PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] In harsh environments, would eating a fallen ally be an alignment shift?



Pika...
2009-09-09, 01:55 PM
Just wondering.

Since I might end up reverting to my Frostburn stone age campaign idea now that my current campaign is dead in the water, I am planning for it to get pretty gritty if the PCs/players do not plan well and/or far enough ahead.

shadzar
2009-09-09, 01:56 PM
Well....you don't need the entire ally to rez them later. :smallsmile:

Yukitsu
2009-09-09, 01:58 PM
I'd say no. Cannibalizing a body as evil is culture dependant, and I frankly don't think those sorts of considerations match well with an absolutest system of morals, where you can't really argue that doing this is harmful to anyone.

Then again, we're zombies, so obviously eating people is a bit more natural to us. :smalltongue:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-09, 01:59 PM
It depends on how your character feels about it. The ally is already dead, so no alignment shift for killing him. The only axis that might change is law/chaos. If you subscribed to any sort of code that involved a prohibition on cannibalism, resorting to it is going to give you a few chaotic points. You might shift a bit towards chaos if you do it despite party members' protests.

Mongoose87
2009-09-09, 02:04 PM
As a zombie, I have to rule not eating him to be an evil act.

Lycan 01
2009-09-09, 02:07 PM
Would the dead PC have wanted his body to serve as food in order to keep his friends alive? More than likely, yes. I'd say no, it wouldn't cause an Alignment shift, unless it was for more... bloodthirsty reasons...

Yukitsu
2009-09-09, 02:08 PM
Does bloodthirsty reasons include drinking his blood, because it's rich in iron?

Drakyn
2009-09-09, 02:08 PM
Going by your stone age campaign context, you could go it one further and have it be a highly respectful act. You're making sure your pal's a part of your group forever now! Plus, this way you don't either (a) waste time and effort burying him (when you're starving), (b) cremate him (VERY difficult with that level of tech available, unless you've got some good magic), or (c) let him rot/get eaten by wildlife (which is probably disrespectful).

Zeta Kai
2009-09-09, 02:13 PM
I'd allow it, but clerics & paladins should ask their diety for atonement, if their god has a problem with that sort of thing. Desperate times call for desperate measures, but some gods would view it as a test of faith. For some reason, I'd expect druids & rangers to be able to do this without issue, but that's just me. Barbarians, as with most things, get a free pass, morally speaking.

Irreverent Fool
2009-09-09, 02:14 PM
It's opinion.

Now, if one of your allies falls in battle and you are all starving, I don't really see how this can be construed as evil.

If your party is starving and they realize only by eating one person can they survive, then decide on some sort of lottery (e.g.: drawing straws), as long as nobody was coerced into the lottery or cheats in some fashion, I don't think it's evil.

If someone up and kills another for the express purpose of eating them without consent, that's definitely evil.

If one sacrifices oneself willingly to be eaten by the party, I'd say that's a good act and partaking in the cannibalism at that point is not evil.

Historical cannibalism trials tend to mirror the above. Look some up. They're quite a read.

Oh and if you're a human? Eat an elf!

obnoxious
sig

Pika...
2009-09-09, 02:16 PM
Oh, and two more related questions please:

1. Would you require a fort save or something for the person to be able to stomach it? (Just thinking about it made me taste my breakfast)

2. How do you figure out how many day's worth of rations you can get out of a person? :smalleek:

I imagine it also would be helpful information if they will be doing a lot of hunting and rations preparing as well.

Typewriter
2009-09-09, 02:17 PM
You do have the possibilities of a character 'feeling' a certain way about the act which could influence them. Like someone said if they felt it was unlawful to do so, then they would 'feel' chaotic. If they thought it was 'evil' then they would 'feel' evil.

More than anything I'd say those 'feelings' would affect their roleplaying to see if they succumb than an actual 'change your alignment effect'.

The two things that I say really matter though are:
1. Do the gods care? If the gods of good look at it as an evil act, then it is one. The gods determine everything. If a dead body is nothing special, then what's the problem?

2. What is a body by your definition? I think, that as far as the books are concerned a dead body is considered an object. I thought I remembered reading that somewhere, but am unsure. If that's the case, then no - I don't think there should be any penalty for eating an object, as theres no reason to.



Short answer:
Roleplay wise should be up to the player
System wise should be up to the DM based off of his/her interpretation of the gods feeling on it in addition to 'what is a body?'.

Irreverent Fool
2009-09-09, 02:18 PM
Oh, and two more related questions please:

1. Would you require a fort save or something for the person to be able to stomach it? (Just thinking about it made me taste my breakfast)

2. How do you figure out how many day's worth of rations you can get out of a person? :smalleek:

I imagine it also would be helpful information if they will be doing a lot of hunting and rations preparing as well.

