Eating sentient beings and alignment

[Laniius]

My character is a druid who believes strongly in "eat what you kill" philosophy and wants to take a bite out of an enemy once it's downed. My party is convinced that this leads to a rapid alignment shift to chaotic evil. Any rules for that?

[Ravens_cry]

Not that I know of, but I would categorize it as ethical cannibalism. If your characters is so strongly concerned of it going to waste, believe me, animals and scavengers will take care of it in short order. In a meta sense, you seem to be making your fellow players uncomfortable. You should probably avoid it for that reason alone, considering how strong their reaction is.

[JustPlayItLoud]

I can't remember seeing it mentioned too many times in many books, but when it is, it's mentioned as an explicitly evil in the context of the D&D world. However, it also classifies cannibalism as the eating of intelligent creatures for pleasure from what I can recall.

In this case, I see it as being all a matter of how you play it. In your case I agree with it being a case of ethical cannibalism. If it's done in the context of conservation and non-wastefulness I would definitely rule it as a neutral act, without a doubt. And I feel like it would be an example of good role playing for a druid focused on the natural order and the whole circle of life thing.

Just don't go around hunting down certain creatures specifically to see how they taste.

I hear minotaur taste fantastic after they've fattened up for the winter.

[Telok]

Dead is dead. Meat is meat. Dead is meat.

We get the cannibalism taboos from societal bias. Other societies do things differently.

Of course it's also a time honoured tradition in times of severe food shortages too.

[DarkestKnight]

if the druid is having noms due to religious ideals that's cool. that being said, i likely wouldn't let them be good aligned not because i think it is an evil act, but to have the view that every life you end gives you the right to its flesh most likely requires some space between it and caring about preserving natural life (typical good druid). that being said if the character was not actively hunting down people to see what they taste like i would say a neutral druid would be fine and they could eat without fear of alignment drop.

[darksolitaire]

I'd call it as neutral act, non-good, but doesn't cause alignment drop.

[bassmasterginga]

if you do it to a good creature and prevent a burial right that is considered by their respective society to be criticle and/or force the poor grieving family to use Resurrection to heal them instead of raise dead, then i would rule its evil.

[Thiyr]

I think this is one of those situations where I'd say which is the driving point. Are you killing them for the purpose of eating them, or are you eating them because you've killed them, and that is the "proper" method to deal with things which have been killed? for the first, that's evil. It's pretty much an excuse to kill random people. The second is no worse than the body decomposing in a sense, so long as it's treated with some kind of respect. That doesn't mean eating it politely, though. If you're normally somewhat feral, then tearing at the body whilst lost in your animal side makes sense, but bringing a leg with you to snack on later probably wouldn't be. If you're more civilized, it may more be something to the effect of doing it as a show of respect (eating the heart of your enemy to take their power, or doing it as a show for nature), and then leaving the body to be dealt with otherwise normally, however that happens to be done.

In my mind, at least, it's no different than, like i said above, the body decomposing or eaten as carrion, or alternatively, killing and skinning/deboning/whatevering a dragon to use its parts as components for armor, shields, etc.

Though it does seem like the other players are uncomfortable with the idea, or at least view it in a more absolutist "it looks human so eating it is wrong" viewpoint, meaning it's proooooobably a better idea to either tone it down or shy away from doing that unless you know that they can deal with it maturely. It is something that could be kinda touchy, though, so personally I'd err towards avoiding it.

[kardar233]

Dead is dead. Meat is meat. Dead is meat.

We get the cannibalism taboos from societal bias. Other societies do things differently.

Of course it's also a time honoured tradition in times of severe food shortages too.

IIRC the cannibalism taboo actually is evolutionarily derived; diseases in human meat are much more transmissible to other humans than say, cow meat. Simply put, eating human has a much higher chance of making you sick than animal meats.

[darksolitaire]

if you do it to a good creature and prevent a burial right that is considered by their respective society to be criticle and/or force the poor grieving family to use Resurrection to heal them instead of raise dead, then i would rule its evil.

Interesting and good point, but what about if the good creature has harmed me, and I have wounds to recover from? Wouldn't my right to consume them to aid recovery overcome hypothetical rights of their families, which cannot necessarily be known of?



IIRC the cannibalism taboo actually is evolutionarily derived; diseases in human meat are much more transmissible to other humans than say, cow meat. Simply put, eating human has a much higher chance of making you sick than animal meats.

Very true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion).

[molten_dragon]

As a few others have said, as long as you're not specifically hunting down intelligent creatures so you can have a snack, I'd call it neutral.

I hesitate to call it cannibalism though. As far as I know, cannibalism is strictly for humans eating humans. A human eating a member of another intelligent species would be something slightly different, more akin (genetically anyway) to a human being eating one of the great apes.

[Keegan__D]

Just don't go around hunting down certain creatures specifically to see how they taste.

I hear minotaur taste fantastic after they've fattened up for the winter.

This is inspiring. :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

Interesting and good point, but what about if the good creature has harmed me, and I have wounds to recover from? Wouldn't my right to consume them to aid recovery overcome hypothetical rights of their families, which cannot necessarily be known of?

It is what you do when others don't or can't know that shows your true character.

[darksolitaire]

It is what you do when others don't or can't know that shows your true character.

And my character is hungry.:smallamused:

[Ravens_cry]

And my character is hungry.:smallamused:
And there is other things to eat. Not to mention spells that the OP as a druid can cast. Like goodberry and cure x wounds.
For the record, plants generally want critters to eat their fruit, it helps spread the seeds.

