if a druid eats someone, is it cannibalism?

[krossbow]

Basically, the title.

If a wildshaped druid eats its (humanoid) opponent, either by swallowing them whole or by devouring part of them, does that count as cannibalism?


A bear or dinosaur eating a human is all part of its normal fighting style, since the jaws are designed to chew things, and thats it primary weapon, but since the druid is ALSO a human/elf/ect. at the same time, would such an act be barbaric and horrendously evil?

[Eldariel]

Uh, no more or less horrendous than hitting someone with a sword?

[Apropos]

Well, if you swallowed it would be :smallamused:

[CollinPhillips]

It would depend on the campaign standard's morality definitions. In my opinion, it would only be evil if the druid intentionally took an animal form for the purpose of eating another humanoid.

[The Demented One]

People eating people is cannibalism. That's just...what it is. On the other hand, murdering people and then eating them is probably no more evil (in an objective, alignment-y way) than murdering people and not eating them.

[Temotei]

As noted, it would be evil if the druid changed shape just for the purpose of eating the opponent.

It would not be evil if you were going to gut them anyway...in a...good way. :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

[ondonaflash]

I think the important question going unsaid here is this: IF a druid is in wild shape, and IF a druid is in the arctic, and IF the druid eats a person, THEN does the druid become a Wendigo?

[Ashiel]

Basically, the title.

If a wildshaped druid eats its (humanoid) opponent, either by swallowing them whole or by devouring part of them, does that count as cannibalism?


A bear or dinosaur eating a human is all part of its normal fighting style, since the jaws are designed to chew things, and thats it primary weapon, but since the druid is ALSO a human/elf/ect. at the same time, would such an act be barbaric and horrendously evil?

Considering cannibalism isn't an evil act unto itself, especially horrendously so, I would say no. Even if it was cannibalism, who cares? It's not like he/she is hunting people specifically to eat them.

[sonofzeal]

{Scrubbed}

[krossbow]

Even if it was cannibalism, who cares?


party paladin; paladins may not knowingly travel with evil individuals after all.

[Grollub]

It would depend on the campaign standard's morality definitions. In my opinion, it would only be evil if the druid intentionally took an animal form for the purpose of eating another humanoid.

I agree here... if the druid expressly shapeshifted to pre-meditatedly ( is that a word :smalleek: ) eat someone.. then you could consider it evil, and canabalism. Otherwise, its him really just defending himself.

[Rainbownaga]

Cannibalism is more of a cultural taboo than an black/white sin. In some cultures it was an insult to not eat your enemies after you slew them.

Also, these are druids we are talking about; I would personally be more disappointed in the druid that leaves a perfectly good elf corpse to waste only to chow down on some freshly hunted venison.

That is, it wouldn't be evil even if he deliberately shape-shifted to eat the otherwise wasted meat.

[Superglucose]

party paladin; paladins may not knowingly travel with evil individuals after all.
Cannabalism is only immoral to our modern 21st century standards stemming from our western traditions. For examples of possible situations in which cannabalism is culturally acceptable, see A Dance in Fire (http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/dance_fire.shtml) or this bit of American history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party). If the party paladin tries to complain about how he can't travel with you because you're a cannibal and he'll lose his powers, throw facts and science with him and tell him to read that article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) and take the stick out of his ass. And yes, I mean his, and not his character's.

[sonofzeal]

Note that, even if it's an "evil act", that doesn't automatically give the druid an Evil alignment (a Neutral character should be expected to do evil occasionally), so the Paladin doesn't have to smite him. Still might lead to awkward conversations, though.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

"If you were a hot-dog, would you eat yourself?

Its a very simple question.

I know I would!"

[kpenguin]

Well, if the druid turns into a wendigo at some point, we'll know.

[Rainbownaga]

Does wildshape still give the animal type? If so, then technically you're not humanoid any more. (Just make sure you swallow before you change back)

For that matter, how close do you have to be to count as cannibalism? Is a human that eats an orc or an elf a cannibal?

As usual, the D&D setting adds so many complicating details that don't come up in real world issues.

[Optimystik]

Does wildshape still give the animal type? If so, then technically you're not humanoid any more. (Just make sure you swallow before you change back)

It doesn't, actually.


Wild Shape

...This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.


The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.

A Wild-shaped Druid is still humanoid, and the game treats him/her as such.

[Cyclocone]

Yes, the subtype thing is the key to this question.

Since cannibalism is usually defined as the act of eating members of ones own species, it would indeed be cannibalism for a wildshaped 3.5 human Druid to eat another human.

However, had the Druid in question actually been a 3.0 Druid, it would not constitute an act of cannibalism. Similarly so if the Druid had been polymorphed rather than wildshaped.


On a slight tangent, I wonder if eating a Monk would count as scavenging?

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, the subtype thing is the key to this question.

Since cannibalism is usually defined as the act of eating members of ones own species, it would indeed be cannibalism for a wildshaped 3.5 human Druid to eat another human.

However, had the Druid in question actually been a 3.0 Druid, it would not constitute an act of cannibalism. Similarly so if the Druid had been polymorphed rather than wildshaped.

I think the mind is also important here. The mind is still that of the druid. It is a human mind. They still have a will, they are still responsible for their moral choices. Therefore eating another human is still cannibalism in my opinion. This is what squicked me out in My Favourite Martian when the transformed girl ate the guard.

[TheOOB]

Yeah, I far as I can tell the taboo against cannibalism is really because it's a bad idea rather than it being immoral, at least at first. Any disease that human corpse has, you can catch from it under normal circumstances, so even cooked "meat" would be dangerous. Meat from other animals tend to carry far less diseases humans can catch, so it is safer.

Humans generally don't eat primates for the same reason, being closer to humans we can catch a higher percentage of their diseases.

In any case, I could see a character in a D&D setting having a taboo against consuming the flesh of any sapient creature, but I doubt anyone could say you are evil just for doing that(though how and why you killed them might change that).

I am reminded of the in depth philosophical conversations my Lawful Good monk and another players Chaotic Good ranger got in, sometimes even during combat. Fun times.

[Optimystik]

Please keep in mind that the only D&D source that mentions Cannibalism is BoVD, and it is not specifically called out as an Evil act. Rather, it is described as a "trait common to the evil and perverse."

In other words, this is a case of correlation, not causation.

In BoVD, cannibals are not limited by creature type. They are defined as "creatures who eat other intelligent creatures for pleasure." This clause absolves dragons, who eat intelligent beings instinctively (Draconomicon) rather than for pleasure. (However, some chromatics do eat for pleasure, such as red dragons preferring virgins.)

[Zeta Kai]

Cannabalism is only immoral to our modern 21st century standards stemming from our western traditions. For examples of possible situations in which cannabalism is culturally acceptable, see A Dance in Fire (http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/dance_fire.shtml) or this bit of American history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party). If the party paladin tries to complain about how he can't travel with you because you're a cannibal and he'll lose his powers, throw facts and science with him and tell him to read that article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) and take the stick out of his ass. And yes, I mean his, and not his character's.

Uh, do your homework. Cannibalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism) isn't "only immoral to our modern 21st century standards stemming from our western traditions." It's a taboo in most parts of the world, & has been for-pretty-much-ever. Many cultures have accused their enemies of cannibalism in an effort to dehumanize them, there are almost no groups today that still practice it, & many of the past accusations of cannibalism in history can be fit into one or more of three categories:

"We used to do that way back in the day; look how far we've come."
"Those guys do that; we are so much better than they are."
"Those guys really did that; OMG they are effing insane."

Claiming that anti-cannibalism is some newfangled prudishness is implausibly ignorant. The Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_party) was notable for the sole reason that they committed cannibalism out of sheer desperation. In 1847. Alfred Packer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Packer) is (AFAIK) the only person in the US ever convicted of cannibalism, after a similar incident in 1874. These are isolated instances of abberant behavior, famous for said abberations, not some semi-common practice that is looked back on with white-washed squeemishness.

And the implication that an aversion to cannibalism is a "western" thing is insulting to all eastern cultures. Take a peak at the history of Middle Eastern, Indian, Chinese, & Japanese cultures. Then look at Russia, Mongolia, Tibet, & Persia. Cannibalism doesn't come up often, & most of the time it does, the facts usually are behind my previous "it didn't really happen" assertion. Don't insinuate that non-western values allow for cannibalism, in any age.

[Ravens_cry]

Cannibalism occurs in humans under two primary circumstances. Extreme food shortage, like famines and and sieges, and for ritual purposes, like eating an enemies heart or brain to get his power.

[AdalKar]

Personally I don't think it would be an evil act if the druid in question has a good cause of doing it.
My characters that tend to be nature-orientated (is this proper english??? :smalleek: ) are likely to use all they can get from nature, so if they are attacked by animals and the animals get killed in the fight, my characters will use their hide, flesh and maybe the bones... So, why should I waste the flesh and bones of other types of creatures? :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Personally I don't think it would be an evil act if the druid in question has a good cause of doing it.
My characters that tend to be nature-orientated (is this proper english??? :smalleek: ) are likely to use all they can get from nature, so if they are attacked by animals and the animals get killed in the fight, my characters will use their hide, flesh and maybe the bones... So, why should I waste the flesh and bones of other types of creatures? :smallwink:
One word: Kuru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29).
It's basically human mad cow disease and it apparently comes from cannibalism.

[AdalKar]

Of course, there are diseases, but a druid has a good fort save and the spell cure disease is available to a druid at the time he can wildshape.
Also there is the spell "purify food and drink", should'nt that take care of that bad diseases anyway?

[mikej]

I like how people are discussing the morality of cannibalism while I have done it ( As a Druid ) before in game. Also on three seperate occasions.

[Ravens_cry]

Of course, there are diseases, but a druid has a good fort save and the spell cure disease is available to a druid at the time he can wildshape.
Also there is the spell "purify food and drink", should'nt that take care of that bad diseases anyway?
You can also get the regeneration of limbs and even eventually raise the dead. Does that make casual amputation and murder an OK thing?

[waterpenguin43]

It is cannibalism, but I think it's no more evil than blasting them with fireball or slashing them with a sword. So long as it isn't for sadistic pleasure.

[Scorpions__]

I think the Druid may be the only one actually able to commit cannibalism without it being inherently evil. That is of course only if it is not pre-meditated.

However, if you're looking at it from a non-divine perspective, it may not be that bad, other animals eat what they kill, so perhaps it is not evil to devour your enemies.

If you're a druid though, you must follow the ways of nature and/or your god, and that might mean restraining yourself from eating your own kind, even if you look different at the moment of consumption. If it's a sin, it's a sin.

As for diseases and such, does anyone know of a 3.5 conversion of Grub Worms from AD&D? My CE Cleric of Melkor once... experimented in... undercooked human.





DM[F]R

[Ormur]

Being a druid makes it kind of okay in my eyes. They're supposed to be those avatars of nature, required to maintain a neutral alignment on at least on axis. Eating other creatures while in animal form just seems like something druids would do as a matter of course whether it was an animal or a humanoid, except perhaps lawful and good druids. Considering that killing isn't evil in D&D and that cannibalism is just a cultural taboo (albeit a very common one) I would view it more as a chaotic act if the killing itself wasn't evil.