1. If you're starving, this becomes less of an issue. I think this would be unfair to force on a player and more a matter of willing RP.

2. That's not as difficult as it seems. I believe there is an entry for dried meat in the PHB.

obnoxious
sig

Yukitsu
2009-09-09, 02:20 PM
Probably half a person by weight is useable, depending on how good the players are at getting the most out of things.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-09, 02:38 PM
I would not class it an evil act in most cases, though I would look askance at a paladin who didn't want to atone afterwards.

Nai_Calus
2009-09-09, 05:42 PM
Just get Regeneration/a ring thereof, and hack the nice juicy fighter's leg off. Repeatedly. :smallamused:

Then no one has to starve to death.

Myou
2009-09-09, 05:46 PM
If doing so will prevent them being raised, yes.

If not, no. Though it may cause some player's lunches to shift.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-09, 05:55 PM
1. Would you require a fort save or something for the person to be able to stomach it? (Just thinking about it made me taste my breakfast)
Some people are disgusted by cannibalism. Others aren't. Ironically, a trace of nausea afflicted me at the thought of you being nauseous (sort of like a yawn), but I don't find much disgust in cannibalism. Sadness about death and disgust at eating raw meat, possibly, but I'm not an adventurer.



2. How do you figure out how many day's worth of rations you can get out of a person? :smalleek:

Medium characters need "a pound of decent food" per day. I'd allow human meat, if properly prepared, to serve as about 1/2 or maybe, maybe 3/4 of that requirement. If you're just eating meat, maybe 2-4 pounds/day would be needed to stave off damage, and then malnutrition may ensue.

Grumman
2009-09-09, 06:48 PM
It's threads like this that make me appreciate the Flux Adept.

"Hey, guys. While you were arguing about whether to eat Bob's corpse or starve, I found some nice, nutritious gravel.

Mmm, gravel."

Ormur
2009-09-09, 06:56 PM
There's probably something in the rules that disagrees with me but since eating your dead friend not to starve has no bad consequences I wouldn't rule it as being evil. It could even be good if you shared him with other starving people. But since cannibalism is a taboo in most cultures it could conceivably be considered chaotic. I wouldn't switch someones alignment either way for it though.

kjones
2009-09-09, 07:00 PM
2. How do you figure out how many day's worth of rations you can get out of a person? :smalleek:

I imagine it also would be helpful information if they will be doing a lot of hunting and rations preparing as well.

Hackmaster has rules for this! :smallbiggrin: Let's see if I can find them...

shadzar
2009-09-09, 07:04 PM
amount of rations?

I guess you mean in terms of a single person eating a whole ration. Well is all the edible parts were eaten, then figuring standard rations weight about a pound, you would have 20% of the weight in rations.

100 lb ally = 20 units of rations....you might get an extra pound out of the marrow in the bones of the ally.

Anything more than 20% would just be water anyway and not really provide any substance other than to make you feel full.

So for every 100 lbs of ally, you can get 20 simple rations, and for each ally you can squeeze another ration out of the marrow bones.

So enough to last a party of 4 surviving members a week under normal circumstances per 100lbs of ally.

:smallsmile:

If only you had a nice Chianti and some fava beans to go with the liver. :smallconfused:

quick_comment
2009-09-09, 07:06 PM
I would not have alignment change, but paladins would fall.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-09, 07:20 PM
Would it displease you to elaborate on that a bit? You don't need to, since the OP didn't strictly request more than such a simple answer, but the reasoning might be interesting.

The Mentalist
2009-09-09, 07:55 PM
Why would a paladin fall?

shadzar
2009-09-09, 07:59 PM
Why would a paladin fall?

Desecrating a corpse?

Project_Mayhem
2009-09-09, 08:02 PM
Seems to me like it entirely depends on your DMs personal prejudice/bias.

I'd say 'it's fine but try not make a habit of it', but then I can see why someone might say the opposite.

quick_comment
2009-09-09, 08:22 PM
Would it displease you to elaborate on that a bit? You don't need to, since the OP didn't strictly request more than such a simple answer, but the reasoning might be interesting.

A single evil act does not cause an alignment shift. A single evil act does cause a paladin to fall.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-09, 08:48 PM
It's funny, I'm a vegetarian, but I would have no qualms with eating someone in dire circumstances. Just cover their face, so I don't have to look at them. :smalleek:

awa
2009-09-09, 09:52 PM
I think one book book of exalted deeds maby? specified that eating a sentient was an evil act i don't know if it made any exception if you were starving.

evil-frosty
2009-09-09, 10:05 PM
Not sure if someone posted this, i sorta skimmed the thread so far. But would he eat his friend? Maybe its just me but i cant think about possibly eating one of my friends.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-09, 10:25 PM
Not sure if someone posted this, i sorta skimmed the thread so far. But would he eat his friend? Maybe its just me but i cant think about possibly eating one of my friends.

