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]

What other purpose do fireball, cloudkill or a longsword have than to kill people? In fact it is far easier to invent non killy uses for zombies than for those. You can have zombie miners, zombie firefighters, etc. A lot of spells and and implements in D&D are designed mainly to harm sentient creatures. There is weird double standard going on here.

A fireball kills (at most) a few people the one time it goes off.

An undead entity, needing neither food nor sleep nor even air, can kill many more over the course of its unlifetime.

 

[Oofta]

What other purpose do fireball, cloudkill or a longsword have than to kill people? In fact it is far easier to invent non killy uses for zombies than for those. You can have zombie miners, zombie firefighters, etc. A lot of spells and and implements in D&D are designed mainly to harm sentient creatures. There is weird double standard going on here.

Things like fireball are not indiscriminate. A fireball doesn't just go off whenever it sees someone. The person casting the fireball may be evil, may be intending harm, but the fireball itself is just fire. Necromantic forces can be solely malevolent forces out to destroy all living things when they can.

They don't have to be of course, that's just the basic concept behind negative plane energy that necromancy draws upon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A fireball kills (at most) a few people the one time it goes off.

An undead entity, needing neither food nor sleep nor even air, can kill many more over the course of its unlifetime.

Does that make fireball not evil then? How many people it's likely to kill?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A fireball kills (at most) a few people the one time it goes off.

An undead entity, needing neither food nor sleep nor even air, can kill many more over the course of its unlifetime.

Sure, but so can an awakened boulder.

Necromancy being automatically Capital E Evil is a leftover from OD&D's early moralistic worldview (EGG's personal beliefs are baked into the game, sometimes for good, sometimes not). I think it's more appropriate for the modern game to say that many societies view it as evil and treat it accordingly, rather than saying it's inherently so.

Sword & Sorcery's Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers (created for 3E but I bet it shows up in some fashion in the 5E revival of the setting) and TSR's own Jakandor: Isle of Destiny both detail non-evil necromancer societies that, naturally, have other societies ready to put them all to the sword.

(Hmm. I wonder if it's significant that Isle of Destiny is the only Jakandor book not in DMs Guild.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Things like fireball are not indiscriminate. A fireball doesn't just go off whenever it sees someone. The person casting the fireball may be evil, may be intending harm, but the fireball itself is just fire. Necromantic forces can be solely malevolent forces out to destroy all living things when they can.

They don't have to be of course, that's just the basic concept behind negative plane energy that necromancy draws upon.

But as long as the zombies are under the necromancer's control, they'll do what the necromancer wants, so not really that different from the fireball. And of course fire too can get out of control if used carelessly, and burn down all sort of things.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

My world still operates under the idea that Necromancy is broadly divided into two primary sub-categories, Necromancy that uses souls as a power source or conduit, and Necromancy that uses other sources more magic/energy as a power source of conduit.

Necromancy that uses souls is considered evil in my world because those souls are being denied their afterlife/reincarnation and they are often warped, tormented, damaged, or even destroyed by the necromantic forces they are being used to fuel in whatever necromantic practice they are being used for. On top of that, very rarely is the soul in question given much choice in what is done to it, and even if the soul was initialing willing for whatever reason they typically forfeit any autonomy or ability to voice their opinions otherwise so most people typically view such Necromancers with fear and distain. Soul Necromancy it mostly used by demon worshippers, destructive cults of the old gods, beings that often feast on and enjoy destroying souls, or individuals with little care for the harm and danger that impart on the world around them. Couple all that with my God of life, Death, and Reincarnation being the head honcho of my world's gods and you can be sure that Soul Necromancy is considered 100% evil in the eyes on most normal people in the world.

However, many mages of various schools and circles have learned to harness necromantic powers without needing souls by using the various types of necrotic energies of the worlds and beyond such as tapping into the ghostly and supernatural energies of the ethereal, the dark negative energies of the shadow plane, or the primal energies of natural decay and death. While this form of Necromancy is still considered unsettling and dangerous to use, its considered the more accepted category of necromancy and is practiced by several divine, arcane, and primal orders through my world.

 

[James Gasik]

It makes sense within the cosmology of D&D's past at least. The negative material plane was hostile to all forms of life and this was the source of power used by a necromancer to animate the dead. Now you might be thinking, "Why would it matter where the power source came from?" I don't know. This is probably something those who use magic have seminars about at their conventions.

Except for mummies who were positive powered for some reason...

 

[Mind of tempest]

As presented in the 1E PHB (1978), the good alignments value life, truth, and beauty. The "foul mimicry of life" (5E) created by animate dead is an offense to all three. The undeath it creates is the antithesis of life, its mimicry is a false semblance of life, and it is hideous and abhorrent. Thus, it is a not-good act.

it is animation not unlife only vampires possibly qualify and that depends on if viruses are alive in your opinion..
they are as alive as a golem, I see no error to truth in it and beauty has no bearing on goodness unless you are vapid or maybe an elf.

I remember, back in 3.5e times, envisioning it as an environmental / pollution issue. Channelling negative energy into the world shifts it more towards the negative plane, with commensurate results - diseases are more virulent, lifespans are shorter, spontaneous animation of the dead can occur in areas of particularly high negative energy. Channelling positive energy into the world through healing magic tips the balance in the opposite direction.

that sounds insane it is both the realm of pure entropy which has no moral value as rust has no moral value secdonly that would infer casting fire magic moves the world closer to the plane of fire which would lead to very insane magic morals.
how would entropy make diseases worse? they are alive and thus equally screwed by entropy.

does pure positive energy not equally have a negative ethic on the world?

It makes sense within the cosmology of D&D's past at least. The negative material plane was hostile to all forms of life and this was the source of power used by a necromancer to animate the dead. Now you might be thinking, "Why would it matter where the power source came from?" I don't know. This is probably something those who use magic have seminars about at their conventions.

a place being hostile to all life forms has no relevance to its moral value, outer space a a mix of vacuum and toxic radiation but I would see no evil in it.

hell I heave read the description of the positive plane and that place kills you faster is it equally as evil?

 

[MarkB]

that sounds insane it is both the realm of pure entropy which has no moral value as rust has no moral value

Yeah, and CO2 and greenhouse gases have no moral value either, but having too much of them still makes the world a worse place. It's not a judgement on the substance itself.

secdonly that would infer casting fire magic moves the world closer to the plane of fire which would lead to very insane magic morals.

In 3.5e these spells specifically said they were channelling negative energy. Fire spells don't say that they're channelling energy from the plane of fire.

how would entropy make diseases worse? they are alive and thus equally screwed by entropy.

Not so much that the diseases are worse as that larger lifeforms' health is worse, so their ability to fight disease is diminished.

 

[MGibster]

It does occur to me that a warlord making use of an undead army with the justification that this keeps his subjects safe might make for an interesting villain. His people might support the war with great enthusiasm knowing their lives and the lives of their loved ones are never going to be at risk.