[herrhauptmann]

Uh, do your homework. Cannibalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism) isn't "only immoral to our modern 21st century standards stemming from our western traditions." It's a taboo in most parts of the world, & has been for-pretty-much-ever. Many cultures have accused their enemies of cannibalism in an effort to dehumanize them, there are almost no groups today that still practice it, & many of the past accusations of cannibalism in history can be fit into one or more of three categories:

"We used to do that way back in the day; look how far we've come."
"Those guys do that; we are so much better than they are."
"Those guys really did that; OMG they are effing insane."

Claiming that anti-cannibalism is some newfangled prudishness is implausibly ignorant. The Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_party) was notable for the sole reason that they committed cannibalism out of sheer desperation. In 1847. Alfred Packer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Packer) is (AFAIK) the only person in the US ever convicted of cannibalism, after a similar incident in 1874. These are isolated instances of abberant behavior, famous for said abberations, not some semi-common practice that is looked back on with white-washed squeemishness.

And the implication that an aversion to cannibalism is a "western" thing is insulting to all eastern cultures. Take a peak at the history of Middle Eastern, Indian, Chinese, & Japanese cultures. Then look at Russia, Mongolia, Tibet, & Persia. Cannibalism doesn't come up often, & most of the time it does, the facts usually are behind my previous "it didn't really happen" assertion. Don't insinuate that non-western values allow for cannibalism, in any age.
-Chill out, I don't think he was trying to imply that mideastern, african, asian etc cultures were all evil cannibals in the past simply because they're not from the western hemisphere. Turns out, the world is big enough, with enough history, that all types would have flourished at one time or another in ALL regions of the world. ex: monotheism. It existed before the Catholic church started converting pagans under threat of death. It existed in pre-christian cultures that did not practice Judaism too.
-As of about 5 years ago, there was some resurgent debate on the Donner party. Accounts of a surviving child said 'no cannibalism'. A couple of adults swapped between yes and no cannibalism. And forensic evidence on recovered bodies that were supposedly from the group did not show any indication they had been butchered (knife marks along the femur, etc).
-What was Jeffrey Dahmer convicted of? Multiple counts of murder. And I know he ate victims. Was he convicted of cannibalism too?
-A human devouring an elf or dwarf (whether he is wildshaped or not) is not cannibalism, because they're different species. (has been said) Wildshaped druids gain the shapechanger subtype, don't they?
-For that matter, cannibalism probably survived until later in the N. and S. America than it did in Europe, Asia, Africa. Somewhere there's a history major in this forum who can authenticate that.

[Starbuck_II]

Only if he eats his own race. An human eating an orc isn't.

[Ormur]

I'm no expert but the real (as opposed to mythical and propagandist) examples of cannibalism I know of were ritual. Some North American Indians practices it and tribes in Papua New Guinea also did more recently, hence kuru which someone mentioned previously.

Since western culture and such was brought up there is an interesting case of rather recent European cannibalism, the use of mummies (or alleged mummies but perhaps more recently dead humans) as medicine. The Second World War also saw instances of cannibalism.

Also in D&D I would not limit cannibalism to the same species but sentient species or inter-humanoid at least. In the context of most D&D setting what would be the difference between a human eating a human and a human eating an elf.

[Optimystik]

Also in D&D I would not limit cannibalism to the same species but sentient species or inter-humanoid at least. In the context of most D&D setting what would be the difference between a human eating a human and a human eating an elf.

Your interpretation is the one BoVD uses - however, such ingestion must be for purposes of pleasure, rather than sustenance, to count as cannibalism.

[Thajocoth]

I'd say that if the druid is capable of procreating with someone of the species they ate, then it's cannibalism. Cannibalism usually refers to the eating of one's own species, but in that definition, creatures of different species can never mate. In D&D, an Elf and a Human can mate, and either eating the other is clearly cannibalism. That's how I came up with my definition. So an Elf druid that's shaped like a bear and eats a Human, is a cannibal.

This does bring up the question though: Can a druid procreate with an animal if they become that animal?

The implications of this get more complex when you bring dragons into the picture. They need to eat meat and can procreate with any species. Therefore they MUST be cannibals.

I'd say that cannibalism is chaotic though. It's the killing that's good or evil. Cannibalism just goes against laws... And really that only applies in or near towns/cities/villages. There are plenty of situations in the middle of nowhere or in dungeons where I'd call it neutral. Animals eat animals.

[Xan_Kriegor]

You can also get the regeneration of limbs and even eventually raise the dead. Does that make casual amputation and murder an OK thing?

Could I sig this? It's just too awesome to pass up. :biggrin:

[Da'Shain]

I'd have to agree with what seems to be the majority here, and say that yes, it's cannibalism, but no, it's not an inherently Evil act.

[Ravens_cry]

Only if he eats his own race. An human eating an orc isn't.
But a human can breed with an orc. Quite easily too. And the resulting progeny are not sterile. This leads me to believe that an orc and human are extremely related to, if not sub-species of, each other. Besides, even if it wasn't biological cannibalism, it would still be moral and ethical cannibalism. I am sorry, but eating something you can talk to in a meaningful way is cannibalism, IMNHO.

[Ormagoden]

Is the creature on the menu sentient? if so, then yes, it is cannibalism.

/thread.

[Ravens_cry]

Could I sig this? It's just too awesome to pass up. :biggrin:
Sure, be my guest. My ego thanks you.:smallredface:

[Optimystik]

Only if he eats his own race. An human eating an orc isn't.

This would still be cannibalism in D&D, even if it isn't strictly so in the real world.

[Starbuck_II]

Officially, Canabalism is a human eating a human.
In zoology, it is any creature that eats a member of its own kind. But humans are not orcs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

[Optimystik]

Officially, D&D Cannibalism is defined in BoVD.


Cannibals are creatures that eat others of their own kind. In the broader sense, cannibals may be defined as creatures that eat other intelligent creatures for whatever perverted pleasure they gain from it.

[Starbuck_II]

So if you don't gain pleasure you don't fit defiition in BoVD. So don't be happy when you (the druid) does it.

[deuxhero]

Rend...
Slaughter...
Devour your enemies!
There is no other way to survive. You cannot escape your hunger, Warriors of Purgatory!
(sorry)

There is nothing "evil" about cannibalism (aside from killing someone, or trespassing+vandalizing someone elses property if the body was already dead). It's just a stupid thing to do as the same species is generally going to be carrying something the species can contract. Unless you get Divine Health from an ACF (not unreasonable), I wouldn't blame the DM for subjecting you to save vs disease.

[Optimystik]

There is more - Cannibalism is a component of some vile spells. This leads to the second clause:


Cannibals gain pleasure, and in some cases power (see the absorb mind and absorb strength spells in Chapter 6), from eating others.

So while pleasure is usually a requisite, doing it solely for power counts as cannibalism also.

[Ravens_cry]

So if you don't gain pleasure you don't fit defiition in BoVD. So don't be happy when you (the druid) does it.
Considering that they are very unlikely to be doing it out of necessity, rations are cheap and light, what other option is there? If their so concerned about it 'going to waste', expose it outdoors. Scavengers will pick it clean soon enough.

[deuxhero]

There is more - Cannibalism is a component of some vile spells. This leads to the second clause:


Using the BoVD as a guide to actual sane evil is... eh.


If you are somehow immune to disease, I'd say eating people you kill is intresting roleplaying for a druid.

[Optimystik]

Using the BoVD as a guide to actual sane evil is... eh.

I don't recall ever saying it was "evil" and neither does BoVD. Please read my posts.

[deuxhero]

Ok, correction.

Using the BoVD for anything but giving the BBEG cewl powerz is eh.

[Ravens_cry]

Using the BoVD as a guide to actual sane evil is... eh.
Still ,we don't have other relatable sentient creatures on this planet, so zoological and moral cannibalism are essentially the same. D&D has more creatures you can talk to then you can shake General Sherman (the tree, not the general) at, so using the moral definition is pertinent. And considering how many creatures humans can make babies with, the zoological definition may also count.

[Optimystik]

Using the BoVD for anything but giving the BBEG cewl powerz is eh.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but if someone asks "Does D&D consider X to be Y?" generally the best route to the answer is through D&D sources.

[Starbuck_II]

Still ,we don't have other relatable sentient creatures on this planet, so zoological and moral cannibalism are essentially the same. D&D has more creatures you can talk to then you can shake General Sherman (the tree, not the general) at, so using the moral definition is pertinent. And considering how many creatures humans can make babies with, the zoological definition may also count.

Either way BoVD says eating other people is evil if you gain power or pleasure from it.
If you don't gain either: no evil.

[Optimystik]

Either way BoVD says eating other people is evil if you gain power or pleasure from it.
If you don't gain either: no evil.

It doesn't say that. :smallannoyed:
It says eating other people is cannibalism if you gain power or pleasure from it. (i.e. regardless of whether they share your specific race or not.)

Cannibalism is not inherently Evil, even in BoVD. It's just something that a depraved individual might do. My very first post: correlation != causation.

[Da'Shain]

That seems rather odd. Why would intent and benefit make it cannibalism or not? I could see that mattering morally, but as a simple definitional thing?

[Tiki Snakes]

That seems rather odd. Why would intent and benefit make it cannibalism or not? I could see that mattering morally, but as a simple definitional thing?


This is just an example of one of the many good reasons for ignoring the BoVD and BoED.

[erikun]

So what we have learned from BoVD:

1.) It's not cannibalism unless you liked it.
2.) Even if you liked it, it wasn't evil. (Although perhaps killing them was.)

That... seems odd, although it ultimately pans out to "eating opponents in combat is not (necessarily) evil", which I think most of the others have agreed with.

[Tiki Snakes]

and is very much something my own druid will be doing, all over the place.

He may even enjoy it.

Of course, I'm running him in a slightly throwaway campaign, and he has lost his mind. Thinks he's a Wolf, so it's really not relevant unless Dog is suddenly on the menu. ^_^

[deuxhero]

Either way BoVD says eating other people is evil if you gain power or pleasure from it.
If you don't gain either: no evil.

But unless you don't need to eat, you do gain power from it (same as eating anything else).

[Asbestos]

A bear or dinosaur eating a human is all part of its normal fighting style, since the jaws are designed to chew things, and thats it primary weapon, but since the druid is ALSO a human/elf/ect. at the same time, would such an act be barbaric and horrendously evil?
Everyone seems to be missing this part...

This is only true for things that have 'swallow whole' in their entry, for which actually eating something is a viable means of killing it (T-Rex = Gulper Eel?). A Bite attack is not a Bite-Chew-Swallow Attack. For many (I'm not saying all because of African Wild Dogs and Sharks) animals, killing and eating are two separate things. You maul/bite something to death first, then you go about chewing on it or tearing chunks off it.