Your friend is dead. He died of his wounds, or of illness brought on back lack of nutrition, or some other agency other than your hands. You did not kill him. However, if you do not eat soon, you will also die. You are possibly too weak to hunt, lack the skills to do so, or are in an environment where that's not feasible.

Your choices:
1) Die.
2) Eat your friend's corpse.

Now, you know that dead people go to their afterlife. Their souls go away, their corpses are just husks of meat. While I doubt anyone would relish the thought of eating their friend, more people than you might expect would be willing to do so.

evil-frosty
2009-09-09, 10:35 PM
I just am having a hard time grasping it.

Myrmex
2009-09-09, 10:46 PM
A single evil act does not cause an alignment shift. A single evil act does cause a paladin to fall.

Cannibalism isn't harming anyone, so isn't evil.

A paladin, RAW, wouldn't fall. Unfortunately, most DMs view paladins through their own narrow ethos without regard to the universal one in the PHB (which is pretty easy to follow).

Faleldir
2009-09-09, 10:48 PM
But if you don't desecrate that corpse, it might become an eeeeevil undead! You fall!

Zeta Kai
2009-09-09, 10:55 PM
I just am having a hard time grasping it.

Well, I'll just run on the assumption that you've never been trapped in the wilderness for weeks, starving & surrounded by the corpses of your friends. Hunger has a strong effect on one's psychology; as one of humankind's most primordial & primal needs, it is an urge that supersedes most other concerns. A starving man will strangle someone for a mere morsel of food. Here in America, few people can appreciate the overpowering need to stave off hunger via any means necessary, but I've seen its effects firsthand, & I can understand the Donner Party's plight.

Also, remember that it can take a long time to die of starvation alone. The soccer team that was stranded in the Andes had shelter & snow, so they weren't in danger of a quick death from exposure or thirst. That left a lot of time to mull over the frozen corpses. It can take weeks to die of starvation alone. Weeks of emptiness, cramps, nausea, fatigue, delirium, & deteriorating mental & physical faculties. Plenty of time to get over the petty concerns of where your salvation comes from. Plenty of time to contemplate the fact that a handful of flesh will make you feel better, at least for a while.

I am a staunch vegetarian; I don't even eat marshmallows, Pop Tarts, or Skittles because of the gelatin in them. I haven't even meat on purpose in years, & I take steps to avoid accidental exposure. But I can tell you, in certain circumstances, I can guarantee that I would eat human flesh to survive. No doubt, the hunger inside us all would prevail.

Tokiko Mima
2009-09-09, 11:08 PM
I would say that in general: Eating people for food is not evil as long as it it is necessary. Eating people for any traditional, ritualistic, supernatural, or extraneous purpose beyond simple survival is immoral and evil. Unnecessarily hurting and killing people is the very definition of evil in D&D as I understand it.


Well, I'll just run on the assumption that you've never been trapped in the wilderness for weeks, starving & surrounded by the corpses of your friends. Hunger has a strong effect on one's psychology; as one of humankind's most primordial & primal needs, it is an urge that supersedes most other concerns. A starving man will strangle someone for a mere morsel of food. Here in America, few people can appreciate the overpowering need to stave off hunger via any means necessary, but I've seen its effects firsthand, & I can understand the Donner Party's plight.

Also, remember that it can take a long time to die of starvation alone. The soccer team that was stranded in the Andes had shelter & snow, so they weren't in danger of a quick death from exposure or thirst. That left a lot of time to mull over the frozen corpses. It can take weeks to die of starvation alone. Weeks of emptiness, cramps, nausea, fatigue, delirium, & deteriorating mental & physical faculties. Plenty of time to get over the petty concerns of where your salvation comes from. Plenty of time to contemplate the fact that a handful of flesh will make you feel better, at least for a while.

I am a staunch vegetarian; I don't even eat marshmallows, Pop Tarts, or Skittles because of the gelatin in them. I haven't even meat on purpose in years, & I take steps to avoid accidental exposure. But I can tell you, in certain circumstances, I can guarantee that I would eat human flesh to survive. No doubt, the hunger inside us all would prevail.

QFT!

Your brain does some not so funny things when you actually begin starving. As soon as you run out of fat and muscle it can easily burn, the body starts prioritizing vital systems in order to keep you alive. The areas of the brain associated with higher reasoning, logic and moral judgment gets much less blood flow and calories than normal, while the deeper more primordial (reptilian) side gets control. In that state most anyone would do whatever it takes to sustain themselves, scruples or not.

shadzar
2009-09-09, 11:08 PM
:smallredface: I love food, so the "can't grasp it" escapes me....

