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.)

 

[Maxperson]

Show me how an evil act can create something that isn't evil.

You could butcher 1000 people to fertilize the ground that will keep 10000 alive via the crops that can now grow there.

The crops will not be evil. The act that created them was very evil.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, normally large predatory cats kill things specifically for purposes of sustenance. They kill you to eat you to maintain their earthly existence, and if you look like to big a hassle for the moment, they pointedly won't kill you.

The occasional ones that do come to kill just to kill... well, we eliminate them as a danger to the public. Whether they are "evil" or not is kind of secondary, given that alignment as such doesn't exist here.

Before we came to understand animal behavior much at all... well, Shere Khan wasn't considered a good guy, you know?

I mean, there have been infamous man killers in the animal kingdom. The Lions of Tsavo, for example. The African Cape Buffalo kills 200 humans a year. But nobody is going to call them "evil" by default (though an individual adventure could have animals influenced by evil).

We have examples of undead who aren't necessarily evil, even in the MM. So it's not that undead = evil (though many are). It's that the act of animating something as an undead is evil, with very little room for debate, compared to all the other things in D&D that should be equally "evil" but aren't strictly defined as such.

This strikes me as an interesting distinction, much like how previous editions treated poison use, despite the existence of non-evil things that use poison. "This thing, this is bad. These other things, we won't address, despite moral ambiguity".

And again, sure, I get it, maybe D&D is meant to be a heroic game about people who don't raise skeletons- but the option is there in the PHB. In fact, if it wasn't, and Animate Dead was in the DMG, I think people would complain, much the same way they complained when 4e said "adventurers shouldn't be evil" (though amusingly, Necromancers were eventually added to that game).

Now maybe in 2024, WotC will take a stronger stand about mind control and gaslighting and summoning things from other planes or creating golems that might go berserk. I still won't like having absolute morals dictated, especially in light of how vestigial alignment itself has become, but at least it will be more consistent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could butcher 1000 people to fertilize the ground that will keep 10000 alive via the crops that can now grow there.

The crops will not be evil. The act that created them was very evil.

Ok, fair enough. What makes casting Animate Dead objectively evil then?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I think the alignment is utter nonsense. That's on record.

I split the middle. I find it a waste of time for PC alignment, but invaluable as the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, fair enough. What makes casting Animate Dead objectively evil then?

See the post above by @Voadam. The MM is very clear that skeletons and zombies are evil killing machines animated by evil energy. Adding evil to the world is an evil act, regardless of intent.

 

[Clint_L]

He's raising an army of undead.

So, yeah, this illustrates my issue with alignments exactly. This is not a criticism of you, but of the rules and the way they condition us to think about what our game world should look like. This is really no different than earlier versions of the game which depicted orcs as innately evil, etc.

I have a problem with labeling an entire species or type with one morality. I think it's absurdly reductionist, and I think it parallels simplistic ways of thinking about morality that have had dire consequences in real life.

In narrative terms, it leads to stories that I find unsatisfying. I like my villains to have understandable motives, so telling me the warlord is evil because he's raising an army of undead just doesn't engage me. My first question is, "well, why is he doing that?" If the answer is that it's because he's power-hungry and will stop at nothing to crush his neighbours and extend his dominion, well, then, yep, that's why he's a bad guy. But if you tell me it's because he has to stop the neighbouring empire from colonizing his people's lands and obliterating their culture? Not evil!

But I also don't like that it acts like an imagination regulator. The good thing about offering people a paradigm is that they don't have to think as much, so if all you want to do is colour within the lines, then it's great. The bad thing about offering people a paradigm is that they don't have to think as much. So I think alignments and defining specific acts as good or evil regardless of context violates the cooperative, imagination-driven heart of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See the post above by @Voadam. The MM is very clear that skeletons and zombies are evil killing machines animated by evil energy. Adding evil to the world is an evil act, regardless of intent.

What about in previous editions (like I've been talking about for the last few pages), where such creatures weren't considered inherently evil?

 

[Maxperson]

What about in previous editions (like I've been talking about for the last few pages), where such creatures weren't considered inherently evil?

But the energy used was. The desecration was. The act objectively was.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Death and loss aren't inherently evil concepts either, to be fair.

No, true. But ‘Corrupting Evil’ is probably evil. Unless you make a campaign world where no evil exists and nothing can ever be inherently evil.

 

[Clint_L]

No, true. But ‘Corrupting Evil’ is probably evil. Unless you make a campaign world where no evil exists and nothing can ever be inherently evil.

That's my campaign world. But I actually think the idea of inherent evil (or good) is incoherent in any world. Evil cannot be defined without reference to specific actions, and how they are interpreted by an observer.

Edit: further, I think that when something is described as "evil" or "good" and we internally agree, it's because we are assuming that everyone has the same basic moral framework as ourselves. So it can be jarring when they start describing specific acts and we find ourselves in total disagreement. To give a classic D&D example, you should look up some of the actions that Gary Gygax was completely comfortable describing as lawful good.