think.

So yes in a civilized society it probably is "evil". However, when you get down to it though I think Charm Person is generally more problematic and inherently immoral than Animate dead.

so necromancers could not be lawful?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So here's an important part that I've seen touched on a lot, but that I haven't seen solidly engaged with by those who don't agree it should be considered evil. The descriptions of them say that the magic that animates them causes them to seek to kill the living if not controlled. Negative Plane energy is not inherently evil, but the type of magic that allows it to be used to animate these things apparently infused them with evil intent.

I suppose you could argue that the drive to kill isn't motivated by maliciousness but by a natural force of entropy in opposition to a force of generation, but that seems similar to arguing that a someone who commits atrocities because they lack empathy (rather than because they delight in causing harm) isn't doing anything morally wrong.

Mindless undead aren't truly mindless in 5e (the skeleton explicitly says as such) the magic imbues them with a simple consciousness based on that destruction of life drive.

A not-neccesarily-evil animating of undead spell would be transmutation. 5e D&D animating undead is not, it is necromancy with a description of what makes it evil, that isn't being fully engaged with (I didn't read all zillion pages, just some at the start and end, so I may have missed where discussion focuses in on this extensively).

So, to be more direct. For those who aren't really engaging with this element (even to explain a disagreement), is it because you disagree with some of the extracted thoughts, or because you reject the premise of it being necromancy, or of the necromantic magic doing what the game says it does?

"I fully understand how 5e says this spell works, and think calling it evil is unfounded" is not the same argument as "I don't like how/that 5e decided the magic works that makes it evil."

 

[payn]

so necromancers could not be lawful?

Sure, Lawful Evil.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So here's an important part that I've seen touched on a lot, but that I haven't seen solidly engaged with by those who don't agree it should be considered evil. The descriptions of them say that the magic that animates them causes them to seek to kill the living if not controlled. Negative Plane energy is not inherently evil, but the type of magic that allows it to be used to animate these things apparently infused them with evil intent.

I suppose you could argue that the drive to kill isn't motivated by maliciousness but by a natural force of entropy in opposition to a force of generation, but that seems similar to arguing that a someone who commits atrocities because they lack empathy (rather than because they delight in causing harm) isn't doing anything morally wrong.

Mindless undead aren't truly mindless in 5e (the skeleton explicitly says as such) the magic imbues them with a simple consciousness based on that destruction of life drive.

A not-neccesarily-evil animating of undead spell would be transmutation. 5e D&D animating undead is not, it is necromancy with a description of what makes it evil, that isn't being fully engaged with (I didn't read all zillion pages, just some at the start and end, so I may have missed where discussion focuses in on this extensively).

So, to be more direct. For those who aren't really engaging with this element (even to explain a disagreement), is it because you disagree with some of the extracted thoughts, or because you reject the premise of it being necromancy, or of the necromantic magic doing what the game says it does?

"I fully understand how 5e says this spell works, and think calling it evil is unfounded" is not the same argument as "I don't like how/that 5e decided the magic works that makes it evil."

I disagree with the simplistic morals implied by the alignment system. But the undead being created definitely aren't nice. However, as long as they are under the caster's control, that really isn't a problem. The undead themselves are a mere tool, dangerous if used carelessly, but that still can be used to do good things.

 

[tomBitonti]

Undead are evil (1): In many systems, undead have a drive similar to or worse than a starving pit bull. Deliberately creating such a creature is wrong (evil). Using such creatures with at best tenuous control over them is similarly wrong (evil).

That undead act as starving pit bulls seems most common. Also common is the idea that the presence of undead fouls the environment.

Much less commonly, undead are mere automatons which revert to harmless inactivity if undirected.

Undead are evil (2): Creating undead frays the the distinctiveness of living being. One who creates undead undermines body autonomy and undermines sanctity of life.

Undead are evil (3): Animating undead is cruel to people who knew the person who was raised as undead, and possibly cruel if a person knows they might be raised as undead after they die.

Undead are evil (4): Because the gods said so. So there!

TomB

 

[see]

In the Doylist sense, animate dead is something only evil characters frequently do because "PC sends his zombie horde to kill everything in the next room of the dungeon, animates the corpses to renew his force, and repeats" is an inherently boring "adventure", while "PCs have to fight through the hordes of the animated dead to reach the evil necromancer" is not.

In the Watsonian sense, in 5e animate dead is a non-good act that only evil characters frequently do because creating homicidal maniacs to walk the world is at best "Well, if we're very careful, we can use these in a way that serves the greater good", and the more you do it, the harder it is to be "very careful".

So, the reason skeletons and zombies were made homicidal maniacs (first in Pathfinder 1e, and then in D&D 5) was to shut down what was then decades of Watsonian arguments in favor of it being okay to animate skeletons, in order to preserve the Doylist purpose of the restriction. If people manage to successfully argue that making homicidal maniacs isn't a non-good act only frequently done by evil characters, what will happen is that the next version of animate dead will make the spell more evil in order to serve the Doylist end.

 

[Clint_L]

So here's an important part that I've seen touched on a lot, but that I haven't seen solidly engaged with by those who don't agree it should be considered evil. The descriptions of them say that the magic that animates them causes them to seek to kill the living if not controlled. Negative Plane energy is not inherently evil, but the type of magic that allows it to be used to animate these things apparently infused them with evil intent.

I suppose you could argue that the drive to kill isn't motivated by maliciousness but by a natural force of entropy in opposition to a force of generation, but that seems similar to arguing that a someone who commits atrocities because they lack empathy (rather than because they delight in causing harm) isn't doing anything morally wrong.

Mindless undead aren't truly mindless in 5e (the skeleton explicitly says as such) the magic imbues them with a simple consciousness based on that destruction of life drive.

A not-neccesarily-evil animating of undead spell would be transmutation. 5e D&D animating undead is not, it is necromancy with a description of what makes it evil, that isn't being fully engaged with (I didn't read all zillion pages, just some at the start and end, so I may have missed where discussion focuses in on this extensively).

So, to be more direct. For those who aren't really engaging with this element (even to explain a disagreement), is it because you disagree with some of the extracted thoughts, or because you reject the premise of it being necromancy, or of the necromantic magic doing what the game says it does?

"I fully understand how 5e says this spell works, and think calling it evil is unfounded" is not the same argument as "I don't like how/that 5e decided the magic works that makes it evil."

I did engage with it: I don’t use alignments. So the rest of your argument doesn’t apply, since it relies on undead being inherently evil.

 

[Clint_L]

In the Doylist sense, animate dead is something only evil characters frequently do because "PC sends his zombie horde to kill everything in the next room of the dungeon, animates the corpses to renew his force, and repeats" is an inherently boring "adventure", while "PCs have to fight through the hordes of the animated dead to reach the evil necromancer" is not.

Nah. I don’t use alignments and I’ve never even seen players consider this strategy, probably because it’s a terrible strategy given how slow and tedious animating dead is, and because it’s boring and lame and nobody wants to play a boring and lame game.

Also, plenty of campaigns that do use alignment and have evil characters exist, and they don’t use it either. Probably for the reasons above. And also because it would be terrible strategy anyway, given that the BBEG necromancer can probably raise undead faster than you can.

 

[MGibster]

I did engage with it: I don’t use alignments. So the rest of your argument doesn’t apply, since it relies on undead being inherently evil.

Do you need alignment for something to be inherently evil? Demons and devils are inherently evil, right?

 

[Clint_L]

Do you need alignment for something to be inherently evil? Demons and devils are inherently evil, right?

Not in my campaign, no. Evil is contextual. There’s no such thing as objective evil. Or good.