If I were hungry and trapped out of civilization with no other means of food around and their was a "friend" nearby, I think my hunting instincts would kick in, and dear old Bob would make for a nice Bob stew. :smallsmile:

Myrmex
2009-09-10, 01:53 AM
I would say that in general: Eating people for food is not evil as long as it it is necessary. Eating people for any traditional, ritualistic, supernatural, or extraneous purpose beyond simple survival is immoral and evil.

In your own ethical view, sure, but it's not RAW. In more liberal ethical views, it isn't, either. Hurting people is wrong. Eating a corpse, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, is not.

These sorts of "ugh! bad" emotional responses make me think morality is little more than emotivism.


Unnecessarily hurting and killing people is the very definition of evil in D&D as I understand it.

So every adventuring party, ever, is evil?

Face it- cannibalism may be gross, but there is no way you can stretch the D&D rules to make it an evil act.

Unless there's some silliness in the BoVD about cannibalism being evil.

Tokiko Mima
2009-09-10, 02:21 AM
In your own ethical view, sure, but it's not RAW. In more liberal ethical views, it isn't, either. Hurting people is wrong. Eating a corpse, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, is not.

These sorts of "ugh! bad" emotional responses make me think morality is little more than emotivism.

So every adventuring party, ever, is evil?

Face it- cannibalism may be gross, but there is no way you can stretch the D&D rules to make it an evil act.

Unless there's some silliness in the BoVD about cannibalism being evil.

I didn't say eating a corpse. I said 'eating people.' I guess it depends on what you consider to be human. We're not talking about eating just some random corpse, we're talking about someone who might have been your best friend. If you can divorce yourself from that fact, then sure, then eat up and you win the "I'm so hardcore" medal. I sure hope you won't have any sleepless nights later.

You're right by the way. Cannibalism is listed in the BoVD specifically along the lines I mentioned: If you *have* to do it to survive it's probably ok, but if you do it for gratification or commit murder in order to do it, it becomes "one of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."

Myrmex
2009-09-10, 02:43 AM
I didn't say eating a corpse. I said 'eating people.' I guess it depends on what you consider to be human. We're not talking about eating just some random corpse, we're talking about someone who might have been your best friend. If you can divorce yourself from that fact, then sure, then eat up and you win the "I'm so hardcore" medal. I sure hope you won't have any sleepless nights later.

That's an ad hominem argument. My feelings on the issue are irrelevant to the logic.

Regardless, a corpse is a corpse is a corpse. Certain social norms make us frown on eating something that we find dead, or certain types of food, or people. They're all cleanliness laws. There is nothing about eating a dead person, whether they were your best friend or not, that has anything to with the morality of hurting people. It is a complete non sequiter.

If you want to argue that morality includes rules on things that don't hurt people, you can go ahead and do so, but I personally don't ascribe to such a view, and the D&D rules, for the most part, don't either.


You're right by the way. Cannibalism is listed in the BoVD specifically along the lines I mentioned: If you *have* to do it to survive it's probably ok, but if you do it for gratification or commit murder in order to do it, it becomes "one of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."

The evil & perverse also have the same, horrible trait of "breathing". Does that make breathing evil?

Committing murder is always evil. It doesn't matter WHY you did it; murder is definitionally an evil act. That, however, is separate from cannibalism. You can eat people without having murdered them, in the same way a paladin can loot a corpse and not fall.

I'll concede that if the BoVD says it's evil, it's evil. But it doesn't really make sense, considering what makes a person good or bad in the section on good/bad morality. Eating a corpse might be an action that moves you around on the law/chaos axis. But then I'd be asking for D&D to have consistent rules.

[edit]
Have you heard of kuru? It's a prion disease caused by eating people brains. Afflicts tribes in New Guinea that have "mortuary feasts", where the living eat people who have passed away as a sign of respect and honor. We're talking about daughters eating their mothers and husbands eating wives.

Just something for you to... digest. :smallwink:

ghost_warlock
2009-09-10, 02:56 AM
Ah, reminds me of a quote from a Star Wars game, years ago...

"The rations'll keep. Those bodies'll go bad; we've got to eat them now!"

Background: the party had recently crash-landed on some desert planet with mildly hallucinogenic flora. The 'bodies' belonged to NPCs who'd died in the crash or during a botched attempt at scaling a nearby cliff to get a better idea about the lay-of-the-land.

Saurus33
2009-09-10, 04:28 AM
No.

If they expressed desire/being fine with being eaten while still living, it still wouldn't be an evil act to eat them, even if you had plenty of other food.

Hell, I personally would be fine with being eaten when I'm dead, and eating dead people.

