• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

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.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
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.

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.

Not so much that the diseases are worse as that larger lifeforms' health is worse, so their ability to fight disease is diminished.
I am fairly certain pure entropy does not work remotely like greenhouse gasses, secondly it is more we are unbalancing the natural gas distribution far too fast for life to cope.

look it is all a bunch of coping answers to say undead are evil to keep things static fantasy better to cut that and just let the crazy happen
 

log in or register to remove this ad

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Yeah, like that'll make the living serfs working the fields feel any better - "Even death doesn't end our toil!"
Oh no, I'm an equal opportunity employer, everyone, rich or poor, gets to support the nation! You just have to spin it as "doing your part to support your people even after death", make it seem like a great thing to do. For the greater good!
 


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
What you're gonna do with it then? Fry marshmallows?
Monsters, of course.
Monster.jpg
 


Stormonu

Legend
No no no, I really hope they don’t start indicating how D&D is supposed to be played. This will cause so many problems with perception of goodrightfun…
Yeah, I had enough of being told how I was supposed to play (Tanar'ri, Baatezu, goodbye Assassins and Half-Orcs) back in 2E.

(Lovely thread necromancy by the way)
 


payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
You don't need to worry about them starting; the publishers of D&D, whomever they are at any given time, have been doing it since at least Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods, & Heroes, in the "Introduction" dated July 4, 1976.

Nowadays, they generally do it rather more subtly than they did then. For example, it was not by accident that the Oathbreaker paladin and the Death cleric were in the 5e DMG, not the 5e PHB.

Whether or not I point out what they've been doing all along isn't going to change whether they've been doing it all along. And I don't think you should worry about them getting particularly more blatant going forward than they were in 5th edition simply because I point out what they've been doing.
Subtle is fine by me. Preferable to actually saying, "D&D is supposed to be played this way, you can of course not play it that way, but then you are not playing D&D as its supposed to be played."
 


Oofta

Legend
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.

The "as long as the zombies are under the necromancer's control" is part of why it matters. The necromancer only has control for 24 hours and then has to reassert control. If they oversleep, get distracted, die, whatever, the undead they created become free willed killing machines. In addition if you use the default fiction of D&D, which you don't have to do, the force behind necromantic energy is actively in opposition to life.

Fire has no inherent destructive nature, a fireball will not go on a murder spree because you are not watching it. The negative plane energy that powers necromancy does have a destructive nature that causes creatures created to hate all things living and want to destroy them.

Or not of course. Make the fiction your own but that is the reason why animate dead is evil if you use core rule concepts.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top