[Icestorm245]

If it's for survival reasons, then it's not evil at all. Frank Herbert's Dune series has desert folk known as the Fremen that extract the water from their fallen and their enemie's fallen. This is done purely out of survival, as water is super scarce. In fact, they kill whoever is wandering the desert not wearing a stillsuit (a suit designed to retain all body moisture), because they believe it is a waste of water to do so. They leave anyone who is alone, though, so that's why it's not evil, just super conservative.

[Ravens_cry]

He's a <expletive redacted/> druid though. There is no survival reasons for the character to do so. Hell, they can take 10 on Survival skill check and probably find food for at least 3 other people as well as himself, not to mention spells explicitly meant to help provide food and healing.

[deuxhero]

Sapient beings.

Eating [I]sentient[/I beings (which includes cows and pigs) is VERY normal in almost every society.

[Ravens_cry]

Sapient beings.

Eating [I]sentient[/I beings (which includes cows and pigs) is VERY normal in almost every society.
Depending on the definition of sentient you are using, those are synonyms.

[Cerlis]

id like to point out that

thought "it makes sense to not let the meat go to waste"

It also makes sense to "kill a grief stricken woman who is about to try to get revenge on you"

just cus it makes sense doesnt mean its morally right. thats the problem good and neutral characters face all the time.

Further, you must ask yourself why your character feels that way. Expessially since believe the traditional mentality behind it is "for survival" and if you guys are going to kill a whole dungeon of kobalds in a single day you are going to have way more meat than you can handle and the argument behind it kinda falls appart since its just "sport" or "territory" killing.

In fact id think a traditional druid who felt that way about eating would choose to avoid killing unless he needed to eat. Most animals attack each other to fight off rival mates or defend their territory or home, this usually ends up in a big display or fight that says "im meaner than you" (not even, "im stronger than you) and animals only die because animals tend not to hold back.

In the animal world if you get yourself hurt, you are probably dead, it doesnt make sense to pick fights unless you or yours is threatened.

[noparlpf]

I played a Barbarian once who during one rage got so angry that he ripped the leg off of one downed foe and started to eat it. I think that was largely because of how angry I was at all the nat 1s I had been rolling, though. The DM didn't question my alignment at all, though.

[Safety Sword]

IIRC the cannibalism taboo actually is evolutionarily derived; diseases in human meat are much more transmissible to other humans than say, cow meat. Simply put, eating human has a much higher chance of making you sick than animal meats.

This is clearly why Druids can Remove Disease. :smallamused:

[noparlpf]

IIRC the cannibalism taboo actually is evolutionarily derived; diseases in human meat are much more transmissible to other humans than say, cow meat. Simply put, eating human has a much higher chance of making you sick than animal meats.

This is also one theory for where Jewish kashrut came from. Pig meat is treif because pigs carry many diseases humans can catch.

[Lord_Gareth]

The Book of Vile Darkness places the eating of sapient beings as Always-Evil. That being said, if you'd like a different (read: intelligent) take on alignment, this isn't necessarily the case.

Now, it doesn't sound like your druid is specifically hunting sapients, so he's not a serial killer (except insofar as all adventurers are serial killers). More detail would be wonderful, really, but if he's doing it simply because he feels he should or, say, because he feels he'll take on his prey's strengths by doing so, I'd tag it as neutral, possibly chaotic. There's nothing especially sacred about a corpse, after all, so if he's man enough to deal with the diseases involved then there's no real reason he couldn't do it.

That being said, he's got to understand that most non-lizardfolk societies are going to look down on this kind of behavior. Does he hide it from them? Flaunt it? Does he eat part (or all) of EVERY enemy he kills? Details, again, would be nice.

[noparlpf]

I could certainly see eating the heart (or some such) of every foe you personally kill as chaotic, or even lawful if that's the custom in your society (gods, I hate the unclear distinction between law and chaos), but not evil.

It really depends on the motivations for eating them.

[Half-orc Bard]

eating sentient beings is fine, but NO EATING THE TARDIS

[kardar233]

This is also one theory for where Jewish kashrut came from. Pig meat is treif because pigs carry many diseases humans can catch.

Quite correct (and I should know).

OT: I'd say there's nothing inherently evil about eating pieces of your opponents. It might be disrespectful, based on if they are entitled to funeral rights or similar, and it might carry societal stigma, but the only way this starts being Evil is if he's hunting down sentient beings in order to get those pounds of flesh, which falls under "murder".

A couple characters of mine have used this as a terror tactic, though.

[Ravens_cry]

I had a character kill a Sinspawn that ambushed us, ate it, I explicitly went out to look for food and food came to us, and made jerky with the rest.
The Sinspawn never talked or said anything, so besides a generally humanoid form my character, half orc sorcerer, had no reason to think it was sapient.

[Psyren]

Sapient beings.

Eating [I]sentient[/I beings (which includes cows and pigs) is VERY normal in almost every society.

For clarity's sake, I support this.

[Hiro Protagonest]

4e Dark Sun addresses this, seeing as how they want halflings to be a playable race, yet halflings are cannibalistic in Dark Sun.

It's basically that they don't want to let anything go to waste, especially on a world like Athas.

[Yuki Akuma]

Book of Exalted Deeds says it's explicitly evil to eat the flesh of any intelligent being.

Whether you want to listen to the BoED's opinions on alignment is another matter.