It is a husk: meat is meat is meat.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-10, 04:34 AM
Well, I'll just run on the assumption that you've never been trapped in the wilderness for weeks, starving & surrounded by the corpses of your friends. Hunger has a strong effect on one's psychology; as one of humankind's most primordial & primal needs, it is an urge that supersedes most other concerns. A starving man will strangle someone for a mere morsel of food. Here in America, few people can appreciate the overpowering need to stave off hunger via any means necessary, but I've seen its effects firsthand, & I can understand the Donner Party's plight.


if it takes all that to understand, i can grasp why it might be hard for some to understand. :smallwink:

Tokiko Mima
2009-09-10, 04:46 AM
That's an ad hominem argument. My feelings on the issue are irrelevant to the logic.

Regardless, a corpse is a corpse is a corpse. Certain social norms make us frown on eating something that we find dead, or certain types of food, or people. They're all cleanliness laws. There is nothing about eating a dead person, whether they were your best friend or not, that has anything to with the morality of hurting people. It is a complete non sequiter.

If you want to argue that morality includes rules on things that don't hurt people, you can go ahead and do so, but I personally don't ascribe to such a view, and the D&D rules, for the most part, don't either.

Actually, I would characterize that as a pathetic fallacy, in that I am am arguing that an inanimate object (corpse) should be treated as animate (human.) If I seemed to you that I was attacking you as a person with my argument, I apologize. It was unintended and I have no idea how you would answer those questions, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand. I simply meant to write in an emotionally involving manner, because I feel in this case it is too easy to take a cold, clinical approach and miss the damage being done in this situation.

All told, the improvements in general health and the elimination of the prion disease you mentioned seem to suggest to me that cleanliness laws are actually fairly good ideas, regardless of a moral basis. But that has nothing to do with D&D.

Once dead, a human being is probably just a corpse, and it shouldn't matter what you do with it. However, this may be one of those areas where D&D evil becomes more subjective than usual. Because in the act of eating a friend you may be hurting a living human being, namely yourself. The emotional and psychological ramifications would of course depend on the type of person you are. Perhaps the level of evil would depend on how well an individual is able to disconnect the human being and friend it was from the corpse and meal it became.


The evil & perverse also have the same, horrible trait of "breathing". Does that make breathing evil?

Where in the BoVD does it say that "breathing" is a horrible trait of the perverse? Just because someone has trait A that defines them as evil/perverse, the fact that they possess trait B as well does not makes trait B evil/perverse.


Committing murder is always evil. It doesn't matter WHY you did it; murder is definitionally an evil act. That, however, is separate from cannibalism. You can eat people without having murdered them, in the same way a paladin can loot a corpse and not fall.

That depends on whether the paladin created said corpse with a high speed infusion of carbon steel mere moments ago, at which point the robbery becomes an additional evil for the paladin to atone for. Whether or not you killed the person for the purpose of taking from them is central to the question of whether or not an individual act of cannibalism is evil. In D&D terms, it makes the act a part of a greater evil.

It's difficult to divorce the act of cannibalism from the killing that must have preceded it, without the clause of necessity (which I think we both agree is acceptable and unavoidable in those extreme cases.) If you did, you need to first find someone that would want to eat a human being, then you would need to stubble upon a corpse without being responsible for it's death in any way, and then you would need to assure that by eating the corpse you aren't in someway hurting various next of kin (your corpse is their property after all), and then finally you should make sure the corpse is safe to eat, lest you spread a harmful degenerative disease. In that limited situation, I could see where cannibalism could be seen in a non-evil light. That has to be a minority of cases, though as I doubt most cannibals are that polite.


I'll concede that if the BoVD says it's evil, it's evil. But it doesn't really make sense, considering what makes a person good or bad in the section on good/bad morality. Eating a corpse might be an action that moves you around on the law/chaos axis. But then I'd be asking for D&D to have consistent rules.

[edit]
Have you heard of kuru? It's a prion disease caused by eating people brains. Afflicts tribes in New Guinea that have "mortuary feasts", where the living eat people who have passed away as a sign of respect and honor. We're talking about daughters eating their mothers and husbands eating wives.

Just something for you to... digest. :smallwink:

The alignment rules depend greatly on one's perspective. Oftentimes it's the definition that is chosen for the individual words that drives how it is applied. If "human" does not mean exactly the same to me as it does to you, then we're going to apply 'killing or hurting a human being' differently. So in a way, we are both correct despite holding mutually exclusive opinions on the subject.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-09-10, 06:15 AM
and then finally you should make sure the corpse is safe to eat, lest you spread a harmful degenerative disease.
Since when is eating tainted meat an evil act? That's not even chaotic! Your other criteria are fine, likening cannibalism to theft as it were, but I don't see how this even contributes to evilness. Unless you specifically set out to spread a plague with yourself as carrier, but what kind of insane evil scheme is that?