So no, if you wildshape into a bear and bite someone to death, you are not a cannibal. If you are biting and tearing chunks out of people and then eating those chunks you are going out of your way to be cannibalistic.

[HunterOfJello]

Wildshaped druids can only eat humanoids without it being considered canibalism if humanoids can eat a wildshaped druid without it being considered canibalism.

[krossbow]

Wildshaped druids can only eat humanoids without it being considered canibalism if humanoids can eat a wildshaped druid without it being considered canibalism.


Hmmm... could you feed the poor by wildshaping into a cow, cutting parts off yourself and then using healing spells to fix the wounds?

[deuxhero]

Wouldn't casting goodberry (or even create food and water) be easier?

[krossbow]

eh, true i guess. i overlook how easy it is to get food sometimes in d&d; i still don't know why farmers continue to exist sometimes.

[Optimystik]

That seems rather odd. Why would intent and benefit make it cannibalism or not? I could see that mattering morally, but as a simple definitional thing?

Because without it, we are left with the dictionary definition, whereby elves could eat orcs all day long without it being cannibalism because they don't share a race. Yeah, that makes much more sense.


This is just an example of one of the many good reasons for ignoring the BoVD and BoED.

You're quite welcome to do so, but you're kind of stuck for D&D definitions of the things they define if you do.

[Scorpions__]

Slightly related to this, does anyone know of a 3.5 conversion of Rot Grubs or... something like that from AD&D for 3.5? Anyone else remember that picture of the guy looking down horrified at the grubs coming out of his arm? That's what I got for cannibalism...







DM[F]R

[kpenguin]

Officially, Canabalism is a human eating a human.
In zoology, it is any creature that eats a member of its own kind. But humans are not orcs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Well, a common of "species" is a unit of organisms that are able to produce fertile offspring through interbreeding. Orcs and humans are able to do so, therefore they may be the same species.

[RebelRogue]

Cannibalism in D&D is sentient beings eating other sentient beings. Is it Evil? It certainly has a creepy quality about it, which is of course rooted in real world cultural taboos (which are again rooted in health risks as has been pointed out). A druid accidentally eating bits and pieces of a sentient enemy while fighting wildshaped is surely all right. Deliberately and systematically eating such foes is more of a grey area, but it really comes down to the question: does this feel like a sick habit or is it just the druid's way of being one with nature? Vague, I know, but in practice that's how I'd decide.

[Asbestos]

Slightly related to this, does anyone know of a 3.5 conversion of Rot Grubs or... something like that from AD&D for 3.5? Anyone else remember that picture of the guy looking down horrified at the grubs coming out of his arm? That's what I got for cannibalism...


I refuse to help another DM use these things on a party. They exist purely to screw people over, like rust monsters but not as cute.

[Optimystik]

Slightly related to this, does anyone know of a 3.5 conversion of Rot Grubs or... something like that from AD&D for 3.5? Anyone else remember that picture of the guy looking down horrified at the grubs coming out of his arm? That's what I got for cannibalism...

That's a picture of a druid necromancy spell, Infestation of Maggots or something like that.

[Volkov]

Well, a common of "species" is a unit of organisms that are able to produce fertile offspring through interbreeding. Orcs and humans are able to do so, therefore they may be the same species.

That definition is no longer in use, servals and cats can make fertile offspring and aren't even in the same genus.

[Starbuck_II]

I've had a Elven Wu-jen eat Dwarf before. The party Dwarf didn't like it but according to the DM it tasted great (it was a stew).

Since Elves/Dwarf can't mate does that make them seperate species?

[Scorpions__]

Thinking about it now, I can little oppurtunity for a Druid to eat somebody whole without it being evil. Until higher levels , you have very limited options as far as swallowing an enemy whole would go. Tyrannasaurus Rex maybe... But if you were a bear you would have to kill your enemy before you chowed down. As I DM I would probably rule it evil if you just started eating your enemy after he was dead, if you swallowed him whole though as part of an attack... meh...

As I said though, I think it really depends on the Druid's personal and divine beliefs, maybe he's just another animal getting his fill...





DM[F]R

[Ormur]

Wildshaped druids can only eat humanoids without it being considered canibalism if humanoids can eat a wildshaped druid without it being considered canibalism.

Do wildshaped druids revert back to their original form if they're killed? If not some humanoid adventurers might kill a druid without knowing it was humanoid and then eat him. An evil party might even savour the irony of eating a wildshaped druid they knew was humanoid if it was wildeshaped as something tasty (boar for example).

D&D makes it so complicated that making cannibalism invariably evil as defined by D&D would be silly, I don't even think it is in the real world (distastefull certainly). If the cannibalism is accompanied by other evil act it migth perhaps make them worse though.

[hamishspence]

That definition is no longer in use, servals and cats can make fertile offspring and aren't even in the same genus.

Serval/domestic cat hybrids tend to be a mix of fertile and infertile for the first few generations though.

Genus/genus fertile hybrids are rarer than species/species hybrids- but they do exist, the aforementioned Serval/domestic cat being one.

[Gnaeus]

-For that matter, cannibalism probably survived until later in the N. and S. America than it did in Europe, Asia, Africa. Somewhere there's a history major in this forum who can authenticate that.

The brits had a major national legal discussion on the practice of cannibalism on the high seas in the late 19th century. As it turns out, the practice of drawing lots to eat ones fellow crewmen if you are stranded was universally condemned as immoral at about the same time that modern shipping and food storage made it irrelevant.

No doubt a coincidence.

(before that they apparently used roman law for their maritime customs and necessity was a complete defense).

Edit: The history major didn't help me there. We read the case in law school.

[bobspldbckwrds]

just going to throw this out here, but the ponca tribe, located in oklahoma, still practices ritual cannibalism.

yes, it is protected by law, and is considered one of the highest honors that a tribal elder can recieve.

so, yes, it is unsanitary, and looked down on as depraved, but there is a bit of moral ambiguity to it. it all comes down to the cultures that you throw into your game.

[hamishspence]

I got the impression it wasn't the cannibalism, so much as the killing of the guy after he drew the short straw and said "I've changed my mind- I don't want to be killed" that was the big issue.

Survival cannibalism without killing people- such as in the case which was dramatised in the movie Alive- is not looked on with as much suspicion as far as I can tell.

[Jayngfet]

just going to throw this out here, but the ponca tribe, located in oklahoma, still practices ritual cannibalism.

yes, it is protected by law, and is considered one of the highest honors that a tribal elder can recieve.

so, yes, it is unsanitary, and looked down on as depraved, but there is a bit of moral ambiguity to it. it all comes down to the cultures that you throw into your game.

You're assuming that Real=Morally Ambiguous. A quick look through history will show that just because a culture existed that doesn't make them a bunch of horrible people. Eating people is kind of a big no if you want any sort of moral high ground, and weather or not the law says you can or can't doesn't make you a better or worse person.

[Ormur]

You're assuming that Real=Morally Ambiguous. A quick look through history will show that just because a culture existed that doesn't make them a bunch of horrible people. Eating people is kind of a big no if you want any sort of moral high ground, and weather or not the law says you can or can't doesn't make you a better or worse person.

But what's wrong with ritual cannibalism from a moral standpoint? Going by utilitarian principles you aren't hurting anybody alive nor his relatives since they condone it. You can use other moral principles but a dead person is still an inanimate object that has no feelings, it's only the feelings of his loved ones that matter. Society may find it distasteful whatever the circumstances but such taboos, no matter how universal, don't necessarily equal immoral behaviour.

[Starbuck_II]

But what's wrong with ritual cannibalism from a moral standpoint? Going by utilitarian principles you aren't hurting anybody alive nor his relatives since they condone it. You can use other moral principles but a dead person is still an inanimate object that has no feelings, it's only the feelings of his loved ones that matter. Society may find it distasteful whatever the circumstances but such taboos, no matter how universal, don't necessarily equal immoral behaviour.

Agreed, it isn't a moral issue, but a fear issue. If a guy can consider you food: how do you trust them?

[Da'Shain]

Because without it, we are left with the dictionary definition, whereby elves could eat orcs all day long without it being cannibalism because they don't share a race. Yeah, that makes much more sense.It doesn't, but a much simpler definition would be simply the "eating another sentient creature" one, rather than turning the term cannibalism itself into a moral judgment.

[Riffington]

Going by utilitarian principles you aren't hurting anybody alive nor his relatives since they condone it.

You can easily condemn it by utilitarian principles. Related to Starbuck's comment: even if in a specific case utilitarianism may seem to promote it, practicing it makes that case come up more often, so utilitarianism must reject it.

Analogy: using prisoners for medical research. Clearly on an individual case it may be all-ok, but once you open that door, you open it to significant abuse - enough abuse potential that it's worth rejecting.

[Optimystik]

It doesn't, but a much simpler definition would be simply the "eating another sentient creature" one, rather than turning the term cannibalism itself into a moral judgment.

BoVD doesn't turn it into a moral judgment. The book contains many other moral judgments, but cannibalism isn't one of them.

It can't make it simply "eating another sentient creature" or else all dragons would be cannibals. This is clearly explained in the passage; intent is key.

[Draz74]

Personally I'd say the OP's question depends on how long the Druid stays in beast form after eating a foe. If it's at least e.g. 6 hours, I'd say it's not cannibalism.

[Da'Shain]

BoVD doesn't turn it into a moral judgment. The book contains many other moral judgments, but cannibalism isn't one of them.

It can't make it simply "eating another sentient creature" or else all dragons would be cannibals. This is clearly explained in the passage; intent is key.What's wrong with all dragons being cannibals? And do dragons require intelligent prey, or is that supposedly the easiest for them to catch? (Not being sarcastic or anything; I thought dragons could subsist just as well on normal animals and such, but I could be wrong.)

Anyway, I was taking the "power and pleasure" line to mean above and beyond the normal power and pleasure derived from eating food, namely, sustenance and flavor. It seems kind of ridiculous to me that eating someone because you're hungry is not cannibalism, while eating someone because you're a sadist or you think it'll give you magic powers is. That pretty clearly makes it a moral judgment, at least IMO.

[Optimystik]

What's wrong with all dragons being cannibals?

Because, although they are sentient/intelligent themselves, eating living creatures is instinctive behavior for them. They are thinking beings, but predators first and foremost (Draconomicon.) By BoVD, they gain no more pleasure from eating a human than they do from eating a cow. It's just what they do.


And do dragons require intelligent prey, or is that supposedly the easiest for them to catch? (Not being sarcastic or anything; I thought dragons could subsist just as well on normal animals and such, but I could be wrong.)

They can subsist on anything, even rocks in lean times. (Draconomicon again.)


Anyway, I was taking the "power and pleasure" line to mean above and beyond the normal power and pleasure derived from eating food, namely, sustenance and flavor. It seems kind of ridiculous to me that eating someone because you're hungry is not cannibalism, while eating someone because you're a sadist or you think it'll give you magic powers is. That pretty clearly makes it a moral judgment, at least IMO.