[Calanon]

Thread reminded me of a funny time when my party (My group for D&D) sat down for Dinner (Just a REGULAR! dinner) and we started joking about "What if we rp'd this Dinner" It stopped being funny when the waiter over heard us and told my friend "Please Ma'am I don't care if your a Druid please don't try and animate our veggies to attack the customers" ...we died of laughter... (Tipped the CRAP out of that waiter for being the greatest waiter ever)

Quick Question: Does eating a sentient plant (good aligned no less) count as an act of Evil?

[Ravens_cry]

Considering it sentience (or sapience) that makes the difference, I would say eating an intelligent plant creature is exactly as evil.

[Psyren]

Whether you want to listen to the BoED's opinions on alignment is another matter.

It's really not an all-or-nothing situation. I know that's a popular practice on the internet and everything, but it's more than possible to accept the parts of BoED that make sense (such as killing intelligent beings being evil) and disregard the questionable bits, like Ravages.

BoED wasn't perfect, sure, but it was one of the first D&D books that actually approached the subject of monsters as something other than squishy bags of XP and treasure. They flubbed in some places but I'm not a fan of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.


Considering it sentience (or sapience) that makes the difference, I would say eating an intelligent plant creature is exactly as evil.

Eating a plant creature, sure. If it made fruit though, I wouldn't consider that to be evil. (Unless they weren't intended for me, which could be theft.)

[hamishspence]

Isn't the Ghoul (or ghast) what happens when a being who has eaten sapients, dies?

[subject42]

or force the poor grieving family to use Resurrection to heal them instead of raise dead, then i would rule its evil.

So what you're saying is that cannibalism is lawful good just so long as it's really expensive?

[Psyren]

So what you're saying is that cannibalism is lawful good just so long as it's really expensive?

I think what he's saying is that cannibalism is evil if doing so hurts the surviving family - either by making their loved one harder to raise, or by causing them undue distress by violating their cultural burial rites.

Meaning that even if you subscribe to the "waste nothing" philosophy of cannibalizing the dead, it can still cause harm to others besides yourself.

[Trekkin]

This reminds me of a character of mine who used to dissect his fallen enemies for tactical reasons. Yes, it was gross, but it helped us on several occasions to track them back to their homelands based on what they ate. The DM ended up ruling that making use of bodies is not in and of itself a Good or Evil act, but that I had to take precautions not to do so disrespectfully or wantonly. Then again, this also reminds me of Stranger in a Strange Land.

I'd think the same thing applies here. As long as no one's being hurt by it, as per the above problems with Resurrection and burial rites, it's hard to justify calling "following an ethical code demanding use of the dead" evil. As a practical matter, though, I would avoid bringing up that you do it, simply to avoid unnerving the rest of the party.

[Yuki Akuma]

It's really not an all-or-nothing situation. I know that's a popular practice on the internet and everything, but it's more than possible to accept the parts of BoED that make sense (such as killing intelligent beings being evil) and disregard the questionable bits, like Ravages.

BoED wasn't perfect, sure, but it was one of the first D&D books that actually approached the subject of monsters as something other than squishy bags of XP and treasure. They flubbed in some places but I'm not a fan of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

It was a joke.

[Andreaz]

My character is a druid who believes strongly in "eat what you kill" philosophy and wants to take a bite out of an enemy once it's downed. My party is convinced that this leads to a rapid alignment shift to chaotic evil. Any rules for that?

I see no moral value attached to the treatment of a corpse. It can only be really judged based on WHY it became a corpse in the first place, and how you interact with those things that are involved with the corpse (like relatives).

Eating an enemy once he dies is gross, not evil.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Eating an enemy once he dies is gross, not evil.

About as gross as going out hunting, killing a boar, and eating the pork from it.

[Andreaz]

About as gross as going out hunting, killing a boar, and eating the pork from it.

Prettymuch, yeah.

[Coidzor]

If it's for survival reasons, then it's not evil at all. Frank Herbert's Dune series has desert folk known as the Fremen that extract the water from their fallen and their enemie's fallen. This is done purely out of survival, as water is super scarce. In fact, they kill whoever is wandering the desert not wearing a stillsuit (a suit designed to retain all body moisture), because they believe it is a waste of water to do so. They leave anyone who is alone, though, so that's why it's not evil, just super conservative.

Frank Herbert's Dune series is not a very good basis for assigning morality to actions, just saying.

Anyway, OP, two questions for you.

1. Are you an Elf (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Elf)?

2. Are you playing with Frostburn, or whichever book it was that featured Wendigos, in play? Is your DM at all, even passingly, aware of the legends of the Wendigo?

If you answered no to both, go for it. If you answered yes to either of them, there may be grounds for a re-evaluation of the goals and means to achieve them on the table.

[hamishspence]

Fiend Folio's the one with Wendigos. However, the "cannibalism leads to transformation into Wendigo" is less in evidence there, than it is in 4E's Demonomicon.

[Ravens_cry]

[LIST]
Eating a plant creature, sure. If it made fruit though, I wouldn't consider that to be evil. (Unless they weren't intended for me, which could be theft.)
One possible exception one the fruit thing. Birds can't taste capsicum. This had the advantage of making the fruit of plants that use it less palatable to mammals, which can.
Why is this an advantage? Because a birds digestive system is less rough on seeds, making seeds that go through the pipes, as it were, much more likely to be viable.
So if you encounter a sentient chilli plant creature, don't eat the fruit if you are a mammal.

[NNescio]

Frank Herbert's Dune series is not a very good basis for assigning morality to actions, just saying.

Ah yes, it's filled to the brim with Lawful Evil schemers. It's just that half of them are on the protagonist's side (or more likely, they are the protagonists).