Killer Angel
2009-09-10, 06:35 AM
I just am having a hard time grasping it.

Also them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571#The_crash_and_rescu e), have a hard time thinking about eating their dead friends, but still...
(it's interesting to see that the climate is similar to the frostburn setting...)

Eldan
2009-09-10, 06:59 AM
Just an idea: in the real world, eating brains gives you Kudu. What does it give you in DnD?

Ghoulism (-dom? -ishness? Anyway.) I've seen it mentioned in several publications that eating a corpse can make you a ghoul. Of course, you don't have to do that, but it could be an interesting roleplaying hook. Your players eat a corpse, and survive. But days later, they have slain a goblin that tried to shoot them for their rations and suddenly, it's corpse is looking so tasty...

Myou
2009-09-10, 07:33 AM
Just an idea: in the real world, eating brains gives you Kudu. What does it give you in DnD?

Ghoulism (-dom? -ishness? Anyway.) I've seen it mentioned in several publications that eating a corpse can make you a ghoul. Of course, you don't have to do that, but it could be an interesting roleplaying hook. Your players eat a corpse, and survive. But days later, they have slain a goblin that tried to shoot them for their rations and suddenly, it's corpse is looking so tasty...

Eating brains gives you an antelope? o.o

shadow_archmagi
2009-09-10, 07:46 AM
"WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO STEVE"

"Grokking him."

Eldan
2009-09-10, 08:10 AM
Eating brains gives you an antelope? o.o

I meant Kuru. It's a brain disease you get from eating brains of the same species. (And probably related species too, which is why ape heads might not be an entirely healthy meal)

GallóglachMaxim
2009-09-10, 09:07 AM
The two most important things to consider when eating your friends in an emergency
1) Would the friend that you're eating mind?
2) Is this so delicious that you'd want some in a non-starvation situation?
and for bonus points
3) Would the guy you're eating have died/been dead already anyway? And was he dead when you started eating him?

If your answers are 'yes', 'yes', 'no' and 'no', you're probably looking at some consequences, alignment-wise, flip the 'yes'es and 'no's, and you've got a perfectly justifiable meal.

DrGonzo
2009-09-10, 09:29 AM
I just am having a hard time grasping it.

Those guys from Uruguay who crashed in the Andes had some initial trouble grasping it too, but after some arguments about who ate the last candy bar, they were knee deep in manflesh pretty quick..

Random832
2009-09-10, 09:45 AM
If your answers are 'yes', 'yes', 'no' and 'no', you're probably looking at some consequences, alignment-wise, flip the 'yes'es and 'no's, and you've got a perfectly justifiable meal.

Uh... what does question 2 have to do with alignment?

Drakyn
2009-09-10, 09:56 AM
I meant Kuru. It's a brain disease you get from eating brains of the same species. (And probably related species too, which is why ape heads might not be an entirely healthy meal)
You need to eat a brain from a person infected with Kuru specifically. So unless you're all highly canniballistic and very regularly eat the brains of other cannibals, this isn't usually an issue.

EDIT: And seriously, this is a stone age campaign. Plenty of room for cultures that regard cannibalism as an act of respect and a method of returning someone's strength to their pals. D&D's base morality is quite a ways off from this era.

Optimystik
2009-09-10, 10:12 AM
BoVD: Cannibalism is only evil if the eater gains pleasure from the act. In other words, they are doing it for dominance reasons rather than nutrition reasons. Th book even distinguishes creatures that do this as part of their nature (e.g. Dragons) from real cannibals using this metric, because a dragon usually "gains no more pleasure and definitely less sustenance from eating a human than they do from a cow."

This is contradicted somewhat by Draconomicon, which points out the Red Dragons' love of human flesh, particularly virgins, but perhaps BoVD is referring to dragons in general rather than a specific breed.

Asheram
2009-09-10, 10:22 AM
Well... As I see it. If the person dies naturally, or fallen in combat with someone else.. As long as you properly honour the bones, I'm sure that your allys ghost would be happy to serve you with his flesh even in death.

It's no alignment shift is the need is great, and not done for plesure.

DrGonzo
2009-09-10, 11:12 AM
BoVD: Cannibalism is only evil if the eater gains pleasure from the act. In other words, they are doing it for dominance reasons rather than nutrition reasons. Th book even distinguishes creatures that do this as part of their nature (e.g. Dragons) from real cannibals using this metric, because a dragon usually "gains no more pleasure and definitely less sustenance from eating a human than they do from a cow."

This is contradicted somewhat by Draconomicon, which points out the Red Dragons' love of human flesh, particularly virgins, but perhaps BoVD is referring to dragons in general rather than a specific breed.

But a dragon eating a human wouldn´t be cannibalism, since they´re different species.
Or is it regarded as cannibalism because dragons and humans are both intelligent species?

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-10, 11:30 AM
In D&D, "cannibalism" has been co-opted to mean "knowingly eating an intelligent species", rather than "eating a member of your own species".

Just like "race" now means "species" rather than "breed"...

shadzar
2009-09-10, 11:59 AM
The two most important things to consider when eating your friends in an emergency
1) Would the friend that you're eating mind?
2) Is this so delicious that you'd want some in a non-starvation situation?
and for bonus points
3) Would the guy you're eating have died/been dead already anyway? And was he dead when you started eating him?

If your answers are 'yes', 'yes', 'no' and 'no', you're probably looking at some consequences, alignment-wise, flip the 'yes'es and 'no's, and you've got a perfectly justifiable meal.

1- Does he know you are doing it, or did you just start to chow down in the middle of a conversation?

2- :smalleek:

3- :smalleek:

Optimystik
2009-09-10, 12:04 PM
But a dragon eating a human wouldn´t be cannibalism, since they´re different species.
Or is it regarded as cannibalism because dragons and humans are both intelligent species?

The latter. It also explains how neutral dragons, like Fang dragons, can eat humanoids and remain neutral.

John Campbell
2009-09-10, 02:59 PM
Eating fallen enemy tell him, I respect you. You good fight, strong. I win today, but other day it maybe different, yes? I eat your meat, gain your strength. Burn rest, send frûm to Wind on smoke.

Eating fallen Kindred same. Tell him, you lost last fight. That not bad, everyone do. You still strong fighter until end. I eat your meat, keep your strength for Clan. Send frûm to Wind on smoke.

Leave body lie, tell him, you weak. Maybe you fight, but not good fight. No strength worth taking. I not respect you. Wild beasts take you, maybe carrion-eaters need your strength. Frûm find own way to Wind.

Worst bury body in dirt like glob-hai. Tell him, you dirt, you filth. Thought of eating you make me sick, like eating from dung-pit. Put you in dirt where you belong, give you to filth-eating worms. Bury frûm away from Wind for always.

(My always-plays-Lawful-Stupid DM is so going to regret not actually reading any of the background I sent him for my half-orc barbarian before approving it...)

Myrmex
2009-09-10, 11:58 PM
Actually, I would characterize that as a pathetic fallacy, in that I am am arguing that an inanimate object (corpse) should be treated as animate (human.) If I seemed to you that I was attacking you as a person with my argument, I apologize. It was unintended and I have no idea how you would answer those questions, nor does it have any bearing on the argument at hand.

Which is a wonder why you brought it up in the first place.


I simply meant to write in an emotionally involving manner, because I feel in this case it is too easy to take a cold, clinical approach and miss the damage being done in this situation.

Emotions are a trap.


All told, the improvements in general health and the elimination of the prion disease you mentioned seem to suggest to me that cleanliness laws are actually fairly good ideas, regardless of a moral basis. But that has nothing to do with D&D.

I've never been a fan of nanny morality. It is a vile excuse for the erosion of rights.


Once dead, a human being is probably just a corpse, and it shouldn't matter what you do with it. However, this may be one of those areas where D&D evil becomes more subjective than usual. Because in the act of eating a friend you may be hurting a living human being, namely yourself. The emotional and psychological ramifications would of course depend on the type of person you are. Perhaps the level of evil would depend on how well an individual is able to disconnect the human being and friend it was from the corpse and meal it became.

What?
If Yandalla the Halfling Barbarian is raised in a tribe where they ritualistically eat their dead, I fail to see how this is going to harm anyone.


Where in the BoVD does it say that "breathing" is a horrible trait of the perverse? Just because someone has trait A that defines them as evil/perverse, the fact that they possess trait B as well does not makes trait B evil/perverse.

Right. Simply because the vile & perverse have a trait doesn't make the trait evil. The vile & perverse are greedy and covetous, traits shared with good dragons, including Gold ones.


That depends on whether the paladin created said corpse with a high speed infusion of carbon steel mere moments ago, at which point the robbery becomes an additional evil for the paladin to atone for.

So after a paladin kills an evildoer, he doesn't get to take his stuff?
What sort of D&D campaign are you playing in? :smallwink:


Whether or not you killed the person for the purpose of taking from them is central to the question of whether or not an individual act of cannibalism is evil. In D&D terms, it makes the act a part of a greater evil.

No; it's evil because you killed someone for utility. Increasing your utility at the direct expense of others is evil in D&D.