Yes, but there it is the vile magic itself that is evil - the cannibalism is incidental. There are vile spells that require taking drugs too, but that isn't evil either. The idea is to entice you into depraved acts to make society shun you.

Likewise, being a sadist is what makes you evil, not the act of cannibalism that is common to sadists but also common to other beings. Correlation, not causation.

[faceroll]

Because, although they are sentient/intelligent themselves, eating living creatures is instinctive behavior for them. They are thinking beings, but predators first and foremost (Draconomicon.) By BoVD, they gain no more pleasure from eating a human than they do from eating a cow. It's just what they do.

That seems like a really easy defense to keep paladins off your lawn. "I'm naturally a sociopath, it's cool."

That defense gets unevenly applied to monsters, I've noticed. There are a lot of neutral intelligent predatory types that are known to prey on manflesh, just as there are a bunch of evil ones. Poor orcses.


So no, if you wildshape into a bear and bite someone to death, you are not a cannibal. If you are biting and tearing chunks out of people and then eating those chunks you are going out of your way to be cannibalistic.

Arguably, the druid who spends his combat actions gobbling people from the cockpit of his F-14 is going out of his way to be a cannibal.

[Da'Shain]

Because, although they are sentient/intelligent themselves, eating living creatures is instinctive behavior for them. They are thinking beings, but predators first and foremost (Draconomicon.) By BoVD, they gain no more pleasure from eating a human than they do from eating a cow. It's just what they do.Well, aside from the whole "eating living creatures is instinctive for every predatory/omnivorous species" argument, what's wrong with such behavior making them cannibalistic? Or are you saying (or the BoVD saying, I guess I should say) that it's not cannibalism unless there is a conscious decision to eat an intelligent creature instead of a non-intelligent one?


They can subsist on anything, even rocks in lean times. (Draconomicon again.)Didn't know that, hehe. Dragons really did get the jackpot of survivability.


Yes, but there it is the vile magic itself that is evil - the cannibalism is incidental. There are vile spells that require taking drugs too, but that isn't evil either. The idea is to entice you into depraved acts to make society shun you.

Likewise, being a sadist is what makes you evil, not the act of cannibalism that is common to sadists but also common to other beings. Correlation, not causation.But what, then, is the situation in which cannibalism is not an evil act, when the intent must be for "pleasure or power" above and beyond that of normal food, and the examples of cannibalism all point to evil acts?

Basically, my problem with that definition is that it links cannibalism with evil by default; even if it is not necessarily caused by evil (which it is in both of those cases), the act of eating another to gain unnatural power, or to take pleasure in the fact that you are eating the corpse of an intelligent being rather than an animal, is pretty much evil.

[Optimystik]

Well, aside from the whole "eating living creatures is instinctive for every predatory/omnivorous species" argument, what's wrong with such behavior making them cannibalistic? Or are you saying (or the BoVD saying, I guess I should say) that it's not cannibalism unless there is a conscious decision to eat an intelligent creature instead of a non-intelligent one?

In D&D, there has to be pleasure or power involved, for it to be cannibalism (if the races are different.) Dragons eating humanoids gain no meaningful amount of either.


But what, then, is the situation in which cannibalism is not an evil act, when the intent must be for "pleasure or power" above and beyond that of normal food, and the examples of cannibalism all point to evil acts?

As listed in this thread - rituals of strength, where you eat an already vanquished foe who has been killed through non-evil means. It's squicky, certainly, but not evil unless your entire intent was to murder and eat.


Basically, my problem with that definition is that it links cannibalism with evil by default; even if it is not necessarily caused by evil (which it is in both of those cases), the act of eating another to gain unnatural power, or to take pleasure in the fact that you are eating the corpse of an intelligent being rather than an animal, is pretty much evil.

You are presupposing that link because cannibalism is found in the D&D book of evil. But again, correlation != causation.

[Da'Shain]

In D&D, there has to be pleasure or power involved, for it to be cannibalism (if the races are different.) Dragons eating humanoids gain no meaningful amount of either.I guess I would just have to disagree with the D&D definition, then, because I would consider dragons who eat people (human or otherwise) automatically cannibalistic, although not necessarily evil. Hunting for intelligent prey would push one over the line, but simply eating those who it would have killed anyway doesn't push it over the line (although the reason for the killing might).


As listed in this thread - rituals of strength, where you eat an already vanquished foe who has been killed through non-evil means. It's squicky, certainly, but not evil unless your entire intent was to murder and eat.Alright, yeah, that fits. If it's an enemy who you've killed for a non-evil cause, then I see nothing wrong with consuming the body as well. It's just that the phrasing "for pleasure or power" to me implies that the hunting and killing of the sentient person was done for the express purpose of eating them.


You are presupposing that link because cannibalism is found in the D&D book of evil. But again, correlation != causation.I'm not presupposing any link; heck, I'm one of the people that doesn't believe cannibalism is inherently evil! It's just that there are very few situations I can think of where doing it for "power or pleasure" would not strike me as an evil act.

[Ormur]

You can easily condemn it by utilitarian principles. Related to Starbuck's comment: even if in a specific case utilitarianism may seem to promote it, practicing it makes that case come up more often, so utilitarianism must reject it.

Analogy: using prisoners for medical research. Clearly on an individual case it may be all-ok, but once you open that door, you open it to significant abuse - enough abuse potential that it's worth rejecting.

Since corpses are by defenition dead you can't subtract any happyness from them so even if cannibalism was universal it needn't diminish happyness. It's only killing or mutilating people specifically for cannibalism that decreases happyness and is immoral. Of course it's hard to divorce cannibalism from murder since that's the idea everyone has of it but it doesn't have to be like that. The ritual cannibalism in question was of people that died of natural causes. The post I quouted implied it was immoral just because it was cannibalism.

Disclamer: I have no interest whatsoever in cannibalism and thanks thanks to society's taboos I find it thouroughly repugnant but I wouldn't say it was immoral by defenition.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As for the argument that a dragon eating.... well pretty much any sentient creature that isn't a dragon... is cannibalism; I've always thought that there had to be at least some vague physiological resemblance. That is to say, you're not really eating "your own kind" unless it's at least kinda the same general shape as you. I mean Dragons are big reptile-cat-bird-things, while humanoids are clearly not. That's my 2cp anyway.

[krossbow]

In D&D, there has to be pleasure or power involved, for it to be cannibalism (if the races are different.)


Its cool bra, he tasted TERRIBLE.

[Scorpions__]

I refuse to help another DM use these things on a party. They exist purely to screw people over, like rust monsters but not as cute.

These things have their uses...

[Riffington]

Since corpses are by defenition dead you can't subtract any happyness from them so even if cannibalism was universal it needn't diminish happyness. It's only killing or mutilating people specifically for cannibalism that decreases happyness and is immoral. Of course it's hard to divorce cannibalism from murder since that's the idea everyone has of it but it doesn't have to be like that. The ritual cannibalism in question was of people that died of natural causes. The post I quouted implied it was immoral just because it was cannibalism.

Disclamer: I have no interest whatsoever in cannibalism and thanks thanks to society's taboos I find it thouroughly repugnant but I wouldn't say it was immoral by defenition.

To flesh this out better:
Suppose you find a corpse and eat it. You clearly cost that corpse zero happiness. But your next step makes an unacceptable assumption when you say "it doesn't have to be like that". That step is impossible to defend: historically, most instances of cannibalism have involved killing-to-eat. We don't know for sure that your instance of cannibalism will lead to killing-to-eat cannibalism or that it won't. All we know is that it frequently does; therefore the Utilitarian must assume there is a reasonable chance that it will.
For certain moral systems, I can say "if I do A but not B then nothing immoral has happened; therefore I can just go ahead and do A while resolving not to do B". This is untrue in Utilitarianism: I must calculate "If I do A what is the percent chance that I will do B?". If you can show me the path by which you can reliably avoid becoming a murderer, that's cool - but you don't have the data to show that path, so no cannibalism for you (without becoming a bad Utilitarian).
In your D&D world it's plausible that your character possesses that data, of course.

[Optimystik]

I guess I would just have to disagree with the D&D definition, then, because I would consider dragons who eat people (human or otherwise) automatically cannibalistic, although not necessarily evil. Hunting for intelligent prey would push one over the line, but simply eating those who it would have killed anyway doesn't push it over the line (although the reason for the killing might).

But they have no real reason for doing so beyond instinct. A dragon eating a human is very little different from a bear eating a human. Are bears cannibals?

Dragons are capable of higher thought than bears, but when it comes to chowtime, are just as susceptible to their baser urges. And dragons are almost always hungry - Draconomicon again.


Alright, yeah, that fits. If it's an enemy who you've killed for a non-evil cause, then I see nothing wrong with consuming the body as well. It's just that the phrasing "for pleasure or power" to me implies that the hunting and killing of the sentient person was done for the express purpose of eating them.

I'm not presupposing any link; heck, I'm one of the people that doesn't believe cannibalism is inherently evil! It's just that there are very few situations I can think of where doing it for "power or pleasure" would not strike me as an evil act.

Those two phrases (power and pleasure) give justification for the act of eating, but they are still separate from the killing.

A mage might keep body parts around to chow on, to provide the cannibal part of his spells. He is doing this for greater power - thus he is a cannibal in D&D. But we cannot make a moral judgment unless we know how he acquired those body parts.

The question becomes - why is cannibalism even in BoVD if it isn't evil? I can think of two reasons:

1) It's very hard (though still possible) to acquire body parts without committing evil somewhere along the line.

2) A lot of squicky activities were lumped into BoVD (like drug use and self mutilation) that aren't actually evil, whether for the reason given above, for shock value, to help the book earn its mature audiences label, or even just to appease the moral majority by having every remotely questionable D&D act in one place.

Which brings us full circle, back to the druid question. And my answer remains the same - it depends on why he ate them. Did he give way to instinct? Druids can occasionally do that when they wild shape, if the D&D novels are anything to go by - if this is the case, then it's not cannibalism. Did he do it to consume his mighty opponents heart and liver, for courage and... courage? That's cannibalism. Does he just find orcs tasty? Cannibalism.

[Tokiko Mima]

I say you should never eat anything that passes a rigorous Voight-Kampff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voight-Kampff_machine) test. However, my party members always look at me funny when I start measuring their blush response, and ask them "You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that, Angela?"

What should I do? :smalltongue:



Remember, your response time is a factor!

[cheezewizz2000]

If a druid in wildshape eats someone is it canibalism? I'll counter that question with another: If Superman kills someone, did Clark Kent commit murder?

A philosopher will probably tell me that those are two completely different scenarios, but I don't think they are. The druid is still human, and eating another human is canibalism. This is borne out by the mechanics:


Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. Each time you use wild shape, you regain lost hit points as if you had rested for a night.


The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.

Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same, a Human Druid in wild shape is still a Human Druid. This would mean that a Druid in cow form eating a cow is fine, and also it's not bestiality if it's with a Druid. Your Milage Will Drasticly Vary. *cringes and waits for the Banhammer to strike*

[Da'Shain]

But they have no real reason for doing so beyond instinct. A dragon eating a human is very little different from a bear eating a human. Are bears cannibals?

Dragons are capable of higher thought than bears, but when it comes to chowtime, are just as susceptible to their baser urges. And dragons are almost always hungry - Draconomicon again.No, bears aren't cannibals, because they aren't sentient, self-aware creatures eating other sentient, self-aware creatures. A bear can't talk to a human, or vice-versa, except in the most basic of ways. Dragons, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of interacting with humans in pretty much every way possible (including even breeding with them); thus them eating humans or other similar species is cannibalism.

And again, any predator is susceptible to their baser urges when they're hungry. Why would dragons not be cannibals simply because they get a pass for being hungry?


Those two phrases (power and pleasure) give justification for the act of eating, but they are still separate from the killing.

A mage might keep body parts around to chow on, to provide the cannibal part of his spells. He is doing this for greater power - thus he is a cannibal in D&D. But we cannot make a moral judgment unless we know how he acquired those body parts.Which I would agree with. What I don't agree with is that "power and pleasure" are the defining factors of cannibalism, because it's a term for the act itself, not the motives behind it. When a human eats another human in real life for any reason, it's still cannibalism, regardless of the circumstances. I see no reason why the term would be so different in D&D as to encompass intentions, rather than simply describe a class of being eating another member of the same class.


The question becomes - why is cannibalism even in BoVD if it isn't evil? I can think of two reasons:

1) It's very hard (though still possible) to acquire body parts without committing evil somewhere along the line.

2) A lot of squicky activities were lumped into BoVD (like drug use and self mutilation) that aren't actually evil, whether for the reason given above, for shock value, to help the book earn its mature audiences label, or even just to appease the moral majority by having every remotely questionable D&D act in one place.The bolded part is what I think is probably the reason. Regardless, the main problem with cannibalism is your first point here, which is why it's so strongly discouraged as developing a taste for it can often leads to murder and other evil acts.


Which brings us full circle, back to the druid question. And my answer remains the same - it depends on why he ate them. Did he give way to instinct? Druids can occasionally do that when they wild shape, if the D&D novels are anything to go by - if this is the case, then it's not cannibalism. Did he do it to consume his mighty opponents heart and liver, for courage and... courage? That's cannibalism. Does he just find orcs tasty? Cannibalism.As I said, I don't see why the act itself is not cannibalism, regardless of the intent behind it. No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), it's still consuming the flesh of another being with faculties comparable to yours, and thus cannibalism. But as I said earlier in the thread, I'd agree that the Druid's case is not evil in itself, unless the Druid is specifically killing its target so that it may consume their flesh for whatever purpose.

[Tiki Snakes]

Meh. Cannibalism is patently eating a member of your own species. When the races of DnD are explictely claimed in half the sources on the subject to have been crafted out of whole-cloth by their respective Racial-Gods, the concept that they are similar enough that any sentient creature counts as the same species is just silly. Likewise, the idea that simply not enjoying it or gaining Power has anything to do with what the act was.

Thing is, I can very much see there being a Taboo similar to that of Cannibalism in a setting with such a variety of sentient creatures. We just don't have a name for it. Eating other sentient creatures is like cannibalism, but is seperate(/parallel)

Treating it as such gives you much more room for a range of societal responses and makes sense of the Dragon Situation. Dragons are CLEARLY not cannibals, because they don't eat dragon. They do eat people though, so they clearly lack the second taboo. Whereas other creatures and races may have the cannibalism taboo but lack the other one.

I see the latter situation being quite reasonable for vaguely preditor-centric druids to assume. Perhaps a Human Druid who takes the form of a wolf would refrain from eating humans and wolves, but consider everything else fair game. Maybe, maybe not.

It's not like a creature needs to be sentient for people to have a taboo about eating it. Take the French and their eating-horse-face. I Don't know any englishmen who would like a plate of that.

And would anyone like a nice bowl of Sizzling Kitten Stew?

[Volkov]

All creatures are sentient, sentience is simple awareness, sapience is the power of abstract thought.

[onthetown]

If you're worried about morality, it depends on the kind of society you're playing in. If it's something similar to North America, cannibalism is frowned upon (to put it lightly)... If it's like one of those mythical little tribey stories (which I'm too scared to find out if they're true or not) then cannibalism might just be a standard act. If it's just what the society eats, it's fairly neutral.

As somebody already said, if you change into wild shape just to eat somebody, that's kind of evil by modern standards. If you were already doing battle with them, well, heck... you were going to kill them anyway, weren't you?

[Riffington]

All creatures are sentient, sentience is simple awareness, sapience is the power of abstract thought.

Sentient probably used to mean that, but science fiction has changed the definition to being self-aware.

Many dogs are sapient; the science fiction definition of sentient is a higher requirement.

[faceroll]

Sentient probably used to mean that, but science fiction has changed the definition to being self-aware.

Many dogs are sapient; the science fiction definition of sentient is a higher requirement.

Uhhh, no, it's just that your exposure to the word was limited. You'll see that different fields use it differently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient

[hamishspence]

Yup- older sci-fi (which stuck a little closer to the right terms) such as H. Beam Piper's Fuzzy trilogy, favoured the term sapient, for self-aware- capable of abstract thought, etc.

So- most life is sentient, but only a small proportion of sentient life, is sapient.

[Optimystik]

No, bears aren't cannibals, because they aren't sentient, self-aware creatures eating other sentient, self-aware creatures. A bear can't talk to a human, or vice-versa, except in the most basic of ways. Dragons, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of interacting with humans in pretty much every way possible (including even breeding with them); thus them eating humans or other similar species is cannibalism.

That sapience (and Volkov is right, this is the proper term to use here) isn't relevant here, if their instincts override it. Humanoids are not a favored food to them, nor do they get any particular strength or power from eating them. Without that ulterior motive


And again, any predator is susceptible to their baser urges when they're hungry. Why would dragons not be cannibals simply because they get a pass for being hungry?

Because, again, it overrides their sapience. A dragon might feel regret after swallowing you, but it won't stop him from doing it again later when your brother/firstborn son or whoever comes to avenge you.


Which I would agree with. What I don't agree with is that "power and pleasure" are the defining factors of cannibalism, because it's a term for the act itself, not the motives behind it.

Why can't motive be part of a definition? "Murder" has motive implicit in its definition - that's what separates it from simple "killing." The same principle applies here.


When a human eats another human in real life for any reason, it's still cannibalism, regardless of the circumstances. I see no reason why the term would be so different in D&D as to encompass intentions, rather than simply describe a class of being eating another member of the same class.

The term isn't different in D&D. It's expanded.

In D&D: human eats human = always cannibalism, just like real life.
But in real life, elf eats human would not be cannibalism, because they are different races. So D&D expands the definition, so that such cases are covered.


The bolded part is what I think is probably the reason. Regardless, the main problem with cannibalism is your first point here, which is why it's so strongly discouraged as developing a taste for it can often leads to murder and other evil acts.

There's also the simple expedient of cannibalism-borne diseases, which do exist in D&D as well.


As I said, I don't see why the act itself is not cannibalism, regardless of the intent behind it. No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), it's still consuming the flesh of another being with faculties comparable to yours, and thus cannibalism. But as I said earlier in the thread, I'd agree that the Druid's case is not evil in itself, unless the Druid is specifically killing its target so that it may consume their flesh for whatever purpose.

Very few beings have faculties comparable to a dragon's - both when it is reasoning fully, and when its hunger overtakes it. The same is true of a vampire, or an illithid. All eat sapients; none are cannibals.

[faceroll]

Because, again, it overrides their sapience. A dragon might feel regret after swallowing you, but it won't stop him from doing it again later when your brother/firstborn son or whoever comes to avenge you.

Is this true for gold dragons, too? Can a hungry gold dragon eat a baby and keep it's LG alignment?

Or is it more like, a dragon is being attacked, and its first instinct is to just gobble the puny attacker up.

[hamishspence]

Why can't motive be part of a definition? "Murder" has motive implicit in its definition - that's what separates it from simple "killing." The same principle applies here.

I thought it was partly context- and primarily about the faxt that it was intentional.

A D&D character who casts a spell that kills beings- in order to keep themself alive longer (such as the BoVD one, or the epic spell in Lost Empires) is a murderer- even if their motive is "self preservation"

[Thajocoth]

And would anyone like a nice bowl of Sizzling Kitten Stew?

Well, to be fair, regardless of one's views on cannibalism, eating kittens is invariably an evil act, as you either had to kill a kitten, or you failed to protect a kitten.

I'm fine with cannibalism as neutral, so long as no one's hunting innocent victims. It's the killing that I'd judge. I wouldn't personally eat human, but I don't really eat meat anyway. (Not a vegetarian. It's complicated... And food is generally disgusting...) Every body we bury or burn though takes carbon out of the circle of life. Burying, while it will provide oil in a few thousand years, takes up a lot of needed real estate. Burning adds to our carbon emissions into the atmosphere, though not by an incredible amount. When I die, after anything still useful (like working organs) is removed and used, I would prefer to be eaten than to have the rest of my body buried or burned.

[faceroll]

Well, to be fair, regardless of one's views on cannibalism, eating kittens is invariably an evil act, as you either had to kill a kitten, or you failed to protect a kitten.

Interesting; cannibalism is a matter of taste, yet killing cats is "invariably evil."

[Optimystik]

Is this true for gold dragons, too? Can a hungry gold dragon eat a baby and keep it's LG alignment?

Or is it more like, a dragon is being attacked, and its first instinct is to just gobble the puny attacker up.

Alignment has nothing to do with this - Cannibalism can be any morality in BoVD.


I thought it was partly context- and primarily about the faxt that it was intentional.

A D&D character who casts a spell that kills beings- in order to keep themself alive longer (such as the BoVD one, or the epic spell in Lost Empires) is a murderer- even if their motive is "self preservation"

But an executioner is not a murderer, and his killing is intentional; as is a soldier, or someone who kills in extreme self defense.

Their motive for killing, not merely the fact that killing was their goal, is what separates them from murderers.

[Thajocoth]

Interesting; cannibalism is a matter of taste, yet killing cats is "invariably evil."

Of course. I don't want to derail the thread though, so I'm gonna put my reasoning in a spoiler tag. Any further discussion on the ethics of kitten-killing should probably be elsewhere.

http://blogs.westword.com/demver/kitten.JPG

[faceroll]

Alignment has nothing to do with this - Cannibalism can be any morality in BoVD.

Soooooooo, I'm trying to figure out what dragons eating people has to do with anything. Are you saying (or the draconomicon) that when a dragon eats a person, it doesn't count as cannibalism, because the dragon can't help it?


But an executioner is not a murderer, and his killing is intentional; as is a soldier, or someone who kills in extreme self defense.

Their motive for killing, not merely the fact that killing was their goal, is what separates them from murderers.

Here's my favorite definition of murder:
"unlawful premeditated killing of a human being sentient creature by a human being sentient creature"
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+murder&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Murder is a chaotic act, not an evil one.

[Asbestos]

Here's my favorite definition of murder:
"unlawful premeditated killing of a human being sentient creature by a human being sentient creature"
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+murder&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Murder is a chaotic act, not an evil one.

Fun fact, just because you disobey the laws of a particular government that does not mean you are chaotic or unlawful (in terms of alignment).

[Optimystik]

Soooooooo, I'm trying to figure out what dragons eating people has to do with anything. Are you saying (or the draconomicon) that when a dragon eats a person, it doesn't count as cannibalism, because the dragon can't help it?

It is related because it is an example of "sapient creature eats other sapient creature" that isn't cannibalism. There is no moral issue to raise here, any more than there would be if a tiger did it, because at that moment the dragon's sapience is suppressed.


Here's my favorite definition of murder:
"unlawful premeditated killing of a human being sentient creature by a human being sentient creature"
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+murder&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Murder is a chaotic act, not an evil one.

I'm neither going to endorse nor contest that definition, because I'm not discussing alignment here. The only connection between cannibalism and alignment in D&D is that the term is defined in an alignment-based book. In similar fashion, rules for drug use are found in the same book, but drug use still has no morality on its own.

[faceroll]

It is related because it is an example of "sapient creature eats other sapient creature" that isn't cannibalism. There is no moral issue to raise here, any more than there would be if a tiger did it, because at that moment the dragon's sapience is suppressed.

I'm neither going to endorse nor contest that definition, because I'm not discussing alignment here. The only connection between cannibalism and alignment in D&D is that the term is defined in an alignment-based book. In similar fashion, rules for drug use are found in the same book, but drug use still has no morality on its own.

I see. I got these two statements conflated:
Cannibalism isn't necessarily evil.
Dragons aren't cannibals.

[multilis]

Hungry druid shapeshifts into a wolf and eats a wolf, is that cannibalism? How about he shapeshifts into a wolf, kills the wolf, then shapeshifts back to human and properly skins and guts dead wolf and cooks over campfire then eats?

Druid comes from an Asian or African country where eating dog is acceptable, and he is very hungry.

(Feel free to substitute wild boar, dragon, etc for wolf)

[Da'Shain]

All creatures are sentient, sentience is simple awareness, sapience is the power of abstract thought.You're right, my bad. My mind is still tainted by years of reading Star Wars EU, where "sentient" is used incorrectly just about everywhere. Thankfully I've extricated myself from that particular quagmire.


That sapience (and Volkov is right, this is the proper term to use here) isn't relevant here, if their instincts override it. Humanoids are not a favored food to them, nor do they get any particular strength or power from eating them. Without that ulterior motive

Because, again, it overrides their sapience. A dragon might feel regret after swallowing you, but it won't stop him from doing it again later when your brother/firstborn son or whoever comes to avenge you.What?! Your position here is that dragons simply aren't cannibals because their intelligence is utterly suppressed whenever they're hungry? How does that make sense?

The term cannibalism still applies when humans eat one another, despite any overriding starvation clause. Why are dragons exempted from this? Unless you're saying that they turn into slavering animals incapable of controlling themselves in any way whenever they get so much as a hunger pang, which isn't borne out at all by any story I've ever read.


Why can't motive be part of a definition? "Murder" has motive implicit in its definition - that's what separates it from simple "killing." The same principle applies here.Because "murder" and "cannibalism" are two different terms, with cannibalism not referring to anything but the actual act itself of eating another human's flesh, whereas the term murder itself implies an unjust and certainly unlawful killing. "Murder" is a term for a specific subset of killing, whereas "cannibalism" is a term for the entire gamut of practices involving the eating of another person's flesh.


The term isn't different in D&D. It's expanded.

In D&D: human eats human = always cannibalism, just like real life.
But in real life, elf eats human would not be cannibalism, because they are different races. So D&D expands the definition, so that such cases are covered.Is the BoVD clear that humans eating other humans is always cannibalism, despite its definition otherwise? Haven't got it on hand to look at.

Regardless, the real life definition would actually include the elf, the orc, the dragon, almost every sapient "race", because they can all interbreed to create fertile offspring and would be considered part of the same species, however weird that is (but the fact that every race in D&D can interbreed is weird enough anyway). The fact that they all share rational intelligence, though, is IMO the better criteria in a fantastic setting.


Very few beings have faculties comparable to a dragon's - both when it is reasoning fully, and when its hunger overtakes it. The same is true of a vampire, or an illithid. All eat sapients; none are cannibals.... how is a vampire not a cannibal, when it is born from the very creatures it preys on? And the same for illithids, actually, although I'm not as clear on how their reproduction works (implanted spores in the brain that slowly morph the host body into an illithid, right?). But seriously, if a vampire isn't a cannibal, then what the heck is?

[Optimystik]

What?! Your position here is that dragons simply aren't cannibals because their intelligence is utterly suppressed whenever they're hungry? How does that make sense?

Not "whenever they're hungry." Whenever they eat humanoids.

That is a generalization of course - there are dragons that probably enjoy eating humans - but the majority feel no special feeling for doing so, any more than the average person would for eating a cow.


The term cannibalism still applies when humans eat one another, despite any overriding starvation clause. Why are dragons exempted from this?

Because dragons and humans are a different race. I've explained this already.

If we were to use the real-world definition of cannibalism, elves can eat orcs without being cannibals no matter their motives, because they are a different race.


Unless you're saying that they turn into slavering animals incapable of controlling themselves in any way whenever they get so much as a hunger pang, which isn't borne out at all by any story I've ever read.

"Pang?" Dragons are always hungry - excess material is used to fuel their breath weapons - Draconomicon again.


Because "murder" and "cannibalism" are two different terms, with cannibalism not referring to anything but the actual act itself of eating another human's flesh, whereas the term murder itself implies an unjust and certainly unlawful killing. "Murder" is a term for a specific subset of killing, whereas "cannibalism" is a term for the entire gamut of practices involving the eating of another person's flesh.

I disagree. "Cannibalism" is a subset of "eating" just as "murder" is a subset of "killing." In both cases, motive is the distinguishing factor.


Is the BoVD clear that humans eating other humans is always cannibalism, despite its definition otherwise? Haven't got it on hand to look at.

Yes, it is. I quoted the passage several posts back - it starts with the "same race" definition then expands on it to arrive at the D&D context - it does not throw it out the window.


Regardless, the real life definition would actually include the elf, the orc, the dragon, almost every sapient "race", because they can all interbreed to create fertile offspring and would be considered part of the same species, however weird that is (but the fact that every race in D&D can interbreed is weird enough anyway). The fact that they all share rational intelligence, though, is IMO the better criteria in a fantastic setting.

The "able to interbreed" yardstick was disproved a few posts up. Cats and something.


... how is a vampire not a cannibal, when it is born from the very creatures it preys on?

Because it is no longer one of them.
A vampire elf is no longer an elf, nor even a humanoid.


And the same for illithids, actually, although I'm not as clear on how their reproduction works (implanted spores in the brain that slowly morph the host body into an illithid, right?). But seriously, if a vampire isn't a cannibal, then what the heck is?

A predator.
And the same for illithids - they are formed from humanoid hosts, but they are all aberrations, not their base types - every single one.

[hamishspence]

I disagree. "Cannibalism" is a subset of "eating" just as "murder" is a subset of "killing." In both cases, motive is the distinguishing factor.


"I wish to keep myself alive" can be the same motive in two cases- but one's murder and the other isn't- because the context is different.

Self-defense- vs aggressive survival cannibalism. Or, for that matter, a prisoner, about to be executed, who escapes, killing the guards in the process. Once recaptured, he'd get charged with murder. That is, if they didn't just carry out the sentence, but considered it important to try him for any new crimes committed.

[onthetown]

Rereading the first post... What race is the druid? Cannibalism is eating your own species (or race, in D&D terms I suppose). If it was an elven druid eating a human opponent, no, it's not cannibalism. If said elven druid ate another elf, then it's cannibalism.

[Eldariel]

Rereading the first post... What race is the druid? Cannibalism is eating your own species (or race, in D&D terms I suppose). If it was an elven druid eating a human opponent, no, it's not cannibalism. If said elven druid ate another elf, then it's cannibalism.

But if he just used Swallow Whole as a T-Rex in order to kill said Elf, I wouldn't call it cannibalism as much as combat style.

Also, elf eating human = evolution.

[onthetown]

But if he just used Swallow Whole as a T-Rex in order to kill said Elf, I wouldn't call it cannibalism as much as combat style.

Also, elf eating human = evolution.

It's hard to define since the RL definition is eating your own species, but in D&D you can change species with things like Wild Shape. I guess it just depends how upset the druid is over the whole thing.

Buahahah. :smallamused:

[Volkov]

Sentient probably used to mean that, but science fiction has changed the definition to being self-aware.

Many dogs are sapient; the science fiction definition of sentient is a higher requirement.

No, it means that Sci-fi authors are generally too incompetent to take a look in the damned dictionary.

[Da'Shain]

I was going to continue the point by point discussion, Optimystik, but halfway through writing I was struck by how little it would matter. It doesn't seem like either of us are convincing the other; I still hold that eating another rational, intelligent being is cannibalism, and you still hold that it's not unless done for the reasons given in the BoVD. I don't have any new arguments, so not much point continuing.

I'm still slightly boggled from the concept of vampires not being cannibals, truth be told :smalleek:. Regardless, though, we seem to agree on the correct answer to the question of the thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[Jayabalard]

All creatures are sentient, sentience is simple awareness, sapience is the power of abstract thought.Every time I see someone point out this distinction, I have to wonder if they've read a certain book by H. Beam Piper...

[hamishspence]

Is the H. Beam Piper definition wrong though?

[Riffington]

Is the H. Beam Piper definition wrong though?

Depends if you're a prescriptivist or a descriptivist. I happen to be a descriptivist: people usually use "sentient" to mean "self-aware" rather than merely "able to feel some sensation".

If you're a prescriptivist, then well, sentient used to mean the latter, so prescriptivists want it to keep meaning that.

:smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

people usually use "sentient" to mean "self-aware"

Which people?

Sentient is still more commonly used, in eastern philosophy, animal rights, and so on, to refer to the basic ability to feel pleasure and pain, and so on.

Sentient as "human-level intelligent" is entirely the perview of some science fiction authors- its rarely if ever used that way, outside of sci-fi.

Hence- at this current period, sapient is the more accurate term.

[Riffington]

Which people?

Sentient is still more commonly used, in eastern philosophy, animal rights, and so on, to refer to the basic ability to feel pleasure and pain, and so on.

Sentient as "human-level intelligent" is entirely the perview of some science fiction authors- its rarely if ever used that way, outside of sci-fi.

Hence- at this current period, sapient is the more accurate term.

Average American and average Englishman both use sentient to mean self-aware. Seriously: ask the five next people you meet, and I assure you most will define it either as "self-aware" or just "intelligent".
Technical terms, such as philosophical words, are just jargon - they don't define the English language. Average usage does.
As to animal rights, well, I'm one of them - but it's a trick. I used to point out to meateaters that animals are sentient *precisely because* sentient impliess "worthy of respect" to people who are used to sentient meaning "self-aware".

[hamishspence]

Average American and average Englishman both use sentient to mean self-aware. Seriously: ask the five next people you meet, and I assure you most will define it either as "self-aware" or just "intelligent".
Technical terms, such as philosophical words, are just jargon - they don't define the English language. Average usage does.

Really?

So- if the dictionary defines a word to mean one thing- and "average people" who have been conditioned to it via too much sci-fi from authors who use the term their way- define it to mean another thing, it's the dictionary that's wrong?

Isn't the whole point of expert definition, that it avoids this kind of fuzziness of meaning?

If sentient is changed to mean "human-level intelligence"- what word to you use to distinguish animals from plants?

Most study of language is both prescriptive and descriptive- both are needed.

[Vizzerdrix]

OP: Yes eating someone is cannibalism.

Yes it is a black and white kind of evil. if you do it, you are evil.

Yes those that do it need to be hunted like beasts and put down.

Yes we DO taste good with white wine imeanwhaaat!?


Dictionary says this:

can·ni·bal·ism
   /ˈkænəbəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kan-uh-buh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2.
the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3.
the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.

I assume the definition can be stretched to include any of the sentient races when referring to D&D though.

[Riffington]

Really?

So- if the dictionary defines a word to mean one thing- and "average people" who have been conditioned to it via too much sci-fi from authors who use the term their way- define it to mean another thing, it's the dictionary that's wrong?

Yes, that's why the dictionary gets updated: to reflect usage patterns.



Isn't the whole point of expert definition, that it avoids this kind of fuzziness of meaning?
Absolutely: and that's a cool thing about French. They have prescriptive experts to keep the language pure.
English, however, lacks expert definitions. Dictionary editors just follow the crowd. They may wait a few years to avoid fads, but they don't rely on experts.



If sentient is changed to mean "human-level intelligence"- what word to you use to distinguish animals from plants?
"sensate" is the word you're looking for, but to nitpick: not all animals are sensate.

[hamishspence]

And what do recent copies of the English dictionary (Such as the Shorter Oxford Dictionary) say about the terms Sentient, and Sapient?

Do they say "Sapient"- obsolete term for human-level intelligence or wisdom?

[Riffington]

And what do recent copies of the English dictionary (Such as the Shorter Oxford Dictionary) say about the terms Sentient

They give both definitions:
having the power of perception by the senses
conscious.

More important is Google.
654,000 for sentient animals
111,000 for sentient creatures
1,980,000 for sentient robots
3,860,000 for sentient machines


Do they say "Sapient"- obsolete term for human-level intelligence or wisdom?

Who said sapient was obsolete??

[hamishspence]

For sentient to become the "correct" term for self-aware, full conscious intelligence,

and, as you suggest, for the majority of people, when asked what the term means, to say "self-aware" would imply, that the term sapient would be becoming obsolete.

Phrases like "Science fiction has changed the defintion of sentient" do seem to imply, that your claim is that sentient has replaced sapient in sci-fi.

[Roderick_BR]

Depends in which form he is, I guess.
In that movie, My Favorite Martian, the main character's love interest swallows a guy when using one of those shapechanging bubble gums they use to turn into various species. After she turns back to normal, there's not sign left of the swalloed guy.

[Tiki Snakes]

OP: Yes eating someone is cannibalism.

Yes it is a black and white kind of evil. if you do it, you are evil.

Yes those that do it need to be hunted like beasts and put down.

Yes we DO taste good with white wine imeanwhaaat!?


Dictionary says this:

can·ni·bal·ism
   /ˈkænəbəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kan-uh-buh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2.
the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3.
the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.

I assume the definition can be stretched to include any of the sentient races when referring to D&D though.

That's kind of the whole sticking point of the argument really. Are Humans and Ogres and Orcs and Elves the 'Same Kind of Animal'? Are Ogres and Orcs and Elves all secretly human?

Or should fantasy world have a completely different definition of Cannibalism?

Personally, I prefer to let the dictionary definition stand as it is, and add in (an as-yet unnamed) extra taboo, as I mentioned earlier, that covers 'eating self-aware, intelligent creatures'. It just makes more sense to me that it would be a related but essentially seperate concept.

[hamishspence]

As to whether "usage patterns" determines whether a term is the correct term or not, take "tidal wave" as used for waves caused by seismic disturbances.

It may have been commonly used, but it was technically incorrect. Misleading. Wrong, in short.

And it would have been so, however many people used it.

Now, its used much less often. But we don't say "It was correctly used then, but it isn't now" we say "It was wrongly used then, and now, people realize it, and don't use it that way."

[Boci]

I have not read through all 5 pages of this thread so sorry if some one else already said so, but in Book of Vile Darkness cannibalism is listed as an evil act and defined as a preference ofr the flesh of sentient beings when greater nutrition is available from other forms. The example given was the dragon that eats humand dispite being capable of living off cows.

So using that definition, a druid eating another humanoid in animal form is neither evil nor canibalism by default, but could be depending on the circamstances.

[Riffington]

For sentient to become the "correct" term for self-aware, full conscious intelligence,

and, as you suggest, for the majority of people, when asked what the term means, to say "self-aware" would imply, that the term sapient would be becoming obsolete.

Phrases like "Science fiction has changed the defintion of sentient" do seem to imply, that your claim is that sentient has replaced sapient in sci-fi.

Not at all.
Sapient means something different from sentient.
Earlier (still correct, but less common) definition of sentient: "capable of sensation".
Sapient (uncontroversial): able to think.
Sentient (more common definition): self-aware.

All robots are (older definition) sapient if they have at least one sensor hooked up to them. So are cows.
Robots will shortly be sapient. Some dogs are sapient. Most chimps are sapient. They can solve problems using higher-order thought.
Sentience (modern definition) is a higher standard that will take robots some time to achieve - far more time than sapience. Only humans are (as far as we know) sentient. Chimps and dogs cannot abstract from their own experience and express a real sense of "self" vs "other". Or if they can, they can't communicate it to us.

[Riffington]

For sentient to become the "correct" term for self-aware, full conscious intelligence,

and, as you suggest, for the majority of people, when asked what the term means, to say "self-aware" would imply, that the term sapient would be becoming obsolete.

Phrases like "Science fiction has changed the defintion of sentient" do seem to imply, that your claim is that sentient has replaced sapient in sci-fi.

Not at all.
Sapient means something different from sentient.
Earlier (still correct, but less common) definition of sentient: "capable of sensation".
Sapient (uncontroversial): able to think.
Sentient (more common definition): self-aware.

All robots are (older definition) sapient if they have at least one sensor hooked up to them. So are cows.
Robots will shortly be sapient. Some dogs are sapient. Most chimps are sapient. They can solve problems using higher-order thought.
Sentience (modern definition) is a higher standard that will take robots some time to achieve - far more time than sapience. Only humans are (as far as we know) sentient. Chimps and dogs cannot abstract from their own experience and express a real sense of "self" vs "other". Or if they can, they can't communicate it to us.


As to whether "usage patterns" determines whether a term is the correct term or not, take "tidal wave" as used for waves caused by seismic disturbances.

It may have been commonly used, but it was technically incorrect. Misleading. Wrong, in short.

And it would have been so, however many people used it.

Now, its used much less often. But we don't say "It was correctly used then, but it isn't now" we say "It was wrongly used then, and now, people realize it, and don't use it that way."

Mmm, not exactly. There exist some words which are jargon. We allow the experts in the field to define them. For instance, influenza. Doctors get to say what viruses are and aren't influenza, because there is a specific use to knowing which are and aren't. People recognize that use and let doctors define influenza.
There are other words that are useful English words, not jargon. The doctor definition of diarrhea is "lots of stool". That doesn't change the fact that the English definition of diarrhea is "loose stool". Doctors just have a bit of jargon that differs from English usage.

Similarly, sci-fi has a useful meaning of sentience to be "self-aware". People are going to keep using that no matter how many philosophers try to preserve the old definition. And they certainly don't help their case by the fact that whenever they use sentient to supposedly mean "capable of sensation" they almost always only mean "capable of pain".

[Thajocoth]

...Only humans are (as far as we know) sentient. Chimps and dogs cannot abstract from their own experience and express a real sense of "self" vs "other". Or if they can, they can't communicate it to us...

Just nitpicking, but... This is very false. Every mammal and many non-mammals know that they're themselves and others are not them. If you ever get to know an animal, this becomes very obvious. For example, a dog bringing his bone to his upset owner to try to cheer her up. That's what cheers him up, so he figures, based on his experience, that it might help cheer her up. They're not capable of calculus or language or anything like that... But dolphins and chimps ARE capable of language. Not our spoken languages, no, because they lack what's physically necessary to speak in out tongues, but chimps can be taught sign language, and dolphins have their own combination of clicks and physical motions that are, in fact, a language. When trained dolphins perform synchronized flips, for example, they discuss the flips they're going to do underwater before doing them. Sentience in sci-fi seems more to represent high enough intelligence to learn language.

[Riffington]

Just nitpicking, but... This is very false. Every mammal and many non-mammals know that they're themselves and others are not them. If you ever get to know an animal, this becomes very obvious. For example, a dog bringing his bone to his upset owner to try to cheer her up.
So, sentience requires abstract thought on this. At minimum, the dog (to be sentient) should be able to say "I like bones; they make me happy. Jim is not me. He prefers cigarettes, though I can't understand why. He likes apples more than pears; I like pears more than apples".

One could theoretically argue that the ability to recognize oneself vs another dog in a mirror counts as sentience; I don't think that's quite abstract enough to count, but it's at least in the right arena.



But dolphins and chimps ARE capable of language.

Indeed they are. This is sapience, not sentience. To be sentient, they need a bit more than just language. My computer can communicate with me in English; it is probably sapient (or will be soon). What it can't do (any time in the near future) is to be sentient and really have an abstract understanding of self.

[Volkov]

So, sentience requires abstract thought on this. At minimum, the dog (to be sentient) should be able to say "I like bones; they make me happy. Jim is not me. He prefers cigarettes, though I can't understand why. He likes apples more than pears; I like pears more than apples".

One could theoretically argue that the ability to recognize oneself vs another dog in a mirror counts as sentience; I don't think that's quite abstract enough to count, but it's at least in the right arena.



Indeed they are. This is sapience, not sentience. To be sentient, they need a bit more than just language. My computer can communicate with me in English; it is probably sapient (or will be soon). What it can't do (any time in the near future) is to be sentient and really have an abstract understanding of self.
Sigh, According to oxfords (the common man's definition can go screw itself for all I care.) sentience is and always has been simple awareness of your surroundings. A Plant is not sentient nor Sapient, A fly is sentient, but not sapient, a Human is sentient and sapient.

[Tiki Snakes]

Just nitpicking, but... This is very false. Every mammal and many non-mammals know that they're themselves and others are not them. If you ever get to know an animal, this becomes very obvious. For example, a dog bringing his bone to his upset owner to try to cheer her up. That's what cheers him up, so he figures, based on his experience, that it might help cheer her up. They're not capable of calculus or language or anything like that... But dolphins and chimps ARE capable of language. Not our spoken languages, no, because they lack what's physically necessary to speak in out tongues, but chimps can be taught sign language, and dolphins have their own combination of clicks and physical motions that are, in fact, a language. When trained dolphins perform synchronized flips, for example, they discuss the flips they're going to do underwater before doing them. Sentience in sci-fi seems more to represent high enough intelligence to learn language.


Fun fact; This means that Chimps and Dolphins are Magical Beasts.

[krossbow]

Fun fact; This means that Chimps and Dolphins are Magical Beasts.


Does that mean i'll get XP if i go kill them?

[Volkov]

Does that mean i'll get XP if i go kill them?

No but you'll have a team of PETA sponsored Epic level wizards in your face before you can say "Oh....SHI...*gurgle cough die*"

[Thajocoth]

My computer can communicate with me in EnglishNo it can't. It can play some audio based on some rules. It can't LEARN English. When the machine is making it's own decision on what to say based on what it thinks and knows, THEN it will be sentient (sci fi version of the word). This will happen one day... But it has yet to occur.

[krossbow]

No it can't. It can play some audio based on some rules. It can't LEARN English. Machines will be able to learn language one day... But that has yet to occur.


they're just luring you into a false sense of security while they weld chainsaws to robotic bodies to download themselves into.

[Thajocoth]

they're just luring you into a false sense of security while they weld chainsaws to robotic bodies to download themselves into.

I'm pro-mechanical sentience. There'd be no reason to lure me into anything. I've got some theories that I plan to try to implement at some point. Too lazy about it though... Who wants to write code and wait 2 years to see if it worked or not?

[Rainbownaga]

Part of the confusion with terms defined with 'ability to think' or 'awareness' is that it assumes the creature in question has a 'mind' (or 'soul' to use an old fashioned word that generally has the same meaning). Creatures without a mind or soul are effectively animate objects and thus exempt from moral issues that those that can actually have experiences. The answer to this question is one more of philosophy/culture/religion.

[Riffington]

Sigh, According to oxfords (the common man's definition can go screw itself for all I care.) sentience is and always has been simple awareness of your surroundings. A Plant is not sentient nor Sapient, A fly is sentient, but not sapient, a Human is sentient and sapient.

Ok, by your older definition (which of course is still correct at this point): why isn't a plant sentient? It can feel light and grow towards it?

[Volkov]

Ok, by your older definition (which of course is still correct at this point): why isn't a plant sentient? It can feel light and grow towards it?

If I cut it, it's not going to feel anything.

[Riffington]

Sigh, According to oxfords (the common man's definition can go screw itself for all I care.) sentience is and always has been simple awareness of your surroundings. A Plant is not sentient nor Sapient, A fly is sentient, but not sapient, a Human is sentient and sapient.

Ok, by your older definition (which of course is still correct at this point): why isn't a plant sentient? It can feel light and grow towards it?


If I cut it, it's not going to feel anything.
Wait, so pain is the only sensation that matters for sentience?
Why?

No it can't. It can play some audio based on some rules. It can't LEARN English. When the machine is making it's own decision on what to say based on what it thinks and knows, THEN it will be sentient (sci fi version of the word). This will happen one day... But it has yet to occur.
So it clearly isn't sentient (scifi) yet. But I'm actually unsure whether it's sapient. It's close, if not there. A neural network can come up with good decision-making schemes. It may or may not meet sapience, but it's close.

[Volkov]

Ok, by your older definition (which of course is still correct at this point): why isn't a plant sentient? It can feel light and grow towards it?


Wait, so pain is the only sensation that matters for sentience?
Why?

So it clearly isn't sentient (scifi) yet. But I'm actually unsure whether it's sapient. It's close, if not there. A neural network can come up with good decision-making schemes. It may or may not meet sapience, but it's close.

A plant is really incapable of direct interaction or a whole lot of sensation. It may be sentient in the losest terms of the word, but still. I don't think many botanists would call it sapient.

[Riffington]

A plant is really incapable of direct interaction or a whole lot of sensation. It may be sentient in the losest terms of the word, but still. I don't think many botanists would call it sapient.

Oh, it's clearly not sapient.
I'm just asking about sentience (older definition)
why is a fly more sentient than a plant? Is it just a matter of degree (the fly has more senses)? Or is there some hard line, and that line is pain, because the real definition you want is a moral one rather than"whatever the OED says on line 1."?

[Thajocoth]

So it clearly isn't sentient (scifi) yet. But I'm actually unsure whether it's sapient. It's close, if not there. A neural network can come up with good decision-making schemes. It may or may not meet sapience, but it's close.

A neural network is actually just pattern recognition software, and it's nowhere near on par with what a brain can do. Basically, it starts with a bunch of random numbers and weights that get modified by seed data so that usually, when you input the seed data input, you'll tend to get the correct output according to that data. Then it can solve for new data assuming that it'll always fall in line with the seed data.

The brain though... It's amazing. Data is stored as patterned time lapses as differences. Like, you don't remember something like "C#, A, B-flat" when you remember a song, you remember "up 3 notes with this delay, down 2 notes with that delay", sort of thing. Neural networks were a nice attempt, but the difference in mere data storage cripples the system by comparison.

Another major difference is that in neural networks, the "neurons" are connected fairly linearly. Each neuron in row 1 represents part of the input. Each neuron in row 2 receives input from all neurons in row 1 and gives output to all neurons in row 3. Very ordered, and very 2D. The brain though has multiple layers of cells in the neocortex (new brain), all connected to what's around them 3-dimensionally, sending and receiving data in all directions constantly. And the data is constantly moving...

THIS is what we need to emulate in machines. And that doesn't even get into the "old brain" that provides us with our instincts and emotions...

EDIT: As a note... All mammals have a neocortex. It's called "new brain" because it's evolutionarily newer than the rest of the brain. A lot of things, like many (if not all) insects, don't have a neocortex and must rely entirely on instinct, not experience.

[Volkov]

A neural network is actually just pattern recognition software, and it's nowhere near on par with what a brain can do. Basically, it starts with a bunch of random numbers and weights that get modified by seed data so that usually, when you input the seed data input, you'll tend to get the correct output according to that data. Then it can solve for new data assuming that it'll always fall in line with the seed data.

The brain though... It's amazing. Data is stored as patterned time lapses as differences. Like, you don't remember something like "C#, A, B-flat" when you remember a song, you remember "up 3 notes with this delay, down 2 notes with that delay", sort of thing. Neural networks were a nice attempt, but the difference in mere data storage cripples the system by comparison.

Another major difference is that in neural networks, the "neurons" are connected fairly linearly. Each neuron in row 1 represents part of the input. Each neuron in row 2 receives input from all neurons in row 1 and gives output to all neurons in row 3. Very ordered, and very 2D. The brain though has multiple layers of cells in the neocortex (new brain), all connected to what's around them 3-dimensionally, sending and receiving data in all directions constantly. And the data is constantly moving...

THIS is what we need to emulate in machines. And that doesn't even get into the "old brain" that provides us with our instincts and emotions...
We cheated around that by taking a culture of rat brain cells and linking them to a f-22 simulator's computer chip. At first the rat brain was terrible at the simulator, but it slowly learned and completely mastered it.

[Debihuman]

Dragons and many other sentient/sapient creatures probably don't have the same social mores as humans. So trying to pigeonhole them into the category of "cannibal" doesn't really fit. Dragons kill and eat anything -- including other dragons. A dragon that solely subsists on other dragons (i.e. foregoing that juicy virgin in favor of a scrawny wrymling), could be considered cannibalistic, but that's a moral distinction made by human bias. Whether dragons would think the same is up to the DM.

In times of famine and overcrowding, many animals will eat their young -- a practice that most humans would find particularly distasteful, Swift's A Modest Proposal notwithstanding.

So in a world where human druids can take the form of animals, are they still cannibals if they eat another of its species? It depends on the mindset of the individual. In the food chain, usually the bigger you are, the higher up you fall. Humans are the exception (and this is why we are so surprised when we find maneating tigers). We are FOOD. If you accept the animal mindset, then eating a wildform creature is just that.

Only in D&D would I ever think this but now I have: "Damn shame to have eaten that fellow, but that's what you get for being a deer in the midst of a famine" -- mourner at the funeral. I could make a whole scenario out of that tidbit.

Debby

[hamishspence]

The sci-fi definition of sapient - as being capable of generalization, abstract thought, language with grammar (as opposed to single sounds with meaning) seems a lot like the modern sci-fi definition of sentient (which does not match the basic philosophical definition)

Saying that something is "smart enough to be sapient, but not smart enough to be sentient" gets things precisely backward.

Sapient seems like a more useful term in general, when speaking of chimps, or parrots, or dogs- do they qualify?

Whereas with "sentient" it's a new definition made up whole-cloth by various sci-fi writers.

Sci-fi writers who use "sapient" by contrast, at least try and draw from the way the term is actually used.

[Riffington]

The sci-fi definition of sapient - as being capable of generalization, abstract thought, language with grammar (as opposed to single sounds with meaning) seems a lot like the modern sci-fi definition of sentient (which does not match the basic philosophical definition)

The reason it's a key difference in sci-fi is this: there is a huge difference between a computer that can hold a conversation and a computer that has free will/real consciousness. Within a generation, that will be relevant not only in sci-fi but also in everyday life. When do we offer robots rights? The answer is not just "when they can reason" (i.e. sapience). The answer is "when they can want them" (which occurs with sentience). That requires something past mere sapience - and the word almost universally used for that key distinction is "sentience". From Star Wars to Star Trek to Google's april fools jokes to Alpha Centauri... it's a super useful concept in looking at our future.

In contrast, the relevant question regarding the older sentience definition is really a moot one. It used to be "there's a distinction between our reason and our instinct", but that distinction is increasingly blurred. The older definition is now primarily used to imply that "animals sense but plants don't", but this is not actually true per se. The relevant question is "can feel pain", but using "sentient" to mean "can feel pain" conforms neither to popular usage nor to the dictionary.

[Starbuck_II]

In times of famine and overcrowding, many animals will eat their young -- a practice that most humans would find particularly distasteful, Swift's A Modest Proposal notwithstanding.

Swift was too conservative. We should burn bums for fuel not make them eat their young. They are the most efficient energy source (pound for pound). Remember Calories are a number of energy (Joules is too but eh).

[Ormur]

Swift was too conservative. We should burn bums for fuel not make them eat their young. They are the most efficient energy source (pound for pound). Remember Calories are a number of energy (Joules is too but eh).

I know your not serious but it's still not very efficient, we'd be better of burning food for fuel. Maybe it should be called the Matrix fallacy (or just the laws of thermodynamic). Unless we put farming land under biofuels, then let the people starving from higher food prices eat their kids.