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.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Slavery is evil because it harms actual people. You don't need gods or overgods to tell you that. And the Aerenal elf example was about an actual culture from Eberron, an official D&D setting. The undead elves of the Undying Court canonically are not evil.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I see all of that as setting detail that shouldn't be codified in the rules unless, like Star Wars, the rules are intended for a single setting.

 

[Oofta]

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.

So I guess this guy has never shown up in your campaign?

 

[Maxperson]

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

That would be European. American would be a 500,000gp diamond.

 

[MGibster]

The closest thing to armies of dead corpses attacking that I can think of is Norse Mythology with Hel leading an army of the dead out of Niflheim to join the giants in attacking the gods at Asgard. This is counterbalanced however with Odin and Freyja leading armies of dead warriors heroically in the last stand against the giants and unworthy dead.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Ishtar threatens to tear down the gates to the underworld, freeing the dead who will rise up and eat the flesh of the living. Who knew the zombie apocalypse was invented thousands of years before Night of the Living Dead?

Gatekeeper, Lo! open thy gate!
Open thy gate that I may enter!
If thou openest not the gate to let me enter,

I will break the door, I will wrench the lock,
I will smash the door-posts, I will force the doors.

I will bring up the dead to eat the living.
And the dead will outnumber the living.

 

[MGibster]

Like many discussions around here, this one is all about preference. I think the answer as to why animate dead is typically seen as evil has been sufficiently answered. You may not agree with the answer or even like it, but I think we all understand the the basic arguments. Of course your preference might be to subvert expectations or just ignore them altogether. That's fine. I understand where you're coming from even if that's not preference.

Edit: I should stop posting so late at night.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The road to hell...

It doesn't matter if you can do good things with them, you are still creating several evil mass murderers who will inevitably break free since the necromancer will eventually die. Their creation is an evil act and only evil necromancers do it frequently. At least by RAW. It's also very probable that the caster will at some point be unable to repeat the spell in a 24 hour period, releasing said mass murderers on society much earlier than death.

 

[cbwjm]

One of my favourite takes on necromancy being bad was in the book series Death Gate cycle. This is going off a long ago memory so I may not have all the details correct but it was something like the following. Found in a hostile environment, they powerful sorcerers found a way to animate the dead, I believe to work the land so that the living had enough to eat. In this world, I don't believe the zombies could break free. It seemed fine, but after a while they realised that more and more children with stillborn and eventually they discovered that with every act of animating the dead some vital energy was stolen that prevented new life from being born.

In this case, casting animate dead wasn't evil initially as it was done through ignorance. After they know the consequences, animating the dead would most certainly be an evil act. The leader of the necromancers (they were some of the top spellcasters in the setting, able to tap into 9th level magic) even refused to teach the secrets of necromancy to the leader of the people he was descended from.

 

[MarkB]

One of my favourite takes on necromancy being bad was in the book series Death Gate cycle. This is going off a long ago memory so I may not have all the details correct but it was something like the following. Found in a hostile environment, they powerful sorcerers found a way to animate the dead, I believe to work the land so that the living had enough to eat. In this world, I don't believe the zombies could break free. It seemed fine, but after a while they realised that more and more children with stillborn and eventually they discovered that with every act of animating the dead some vital energy was stolen that prevented new life from being born.

In this case, casting animate dead wasn't evil initially as it was done through ignorance. After they know the consequences, animating the dead would most certainly be an evil act. The leader of the necromancers (they were some of the top spellcasters in the setting, able to tap into 9th level magic) even refused to teach the secrets of necromancy to the leader of the people he was descended from.

Somewhat similar to the twist in Planescape Torment, where it turns out that the source of the protagonist's undying nature is that death cannot find his mortality. Which would be fine, except that death balances the books - each time he eludes death, a random person across the planes dies in his place.

Also notable for featuring a faction that allows people to sell their future corpse to them to be animated as a zombie worker. One such person has become listless and unfeeling after signing up, as though his future fate is being visited upon his present self.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If one wants necromancy to be inherently evil it is good idea to add some sort of metaphysical drawback like suggested here in some posts. Zombies being somewhat dangerous if the operator screws up really doesn't rise to the level of inherent evil to me.