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.)

 

[Umbran]

But given that we are playing a fantasy imagination game, I don't understand why we should have to shackle ourselves to real world assumptions about what is right or wrong.

So, you're lading the conversation with emotional weight with words like "shackle".

As several have already said YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR GAME. You are not, personally, shackled to anything. Okay?

Now, as far as a published game is concerned, there are reasons to go with fairly traditional ideas of what is right and wrong. It boils down to a very basic tenet of good writing - know the rules, generally follow the rules, and then break the rules selectively, for the impact that specific break has.

Taken to the (somewhat absurd) extreme - If you create a fictional world that is entirely decoupled from real-world assumptions of morality, the world will not be coherent to an audience without resetting them into the completely new moral framework. That puts a huge burden on the player, to set aside everything they know about morality, absorb the new framework, and rethink the moral and ethical value of every action.

And that's without noting how few moral philosophers there are in RPGs, such that coming up with entire moral frameworks that actually hang together under scrutiny is unlikely.

So, of course, creators just don't come up with entire frameworks - they use something like a traditional framework, and tweak it in a couple of interesting ways.

Thus, games are going to largely stick to moral concepts the audience understands, with only occasional deviations for specific effects.

If you want a world where there isn't a stigma against using the corpses of the dead for stuff, go to - if you embed that into a standard moral framework, you get to see all the interesting bits where that new assumption rubs up on the rest of the framework. That's a fine "what if" scenario to explore.

But, each creator is going to pick and choose which rules they are going to break. It isn't a failure if they haven't chosen this specific one to focus on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, you're lading the conversation with emotional weight with words like "shackle".

As several have already said YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR GAME. You are not, personally, shackled to anything. Okay?

Now, as far as a published game is concerned, there are reasons to go with fairly traditional ideas of what is right and wrong. It boils down to a very basic tenet of good writing - know the rules, generally follow the rules, and then break the rules selectively, for the impact that specific break has.

Taken to the (somewhat absurd) extreme - If you create a fictional world that is entirely decoupled from real-world assumptions of morality, the world will not be coherent to an audience without resetting them into the completely new moral framework. That puts a huge burden on the player, to set aside everything they know about morality, absorb the new framework, and rethink the moral and ethical value of every action.

And that's without noting how few moral philosophers there are in RPGs, such that coming up with entire moral frameworks that actually hang together under scrutiny is unlikely.

So, of course, creators just don't come up with entire frameworks - they use something like a traditional framework, and tweak it in a couple of interesting ways.

Thus, games are going to largely stick to moral concepts the audience understands, with only occasional deviations for specific effects.

If you want a world where there isn't a stigma against using the corpses of the dead for stuff, go to - if you embed that into a standard moral framework, you get to see all the interesting bits where that new assumption rubs up on the rest of the framework. That's a fine "what if" scenario to explore.

But, each creator is going to pick and choose which rules they are going to break. It isn't a failure if they haven't chosen this specific one to focus on.

This isn't about making a world free of real world assumptions of morality. This is about creating game rules free of real world assumptions of morality. You then create a setting or settings with different views of morality built in.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This isn't about making a world free of real world assumptions of morality. This is about creating game rules free of real world assumptions of morality.

This sounds like a conversation that led to F.A.T.A.L.

Jus' sayin'.

 

[James Gasik]

I suppose since we can't assume all goblins, orcs, or drow are bad guys anymore, we need undead to be as universally vile as possible just to make sure adventurers have something they can obliterate without any moral debate.

 

[Umbran]

This isn't about making a world free of real world assumptions of morality. This is about creating game rules free of real world assumptions of morality. You then create a setting or settings with different views of morality built in.

Like it or not, the creators of D&D, collectively, have persistently chosen to not do that for about 50 years now. I think there are good, sound reasons for the choice they've made - I think it leads to their game being rather more accessible and interesting to the broad audience they hope to work with.

Toolbox systems do exist, but they are not great choices for entry-level products. While advanced GMs may be into doing the work to determine the details of moral frameworks before play begins, it is a lot of work, and not a suitable effort for a novice.

 

[Tonguez]

This isn't about making a world free of real world assumptions of morality. This is about creating game rules free of real world assumptions of morality. You then create a setting or settings with different views of morality built in.

I suppose since we can't assume all goblins, orcs, or drow are bad guys anymore, we need undead to be as universally vile as possible just to make sure adventurers have something they can obliterate without any moral debate.

and here we have the most sensible answer to the issue in game - its not about assumptions of morality - its about creating game rules where adventurers have an enemy they can wantonly obliterate and be called heroic for doing so. Undead, Fiends and Monsters are such creatures - undead are the antithesis of life, they offend the ‘natural order’ so destroying them is a good heroic deed - ergo making undead is anti-heroic and not-good (aka Evil with a capital E)

 

[nevin]

This isn't about making a world free of real world assumptions of morality. This is about creating game rules free of real world assumptions of morality. You then create a setting or settings with different views of morality built in.

D&D has become as big as it has because it mostly conforms to those standard you don't want in the rules(my opinion obviously). They have even gone out of thier way on multiple occasions to make sure everyone know's this. Perhaps just perhaps sales are impacted by such decisions...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I obviously don't think that making zombies is completely unproblematic. It is just that among all sort of morally questionable things that happens in D&D I feel it seems weirdly inconsistent to highlight this one thing as specifically heinous. Cannibalism is neutral, killing is no problem and mind control is just fine. Consorting with devils or demons is not flagged as evil either. So if the players are allowed to make up their own mind about all of this, why not about undead creation?

And I am sensitive to the idea that the undead might be unnerving to some players in real life. But same goes for a lot of other topics that occur in the game too, and personally I would be way more worried about mind control magic than the corny pop-culture trope that is the zombie. Nor I think the game's in-universe moral system is the right tool for warning about potentially upsetting topics in any case.

Furthermore, whilst flagging undead creation as evil isn't particularly worrisome, the game has long history of the writers pushing their morals to the players and it mostly is not good one. The game still contains the notion that one's morality is linked to their race and in some cases literally to the colour of their skin. So I am really not in need of moral advice from this source.

 

[MGibster]

Furthermore, whilst flagging undead creation as evil isn't particularly worrisome, the game has long history of the writers pushing their morals to the players and it mostly is not good one. The game still contains the notion that one's morality is linked to their race and in some cases literally to the colour of their skin. So I am really not in need of moral advice from this source.

I too am unhappy when writers push their morals on me. I'm still upset that hack John Steinbeck devoted time to complaining about an economic sytem that physically and spirtually crushed people. I'm all like, "Just entertain me, dude."

 

[Micah Sweet]

This sounds like a conversation that led to F.A.T.A.L.

Jus' sayin'.

No idea what you're talking about. And please consider the sentence after the ones you quoted.