*cough* Leto II (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NecessarilyEvil) *cough*

[Coidzor]

So if you encounter a sentient chilli plant creature, don't eat the fruit if you are a mammal.

What? No. That just means you should eat them twice as hard because peppers are delicious and the natural response of humanoids to learn to love and overcome the barriers set before them is a clear example of the beauty of the battlefield of nature in action. :smallamused:

[Tvtyrant]

I would argue that eating metacognative creatures (the best definition for intelligence as involved in this debate IMO) is not evil as long as your not hunting them to eat. To quote Stephen Stiles: "A gig is a gig is a gig is a gig." Once they are meat you can eat them.

The real question is how evil you were in killing them in the first place.

[Ravens_cry]

I would argue that eating metacognative creatures (the best definition for intelligence as involved in this debate IMO) is not evil as long as your not hunting them to eat. To quote Stephen Stiles: "A gig is a gig is a gig is a gig." Once they are meat you can eat them.

The real question is how evil you were in killing them in the first place.
I doubt that would help you much in your defence if you if you decided to chow down at the funeral parlour.

What? No. That just means you should eat them twice as hard because peppers are delicious and the natural response of humanoids to learn to love and overcome the barriers set before them is a clear example of the beauty of the battlefield of nature in action.:smallamused:
Ordinary peppers sure. I love 'em personally. But there is no excuse for baby eating the off spring of a sapient being.

[Starbuck_II]

The Book of Vile Darkness places the eating of sapient beings as Always-Evil. That being said, if you'd like a different (read: intelligent) take on alignment, this isn't necessarily the case.


No, it says eating them for power or pleasure.

So using to power spells (Vile spells require it sometimes) or pleasure (you perfer eating them when other food available) is evil.

So what the Druid is doing is within the leeway to be okay.

[The Succubus]

So I hear elf tastes like chicken.

[Andorax]

BoVD and BoED (The two books that most directly address morality in the game) both consistantly place it in the "always evil" category.

Fluff/allegorical text of both the Ghoul and the Wendigo indicate that it's not just evil, it's *so* evil that it can result in spontanious transformation into undead.


I think it's pretty clear what the by-the-book interpretation is.

[hamishspence]

I remember BoVD mentioning cannibalism, but not BoED specifically.

BoVD also points out that under normal circumstances "a dragon gains no more pleasure, and decidedly less sustenance, from eating a human, than from eating a cow".

In the MM, several intelligent, nonevil creatures (griffins, dragon turtles, wyverns) are mentioned as eating humanoids.

So a case can be made that it's not always alignment-changingly evil.

[Safety Sword]

BoVD also points out that under normal circumstances "a dragon gains no more pleasure, and decidedly less sustenance, from eating a human, than from eating a cow".

You could just put that down to a difference in mass!

[Hanuman]

I remember BoVD mentioning cannibalism, but not BoED specifically.

BoVD also points out that under normal circumstances "a dragon gains no more pleasure, and decidedly less sustenance, from eating a human, than from eating a cow".

In the MM, several intelligent, nonevil creatures (griffins, dragon turtles, wyverns) are mentioned as eating humanoids.

So a case can be made that it's not always alignment-changingly evil.

It's about intent and worth, but I'd say dnd is based off of contemporary religion and ethics so all sapient beings are an allegory for humans and would be considered cannibalism. I might make the distinction that eating a sentient creature outside of your creature type isn't the same thing, or eating an intelligent item, or a soul trapped in a gem, but I would make this rule's judgement HEAVILY based on modern taboo.

[Coidzor]

Ordinary peppers sure. I love 'em personally. But there is no excuse for baby eating the off spring of a sapient being.

Whoa there, Miss Slippery Slope, who said anything about babies fighting adventurers?

If they're old enough to attack and pose a threat to travelers, they're old enough to not add anything morally to killing them due to their age.

It's more like eating Salmon Roe if you're specifically talking about the fruits of a complete pepper plant rather than a sapient chili pepper anyway.

And, really, sapient chili peppers are far more quirky and D&D than sapient chili plants.


It's about intent and worth, but I'd say dnd is based off of contemporary religion and ethics

Except for the bit where wolves are viewed as evil.

[Onikani]

I could certainly see eating the heart (or some such) of every foe you personally kill as chaotic, or even lawful if that's the custom in your society (gods, I hate the unclear distinction between law and chaos), but not evil.

It really depends on the motivations for eating them.

Switching our brains from the real world to the D&D world is complicated by the fact that our laws tend to uphold our morality. So for us "Lawful" and "Good" tend to be synonymous. But the D&D rules break it down into much smaller pieces...
In order to understand them, you need to understand what each of the two pieces 'means' and then figure out how they interact when you put them together.

It's quite simple:
"Law" is the belief in structure, order and patterns. Hierarchies and rules should be in place to maintain order. (Please note that how an individual uses that system will be determined by their good/evil axis).

"Chaos" is the belief that there should be no form of structure at all. No rules, no laws, etc. (Again, this is completely independent from the good/evil axis).


Here's some common hangups:
People can fight a tyrannical government and still be lawful (assuming they have hopes of instilling a new government after they win).
Example: The Rebellion from the classic Star Wars trilogy.

People can attempt to corrupt/manipulate a fair government and still be lawful (especially if they are able to gain from it).
Example: Lawyers :)


Back to the OP:
I won't comment on whether eating the flesh of the dead is evil or not, that's been done enough in this thread. :)
But i will say it shouldn't change your law/chaos axis.
(Unless you are eating people for the sole purpose of somehow trying to spread laws, or destroy the entire structure of your society - and according to your post, you aren't).

[Safety Sword]

Back to the OP:
I won't comment on whether eating the flesh of the dead is evil or not, that's been done enough in this thread. :)
But i will say it shouldn't change your law/chaos axis.
(Unless you are eating people for the sole purpose of somehow trying to spread laws, or destroy the entire structure of your society - and according to your post, you aren't).

Eating your enemies to sow chaos. What a delicious idea. :smallwink:

[Drelua]

"Chaos" is the belief that there should be no form of structure at all. No rules, no laws, etc. (Again, this is completely independent from the good/evil axis).

That's not being chaotic, that's being chaotic and having an abysmal wisdom score. It would be foolish to believe that without any sort of law the world would be liveable. A chaotic good person, such as myself, realizes that some law is necessary to keep psychopaths from killing all the people they want and never getting in trouble. Sure, most could be hunted down by mobs of angry people, but if they aren't seen and there's no investigation, they will get away with it, and the world will be much worse for it.

That isn't lawful, that's simple logic. Contrary to popular belief, chaotic people can also be logical. Sure, I'll ignore laws whenever my own moral compass says it's okay, but I'm glad there are police to stop people from drinking and driving, speeding, selling drugs to 12-year-olds, etc.

I'm chaotic, not stupid. :smallwink:

[Doorhandle]

OR so you think. Morality is WAAAAAAAY too subjective in real life to truly know where you stand.

In my opinion, the druid IN this example would simply be bumped down to Neutral evil at worst, and true neutral at best. It seems too opportunistic and self-serving for the cannibalism to be chaotic, although it's still questionable.

[Wings of Peace]

Imo no. It's not as though eating something now dead causes it additional suffering. Any other arguments that spring to mind seem largely cultural.

[Hanuman]

"Chaos" is the belief that there should be no form of structure at all. No rules, no laws, etc. (Again, this is completely independent from the good/evil axis).
http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110815.gif


Eating your enemies to sow chaos. What a delicious idea.
Ozodrin


Except for the bit where wolves are viewed as evil.
Lone wolves are pretty cool guy, people not understand them and they don't afraid of anything.

[Onikani]

That's not being chaotic, that's being chaotic and having an abysmal wisdom score. It would be foolish to believe that without any sort of law the world would be liveable. A chaotic good person, such as myself, realizes that some law is necessary to keep psychopaths from killing all the people they want and never getting in trouble. Sure, most could be hunted down by mobs of angry people, but if they aren't seen and there's no investigation, they will get away with it, and the world will be much worse for it.

That isn't lawful, that's simple logic. Contrary to popular belief, chaotic people can also be logical. Sure, I'll ignore laws whenever my own moral compass says it's okay, but I'm glad there are police to stop people from drinking and driving, speeding, selling drugs to 12-year-olds, etc.

I'm chaotic, not stupid. :smallwink:


Those sound like some good points, except you are wrong. :)
Believing in some laws still means you believe in the concept of law - which by it's very nature is a lawful tenet.
Similarly: law and chaos oppose each other; a belief in chaos is the antithesis to a belief in law. You cannot believe in the need for law and still call yourself chaotic.

Here is a really good article written by Jason Nelson-Brown explaining alignments.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a
I've snipped the relevant part and quoted it below (emphasis mine).



To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

Societal freedom? What could that possibly mean other than a society without law?
All things considered - you sound lawful to me. I'll trust you on the good part. :)

[Drelua]

Societal freedom? What could that possibly mean other than a society without law?
All things considered - you sound lawful to me. I'll trust you on the good part. :)

Nice source, except your interpretation of it is wrong. Societal freedom means basic rights. If there is no laws keeping people safe, then you are not free to live safely. Like I said, it would be stupid to believe that society would be better without anything to keep us safe. Thinking things through is not lawful, though I admit that this is one of my...less chaotic aspects. Being free and having the freedom to stab whoever you want and endanger as many people as you want are two different things. One of the core concepts of the Canadian charter is that you have the right to any freedom that does not hurt another person, and though it certainly doesn't seem chaotic to paraphrase from a legal document, this is one thing the government did right.

How would you feel knowing there was nothing to stop all those serial killers we've all heard of? Would this be a better society for anyone other than said killers? Only a fool would say yes to that question, and I am no fool, though I am chaotic, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree on that point if you knew me, as all of my DND friends do.

Short version: without law you are not free to live because killers are free to kill you without fear of investigation. The killers that already exist would still be free, and those that don't kill for fear of punishment would lose that fear.

I am chaotic, and I hate having laws and rules tell me what to do, but I'm smart enough to realize that they are necessary for good people to be truly free and for bad people not to be.

[Onikani]

Societal freedom means basic rights. If there is no laws keeping people safe, then you are not free to live safely.

Law/Chaos say NOTHING about basic rights and safety.
Chaos (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos) means chaos.

Lawful evil is not converned with societies 'rights'. It is concerned with using law and oppression for personal gain, even if it has to kill others.
But it is concerned with doing it within the bounds of structure, ie Law.

Chaotic evil will kill you for no reason other than the sheer thrill of it.

Personal 'Rights' are bound to the good/evil axis, not to the law/chaos one.

[Drelua]

Law/Chaos say NOTHING about basic rights and safety.
Chaos (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos) means chaos.

Lawful evil is not converned with societies 'rights'. It is concerned with using law and oppression for personal gain, even if it has to kill others.
But it is concerned with doing it within the bounds of structure, ie Law.