It's difficult to divorce the act of cannibalism from the killing that must have preceded it, without the clause of necessity (which I think we both agree is acceptable and unavoidable in those extreme cases.) If you did, you need to first find someone that would want to eat a human being, then you would need to stubble upon a corpse without being responsible for it's death in any way, and then you would need to assure that by eating the corpse you aren't in someway hurting various next of kin (your corpse is their property after all), and then finally you should make sure the corpse is safe to eat, lest you spread a harmful degenerative disease. In that limited situation, I could see where cannibalism could be seen in a non-evil light. That has to be a minority of cases, though as I doubt most cannibals are that polite.

So Karl the Lawful Neutral man-at-arms, a 7th level fighter, is attacked by enemy warriors. He has little recourse but to slay them. It's an ECL equivalent fight, so the -4 penalty to do non-lethal damage just isn't an option. After killing them, he decides that dead men don't need gold, or weapons, so puts them in his saddle bag, and continues on. Was any of that an evil act? If so, what should have he done? And do your non-evil characters do the same in D&D?

The same encounter, except this time, instead of Karl, it's Yandalla, the chaotic neutral barbarian mentioned above. She tears the men apart in a berserker rage, and, after her battle lust settles, checks the dead men for anything interesting. She finds some baubles and gold, but uninterested in such things, leaves them. She finds a nice axe, some sharp knives, and a nearly full wine skin.

One of the men had fought bravely, and with great ferocity, and so in honor of his animal spirit, and in hopes of capturing some of it, she consumes his heart, following the rituals as is custom for her tribe.

Was any of that evil? If so, why? Was any of it different from Karl's encounter?


The alignment rules depend greatly on one's perspective. Oftentimes it's the definition that is chosen for the individual words that drives how it is applied. If "human" does not mean exactly the same to me as it does to you, then we're going to apply 'killing or hurting a human being' differently. So in a way, we are both correct despite holding mutually exclusive opinions on the subject.

I'm contending that cannibalism does not hurt anyone, and you are equivocating that it does.

In fact, your long list of what would make cannibalism "ok" is really just a set of equivocations that you would never apply to any other behavior that adventurers engage in, but are doing so here because you find cannibalism squicky. Coincidentally, I find cannibalism squicky, too.


Just an idea: in the real world, eating brains gives you Kudu. What does it give you in DnD?

I believe you mean kuru.

This is a kudu:
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/kudu_slwp-0010_blog.jpg


Ghoulism (-dom? -ishness? Anyway.) I've seen it mentioned in several publications that eating a corpse can make you a ghoul. Of course, you don't have to do that, but it could be an interesting roleplaying hook. Your players eat a corpse, and survive. But days later, they have slain a goblin that tried to shoot them for their rations and suddenly, it's corpse is looking so tasty...

That's a neat idea. May be a little hard to implement, though. Reminds me of Pickman's Model.

Gan The Grey
2009-09-11, 02:16 AM
First, someone said earlier that the gods determine what is good and evil in the verse, but good and evil are separate from the gods, or all gods would be good, as what they decide is important to them, they would consider good, and against them, evil. Gods decide what is right and wrong in THEIR eyes, but good and evil are FAIRLY absolute in the D&D verse. Fairly, I say.

Second, the ability to be resurrected shouldn't be taken into account, as while the spell might be good, the act of resurrecting and being resurrected is a neutral act. Is preventing an evil mastermind from being resurrected an evil act? No. I would then say that preventing a good warrior from being resurrected to also not be evil. Death is natural. In essence, resurrection is unnatural, and could be considered LESS than neutral, not many steps above the creation of undead.

EDIT Let me extend on that. Resurrection is more of a NICE thing to do, like giving someone options. For the good person, "Would you like the neck massage or the guy who you don't know if he will give you a neck massage or beat you senseless?" because good people go to paradise, and paradise is always good, but real life is not so certain. For the evil person, "Would you like the guy who you don't know if he will give you a neck massage or beat you senseless, or these 400 guys who are going to rape you with spiny instruments for the next ten hours straight?" because bad people go to unparadise, and unparadise is always bad, but real life is not so certain. In fact, it seems like it is MORE good to resurrect an evil person that a good person.

Third, you are not desecrating a body just by eating it, especially if the eating is out of necessity. An alive human always takes priority over a dead one. It would be wrong to allow a dead human to prevent the continued living of another.

Fourth, as for the fortitude save? 'Hunger is the best seasoning.' I think, at the point that someone would be hungry enough to eat a friend, it really wouldn't matter to them anymore.

Fifth, a dead body is the property of no one. Saying it is the property of next of kin is a human convention, not a good/evil convention. The body belongs entirely to the soul that possesses it, and no one else. Once that soul vacates, the body no longer belongs to anyone or anything. It is merely rotting matter. You might say that it violates lawful/chaos conventions, but not good/evil.

And, John Campbell, you rock. :smallsmile: