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.)

 

[Lanefan]

Better not do that then! Yes letting the zombies loose would be evil or at least criminally negligent. So good people take good care of their zombies and safely dispose of them once they are no longer needed.

Good people don't create zombies in the first place.

 

[nevin]

Ok, that's certainly true in our world. But D&D worlds aren't our world. For one thing, magic is real and can be quite common. And rather than being aloof, D&D Gods are actively granting miracles by the truckload to their priests.

The idea that all D&D societies would evolve the same way as they did on our earth is a bit ludicrous on it's face. And even if they did, there are lots of evil actions societies will turn a blind eye to if there's a need, like slavery or child labor.

My objection, by the way, isn't that animating the dead is something a society objects to- that's perfectly fine. It's that the game itself says "on a metaphysical level, this thing is evil, while other, equally objectional things are not metaphysically evil".

Like, say, Dominate Person.

see and when it comes to things like Animate dead I object to people with little to no moral compass wanting to justify why it's ok to play with dead bodies. Problem is your definition of evil and my definition of evil may vary and a lot of myth's, legends and stories are full of the slow steady string of bad decisions that drags you into evil. So No I don't have a problem with the dev's or creator's of campaign systems defining evil actions, it's thier game, or their campaign world and their gods and they are all perfectly within thier rights to stomp all over your, or my objections about thier decisions on morality in thier game.

 

[Lanefan]

So what about a culture like the Elves of Eberron, who have persistent ancestor worship and have their dead relatives walking around as Deathless? Sure, the Deathless are animated by positive energy, but they still look like decayed corpses!

To me, that would mark that culture as inherently biasing toward evil.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But what if I really like roasted marshmallows?

Olaf The Stout: We are being attacked by the combined armies of the Chocolate Golems, the Elementals from the Plane of Marsh-Mallow, and the Crack Units of the Duchy of Graham!

Zima the Zagnificent: YES! Finally, a proper use for fireball. I hope everyone is hungry....

 

[nevin]

No cone of cold the second wave Zima, we'll want some tomorrow!

 

[Lanefan]

But what if I really like roasted marshmallows?

I listed what I'd seen the spell used for. No-one IME has used it for roasting marshmallows yet - and if they do, those had better be some damn tough marshmallows not to just melt into tiny bits of goo when hit by that much fire all at once.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To me, that would mark that culture as inherently biasing toward evil.

Why? Presumably in this culture people are fine with being raised this way. They are not harming anyone by this.

 

[Stormonu]

Why? Presumably in this culture people are fine with being raised this way. They are not harming anyone by this.

A single culture not seeing as evil for D&D doesn't make it not evil.

Example, in D&D, regardless of the reason behind it, slavery is evil. Yet, some cultures in FR practice it and it's people see it as "a good thing". The act of it being evil comes from on high, even above the level of gods. There is an absolute morality to it that even defies the dictates of the gods. Same with Good, Law and Chaos. Where does it come from? In game, it is a force unto itself, like magic. Mechanics, gamewise? The rules designers and the real-world culture they live in.

Sure, you can change it or subvert it if you don't agree, but as written that's the source.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But what if I really like roasted marshmallows?

That's what wall of fire is for.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think it's more interesting for a game to define how things work, like Good and Evil, or the Dark Side of the Force, and then interact with that, than to leave it open.

Then players can play characters that interact with that in numerous ways. I might play a character that vehemently disagrees with what is considered Good or not, and despite my intentions as I see them being the betterment of all, the Multiverse might see me as Neutral or Evil depending on my actions. Now we explore what comes of that.

GMs can come up with interesting explanations for why things are the way they are that extend without contradicting the lore. Why do the Good deities of the Forgotten Realms go along with the cosmologically unnecessary and artificial (because it's not the way it works on other worlds in the same multiverse) Fugue Plane entrapment and abuse of souls that didn't pick a patron deity? All sorts of answers to whether or not they do, and why are possible.

Personally, I find the interpretation of the Force that treats all passion and attachment as fundamentally Dark Side elements to be distasteful (to put it mildly). When playing a Star Wars game, I ask the GM how they intend to run it, and choose what character to run and how to play them based on that. I might challenge and test the assumptions, create a new school of thought, and find out how it all works. Maybe it really does work like that and there is no way around it. Then I'd probably either not play anyone who messes with the Force and just assume the universe is fundamentally broken. As a GM, I would likely have the Force work like in the original trilogy that didn't include those metaphysical elements and have explanations for how how the ideas arose (and why Obi-Wan seemed to have abandoned it by then).

The point is that using what a game gives you can be more interesting, nuanced, and complicated than just ejecting it because it bugs you. As GMs, we're pretty much all going to do some of the latter anyway. Thinking about to do the former can enhance the creative experience and allow moral explorations in character.