Chaotic evil will kill you for no reason other than the sheer thrill of it.

Personal 'Rights' are bound to the good/evil axis, not to the law/chaos one.

I know they're not on the law/chaos axis, I never said they were. What I did say was that chaotic people can believe in the safety of other people and laws help this happen. If good people believe in the rights of others, and you except that law helps preserve those rights, and chaotic people can also be good, then what are you arguing? Do you deny that laws protect people, or am I right? It has to be one or the other. Well, either that or that chaotic people are all morons, but you don't seem anywhere foolish enough to say anything like that. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Imo no. It's not as though eating something now dead causes it additional suffering. Any other arguments that spring to mind seem largely cultural.

The dead creature won't suffer more, true. But its surviving family likely wouldn't take your nutritional activities in stride.

[Safety Sword]

The dead creature won't suffer more, true. But its surviving family likely wouldn't take your nutritional activities in stride.

You obviously shouldn't be selfish about it. Invite them.

No? :smallamused:

[Onikani]

Switching our brains from the real world to the D&D world is complicated by the fact that our laws tend to uphold our morality. So for us "Lawful" and "Good" tend to be synonymous. But the D&D rules break it down into much smaller pieces...
In order to understand them, you need to understand what each of the two pieces 'means' and then figure out how they interact when you put them together.



I know they're not on the law/chaos axis, I never said they were. What I did say was that chaotic people can believe in the safety of other people and laws help this happen. If good people believe in the rights of others, and you except that law helps preserve those rights, and chaotic people can also be good, then what are you arguing? Do you deny that laws protect people, or am I right? It has to be one or the other. Well, either that or that chaotic people are all morons, but you don't seem anywhere foolish enough to say anything like that. :smallwink:

What I am saying is the same thing I originally said: Most people in today's society get the concepts of "law" and "good" confused because our society's tend to have laws that uphold our morality.

I never said you have to be a moron to be chaotic.
I never said that there cannot be good within chaos.

What i did say is you have to look at the pieces.
As a piece - independent of good and evil - "Chaos" is strictly the belief that both individuals and society can and should exist independent of laws, structure, and methodology.
I agree that in *our* world chaos tends towards evil, but you need to separate that conception in order to truly understand how the D&D alignment pieces fit.
Chaotic evil wants pure anarchy.
Chaotic good wants everyone to be free and get along without the need for laws.
Both want freedom from rules and both want different things as an end result (and as always that thing is determined by the good/evil axis).

Wanting either of those ideals has nothing to do with your intelligence, wisdom, or ability to be 'logical'.


In reference to your statements:
"chaotic people can believe in the safety of other people"
Yes, but mainly only the chaotic good would be.

"laws help this happen"
Yes, laws can help the safety of others happen. But feeling a need to rely on a law is a lawful sentiment. Also, laws do not need to help this happen.

"If good people believe in the rights of others, and you accept that law helps preserve those rights, and chaotic people can also be good, then what are you arguing?"

Your statement that chaotic people can believe in law.
Chaos believes that there should not be laws.
Again, you have juxtaposed the necessity of laws with an individual's ability to be good.


Instead of good, let's look at evil. It may be easier to prove the point...
If it were legal for everyone to kill people, one may suspect that the local mortuary would have a booming business. But, good people wouldn't kill others, while evil people would. And in either case it would still be Lawful. In a lawful evil society, the laws do not protect people.

The presence, absence, or depth of laws has nothing to do with whether a society is good or evil; the laws are only used to maintain order.

Having trouble thinking of a society that is truly Chaotic good? Think of it like the original Woodstock: No laws, no inhibitions, peace, love and happiness for everyone.

And no, i don't consider all hippies chaotics to be morons.


Again, the bottom line is simple:
Law believes in using structure to create some end result.
Chaos believes in the lack of laws to create personal freedom.
Good believes in the rights of the group (possibly at the expense of oneself).
Evil believes in the rights of the oneself.

[Drelua]

Onikani, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. I do believe that there would be no need for laws in a perfect world, but I also believe that there is no such thing as true perfection. I would love to live in a world in which laws are not necessary, but the truth of the matter is that our world would be far more dangerous without them. I do not confuse law with goodness, but chaotic people can believe in law when it facilitates safety and is just. If people were better, we wouldn't need them, but we do.

Chaos is not the belief that there should be no laws, because that would be extremely dangerous and, as I have been saying, you would have to be a fool to believe the world would be as safe without laws that are just. This is why anarchy is a terrible thing.

You are right, I do want everyone to be free and safe without laws, but that is never going to happen. While most people wouldn't hurt others, there will always be some that will. Laws prevent this, though they cannot completely stop it. Honestly, I pay no attention to the law, because the law class I took showed me that there are no laws against anything I would do. (or rather, get caught doing :smallwink:)

I feel we are de-railing this thread a bit too much, so if you wish to continue this conversation feel free to PM me, although I don't think there is much else to be said.

[Onikani]

Onikani, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. <snip>

Chaos is not the belief that there should be no laws, because that would be extremely dangerous and, as I have been saying, you would have to be a fool to believe the world would be as safe without laws that are just. This is why anarchy is a terrible thing.

<snip>


I feel we are de-railing this thread a bit too much, so if you wish to continue this conversation feel free to PM me, although I don't think there is much else to be said.

I do agree we are derailing this thread. :smallbiggrin: So i will be brief...

But i will still say you are wrong.
Chaos *is* the belief that there should be no laws. This is as true in any English dictionary as it is in the D&D alignment system.
Period. Paragraph. Page.

Yes, in *our* world that would be stupid and dangerous. However we are talking about a *fictional* world within a *game*.

And regardless of how just and safe the laws are, Chaos simply cannot believe in Laws. The words are antonyms for a reason.



"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unfettered) personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

There is no room for "Law" in any of that definition.

[Hanuman]

Sounds like it's my job to play arbiter between you two.

1) Believing that the premise of law rather than it's current effect is a LAWFUL sentiment, believing in law for it's effect rather than it's premise is a CHAOTIC sentiment.

2) Players, characters, npcs and awakened oozes can all believe in whatever they want, it doesn't make them one way or the other, it's a generalization or an obscenely powerful intent, belief or act which changes alignment, this is strong enough to change magical effects in the game, sway the view of gods and spirits and sometimes, in the case of hercules, become a god. It's this that the DM goes by, if you say "boy the law in the last town was swell, there was like, no crime" your DM isn't going to bust your barbarian levels. MOST characters will turn out neutral, or chaotic.

3) Rigidity vs. Relaxed
Chaotic characters come in many flavors, but what makes a chaotic character chaotic is their tendency or strong action towards the relaxing of belief, concept, ideal, worth or moral. This does not mean they don't believe in law or not, it means that they have a dynamic opinion. For instance, at your local church you'll probably have fundamentalists and relaxed learners, a fundamentalist would believe theres only one meaning for their book and be all srsface, and others might consider its just a book and think of many meanings for each psalm. The one meaning guys will have their brains go rigid, the many meanings guys will have a dynamic viewpoint. This is the main reason for the L-C alignment for characters, paladins simply do not have the ability to relax their views per their archetype, and dnd is a game of archetypes.

4) Society
Anarchy is a movement that believes in destroying society and planning nothing in it's place (usually reserved for alcoholic punks)
Freedom of society means tribalism, deciding your rules in a small community, get along, change or leave. It's dynamic not disestablished. I would say that law in this case loses it's meaning, and it could be said there is no law, but that's really not the point as it could or could not have it and still be valid.

5) Why does alignment function this way?
Simple, this game is designed for all ages, it's hard articles sometimes say silly stuff to make things easier, but provide flavor to allow DM's to take their time and think. DnD is not a game for the old or the intelligent, it's for everyone, and fankly there's a LOT of blockheads who play this game which you just can't explain concepts like "alignment" to past "he stabs people, he works at an orphanage, he's a cop, he's a punk".

[Laniius]

Thanks for all the interesting replies! I think I'll just not do it, as it raises too many complaints from my party (though, when we were playing a goblin campaign, everyone was chowing down on sapients left and right... because we were EBUL. *sigh*.)

[Siosilvar]

Thanks for all the interesting replies! I think I'll just not do it, as it raises too many complaints from my party (though, when we were playing a goblin campaign, everyone was chowing down on sapients left and right... because we were EBUL. *sigh*.)

I think you should introduce your party to Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. :smallwink:

The Martians have established cannibalism into their society. No use wasting biomass, especially if it's not connected to the spirit (which lives on, discorporated from the body that once housed it).

[Onikani]

Sounds like it's my job to play arbiter between you two.

Thanks, but we've moved to Pm, it's quite friendly there actually. :)

And i must say, I agree with three of your five points.
Two of them are wrong. :)



it's for everyone, and fankly there's a LOT of blockheads who play this game which you just can't explain concepts like "alignment" to

This however, is spot on.
:smallbiggrin:

[The Succubus]

I think you should introduce your party to Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. :smallwink:

The Martians have established cannibalism into their society. No use wasting biomass, especially if it's not connected to the spirit (which lives on, discorporated from the body that once housed it).

That's the second time I've come across that book mentioned on here. The previous time was in "the price of sex" thread. Oo

[Killer Angel]

About as gross as going out hunting, killing a boar, and eating the pork from it.

Except, a pork is an animal, not a human, or an elf, or a dwarf.
Try eating members of those races, and very soon you'll be labeled as a psychopath monster, then hunted and killed. At that point, the alignment question will be valid only for what kind of afterlife you'll have.

[Username_too_lo]

The Book of Vile Darkness places the eating of sapient beings as Always-Evil. That being said, if you'd like a different (read: intelligent) take on alignment, this isn't necessarily the case.

Somewhere there is a Uruguayan rugby team who'd take issue with that - well, a reduced portion of the team, anyway.

Not to mention the inventors of the original Donner Kebab.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do - it might not be lawful, but it's not evil.

[Username_too_lo]

Oh, and the reason we have laws against Cannibalism is the same reason we have laws against euthanasia - it may be consensual, but as the affected party has left this plane of existence there's no way to prove it, and sometimes people lie.

Of course, that's a get out.

Druid: Hey, Cleric, can you cast Speak with Dead on this guy?
Cleric: Er, Ok.
Druid: Hi, dude; sorry I had to kill you. Listen, now you're dead is it cool if I snack on your bod?
Sapient Creature: Sure, why the hell not.
Druid: Thanks, dude. OMNOMNOMNOM!!

[Killer Angel]

Somewhere there is a Uruguayan rugby team who'd take issue with that - well, a reduced portion of the team, anyway.


They were forced to do that to survive, they were not pleased and found it unconfortable, and it was such an impressive thing that it's well known as an extreme example. In D&D terms, they didn't shift alignment, but it left traces on they consciences (an almost evil act that needs a sort of atonement).
Deliberately eating dead enemies as a symbol of celebrating the victory, goes a step further than Walter Kurtz. :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

Also, they were eating the people who died in the crash rather than killing people and eating them, since by the time they were desperate enough to resort to cannibalism, none of them were worth eating or safe to eat anyway from what I've heard of the subject of starvation.


Druid: Hi, dude; sorry I had to kill you. Listen, now you're dead is it cool if I snack on your bod?
Sapient Creature: Sure, why the hell not.
Druid: Thanks, dude. OMNOMNOMNOM!!

SPEAK WITH DEAD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!</Morbo>

[Starbuck_II]

Also, they were eating the people who died in the crash rather than killing people and eating them, since by the time they were desperate enough to resort to cannibalism, none of them were worth eating or safe to eat anyway from what I've heard of the subject of starvation.


No one is defending murdering people and eating them. Just eating them isn't evil. Murder is the part that makes it evil.

[Morithias]

Sounds like it's my job to play arbiter between you two.

4) Society
Anarchy is a movement that believes in destroying society and planning nothing in it's place (usually reserved for alcoholic punks)
Freedom of society means tribalism, deciding your rules in a small community, get along, change or leave. It's dynamic not disestablished. I would say that law in this case loses it's meaning, and it could be said there is no law, but that's really not the point as it could or could not have it and still be valid.


Uh...NO!

Anarchy is "Without leaders" not "without order". You know that society in BOED that has no laws because everyone in it is so compassionate that they literally do not need them anymore? THAT was the original concept and ideal behind anarchy.

Claiming Anarchy is a movement that believes in destroying society is like claiming that Christian Rock is a movement to destroy the churches. They want to IMPROVE said thing, just in an unusual way.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Uh...NO!

Anarchy is "Without leaders" not "without order". You know that society in BOED that has no laws because everyone in it is so compassionate that they literally do not need them anymore? THAT was the original concept and ideal behind anarchy.

Claiming Anarchy is a movement that believes in destroying society is like claiming that Christian Rock is a movement to destroy the churches. They want to IMPROVE said thing, just in an unusual way.

I think what you're describing is Communism, not Anarchy. No government, everyone helps each other.

[Hanuman]

You know that society in BOED that has no laws because everyone in it is so compassionate that they literally do not need them anymore?
All we need is a drug that doesn't wear off.. hmmm, perhaps a surgery?

Anarchy simply doesn't work, it proposes no leadership and then leadership arises, sunrise sunset.

[Andreaz]

I think what you're describing is Communism, not Anarchy. No government, everyone helps each other.

In practice, anarchy is nearly indistinguishable from the perfect democracy.

[etrpgb]

In real life humans eat octopuses that are fairly intelligent. Something like a 3 years old human baby.

So since in RL no-one cares I guess you should not care in a game.

[AMFV]

There are a few different ways this could be taken alignment-wise. Depending on a number of factions.

Lawful Good: If the druid comes from a culture that eats the dead as part of their funerary rites, such as some in Africa, he is performing last rites for his enemies, clearly a good act and a lawful act. If viewed by most western cultures as distasteful. This sort of thing does require an extensive backstory.

Neutral: Eating an already dead sentient being in case of extreme starvation. This is unpleasant, but it is necessary. It is not a preferable situation but it is sometimes necessary to do so to survive.

Evil (Any): Eating a corpse for the purpose of eating it. This involves simply desecrating the body of a sapient creature for no reason other than to eat it. You do not need to eat the corpse to sustain yourself, and therefore you are merely desecrating the corpse.

Unpleasant Jackass: Other players at the table are made uncomfortable by your cannibalistic descriptions, yet you continue to insist on them, because it is ''just your character''. Some people are not comfortable at all with this, and if that is the case, DROP IT.

[Killer Angel]

In real life humans eat octopuses that are fairly intelligent. Something like a 3 years old human baby.

So since in RL no-one cares I guess you should not care in a game.

So, should I suppose that you're comfortable by cannibalistic acts in RL? :smallamused:
The OP is about "to take a bite out of an enemy once it's downed". This includes octopuses AND humans.

[Coidzor]

No one is defending murdering people and eating them. Just eating them isn't evil. Murder is the part that makes it evil.

You mean other than the OP, right? :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

You mean other than the OP, right? :smalltongue:

Killing evil enemies isn't exactly murder if hired by the mayor or some force with authority.
So he is safe as long as he isn't eating random encounters. :smallbiggrin:

[Andreaz]

Eh, the moral judgments of it stop at the killing part.

[Hanuman]

In practice, anarchy is nearly indistinguishable from the perfect democracy.
Example of where it's been demonstrated?

[Andreaz]

Example of where it's been demonstrated?
Most uncontacted people in Brasil's isolated areas, for one. Their important decision making involves everyone of age with no exception.
Democracy being "a government in which all have equal say in the decisions" and Anarchy being "allowing people to agree to make a functional society", the only real difference between the two is that anarchy has more moral freedom.
Coincidentally both are also impossible, idealized templates.

[Hanuman]

Most uncontacted people in Brasil's isolated areas, for one. Their important decision making involves everyone of age with no exception.
Democracy being "a government in which all have equal say in the decisions" and Anarchy being "allowing people to agree to make a functional society", the only real difference between the two is that anarchy has more moral freedom.
Coincidentally both are also impossible, idealized templates.
Sounds like tribalism, but who knows as they have not been contacted?

[Killer Angel]

Sounds like tribalism, but who knows as they have not been contacted?

But, staying on target, those lost tribes in the jungle, often try to eat the civilized explorers.
I know it! I've seen it in films! :smalltongue: