Cannibalism, is it evil, or even accurate. [Archive]

Tiadoppler

2018-02-06, 06:04 PM

Eating a sapient creature is not necessarily "Evil" as defined by D&D terms.

"Species" is not well defined in D&D, so the idea that "Cannibalism is eating a member of the same species" does not apply. A "species" is usually defined as a group of animals capable of interbreeding. One of the most well-known exceptions to the rule is the liger, which is sometimes used as evidence that the lion and tiger should be considered a single species, rather than two separate species.

In D&D, a dragon can procreate with virtually any other species (sapient or otherwise), so it might be argued that all living things in D&D are part of the dragon species, or at least genus. Therefore, because of D&D's sorry excuse for biological consistency, an orc eating a rabbit is a cannibal.

In D&D terms, a better definition of cannibalism would be "eating a sapient being".

Killing an innocent non-sapient creature and eating it is simply natural predation.

Killing an innocent sapient is an "Evil" act. Killing a sapient to defend yourself or others is not "Evil".

Eating a sapient creature is certainly hilariously illegal in many, if not most "Good" civilizations.

Eating any sapient creature most likely involves desecrating a corpse. This depends a lot on an individual culture's funereal rites. Given that there is proof of the existence of afterlives in most D&D settings, the body of an individual may not have any special significance to their culture (the soul has already reached the afterlife, the body's just meat), or may be considered much more important (for ease of resurrection and the idea that the soul has a direct magical connection to the body). This could be considered an "Evil" act.

TheTeaMustFlow

2018-02-06, 06:05 PM

But people have always eaten people,
What else is there to eat?
If Tiamat had meant us not to eat people,
She wouldn't have made them of meat! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtsi3CkfBE)

willdaBEAST

2018-02-06, 06:22 PM

In 5e as far as alignments go.

Say I am playing a person who has no problem with eating other races, but not his own. Is it cannibalism?

Ex. I am playing a human who will not eat another human but he would eat an elf, dwarf. Or gnome ect.

Is that even really cannibalism?

If it is, it is automatically evil?

He does not kill people for food, but if he is traveling and is jumped by bandits and the group kills them, if they are not human he will harvest meat and cook it.

Is that evil.

I think the more important question is, how does the elf, dwarf, gnome, etc, in your party react when your character eats a member of their race? You're setting yourself up for PvP in a lot of cases. I think Lizardfolk get more of a pass due to being so alien in nature, but I'm sure plenty of parties have had issues with a Lizardfolk eating the corpses of other humanoids.

Why is this person willing to eat other humanoids, but not humans? What is driving this behavior? If it's purely pragmatism or survival, I don't see why it would matter what the meat is.

MadBear

2018-02-06, 06:36 PM

This topic reminded me of a person on this forum who wanted to make a barbarian who was too dim-witted to know killing random people and eating them was evil, and then arguing that him killing everyone should not only not be evil, but should be accepted by his party.

Whether it's cannibalism or not, is irrelevant to the fact that murdering these others either makes you:

1. A beast without intelligence, in which case you should be put down for the good of society
2. You're evil and you should be put down for the good of society.

If we're just talking about you eating bandits that attacked you, then that's some pretty weird murky Donner Party stuff going on. If it was to survive (aka you were starving) it's probably fine, if not completely unacceptable, and if it was for the lulz, you're messed up if not definitely evil.

SpamCreateWater

2018-02-06, 06:41 PM

Ask and ye shall receive.

Why is this person willing to eat other humanoids, but not humans? What is driving this behavior? If it's purely pragmatism or survival, I don't see why it would matter what the meat is.

He would never eat human meat because it is unhealthy, but other races are fine.

It is kind of also from his family backstory.

xanderh

2018-02-06, 06:48 PM

There's two main reasons that cannibalism is taboo in the real world:
1: in modern society, cannibalism implies that the "food" was killed for the purpose of eating them, since it's not a legal way to dispose of the corpse.
2: cannibalism carries a significant risk of disease and parasites, and is not a safe way to dispose of dead corpses. This is most likely the reason Western society evolved to consider it taboo,{Scrubbed}

So if neither of those two points are an issue in your world, it is possible it wouldn't be considered taboo, and therefore wouldn't be evil. In most settings, its likely taboo for most sentient races except for lizardfolk and evil races.

GlenSmash!

2018-02-06, 06:49 PM

The question on "Is it evil?" is never as useful to me for DMing as "How would the in game inhabitants of the world react to this?"

The answer will very by culture. Lizardfolk would consider it only natural and would likely be surprised that other cultures don't eat the dead. So wasteful.

Otherwise I could see civilized cultures viewing it with distaste, and certain tribal cultures with outright abhorrence.

Luccan

2018-02-06, 07:03 PM

I certainly don't encourage eating sapient creatures. Comes too close to looking at your half-elf buddy and thinking "I can't wait for dinner tonight! Regular elf is too gamey".

That said, whether cannibalism is inherently evil isn't relevant. The question is: Where are you getting the bodies? Also, if your DM isn't forcing your characters to choose between eating people and dying, why do you want your character to be ok with eating people? Is it likely to come up in your game?

Naanomi

2018-02-06, 07:24 PM

With lots of caveats...

*intentionally *killing or causing grevious harm to *non-consenting beings you *know are *sentient for the *primary purpose of sustenance (or for the *pleasure of eating when food is not necessary) when other food sources are *readily available is Evil in the cosmological sense; as evidenced by it being the kind of thing various Fiends would do and encourage others to do but Celestials would not

Lizardman generally eat people when other food is scarce, or they were going to kill them anyways for territorial reasons; so doesn’t fit

And note, there are good practical reasons to avoid any kind of cannibalism in a fantasy setting even without Alignment factors... there a ton of mythological monsters that have origin stories of ‘someone ate human meat’... ghouls and wendigo and the like... in most ‘kitchen sink fantasy settings’ I would fully expect someone engaging in such practices to end up turning into something horrid as a result

Hrugner

2018-02-06, 07:25 PM

There's a bunch of issues to consider. However, without mitigating circumstances, it is indeed evil.
If:
you have no other food options
the meal is a willing participant, including members of cultures that accept that cannibalism is a way of life, but not eating members outside that culture
you don't seek out sentient creatures to kill and eat over other food
you are unaware of the sentience of the creature
not eating the person would cause more harm than eating them
you are forced to eat them under threat
the eating of people doesn't increase the risk of diseases and misfolded proteins
increasing the difficulty of resurrecting the meal won't cause problems

Then it's all good. Mere convenience is not enough to forgive the act.

willdaBEAST

2018-02-06, 07:31 PM

Thanks SpamCreateWater, I missed the OP's follow up post.

The character is human, a master chef who want to learn all the flavors of the world and how to be the greatest chef ever.

I actually have a player in the campaign I DM who fits this description. He was offered stew containing human meat by one of Strahd's associates and willingly tried it for the experience. In my mind that fits this mentality more than butchering and eating humanoids. The character is curious and will try pretty much anything, but they're not necessarily going to prepare it for themselves.

He would never eat human meat because it is unhealthy, but other races are fine.

It is kind of also from his family backstory. That's a little flimsy imo. I would come up with a stronger reason, this is bizarre behavior to justify. I think the main concerns for this kind of behavior is disease transfer and from our world, cannibalizing brains can lead to effects similar to mad cow disease. Is there any lore about diseases in the various DnD settings? Is there a flu or plague that can be passed between races? If so, I think the unhealthy argument kind of falls apart. Eating any humanoid would be a risk for disease.

Dudewithknives

2018-02-06, 08:00 PM

Thanks SpamCreateWater, I missed the OP's follow up post.

I actually have a player in the campaign I DM who fits this description. He was offered stew containing human meat by one of Strahd's associates and willingly tried it for the experience. In my mind that fits this mentality more than butchering and eating humanoids. The character is curious and will try pretty much anything, but they're not necessarily going to prepare it for themselves.

That's a little flimsy imo. I would come up with a stronger reason, this is bizarre behavior to justify. I think the main concerns for this kind of behavior is disease transfer and from our world, cannibalizing brains can lead to effects similar to mad cow disease. Is there any lore about diseases in the various DnD settings? Is there a flu or plague that can be passed between races? If so, I think the unhealthy argument kind of falls apart. Eating any humanoid would be a risk for disease.

The reason he will not eat human meat is because he is human himself. It is unhealthy to eat your own kind it leads to disease and disorders. That is not necessarily true of other races.

He will try to cook anything at least once. For all he knows maybe mind flyer meat is the finest delicacy around, but who would know? Maybe dragon steak is better then the finest filet mignon.

At some point he might try to find a way to gain immortality because the human life span is not long enough to try all the flavors of the world.

He looks at everything and thinks of what it would be prepared with, even poisonous items.

Not that class matters I don't think but he is a monk.

Malifice

2018-02-06, 08:55 PM

Malifice

2018-02-06, 09:06 PM

The reason he will not eat human meat is because he is human himself. It is unhealthy to eat your own kind it leads to disease and disorders. That is not necessarily true of other races.

He will try to cook anything at least once. For all he knows maybe mind flyer meat is the finest delicacy around, but who would know? Maybe dragon steak is better then the finest filet mignon.

At some point he might try to find a way to gain immortality because the human life span is not long enough to try all the flavors of the world.

He looks at everything and thinks of what it would be prepared with, even poisonous items.

Not that class matters I don't think but he is a monk.

And when other creatures around you show their obvious disgust and revulsion at you, you have no concern for them and just keep on chowing down on halfling flesh.

You're a monster who lacks any empathy for the suffering of those around you.

You're almost certainly evil, and any civilised society would treat you as much by imprisoning you in their dungeons.

No good person would want anything to do with you.

Unoriginal

2018-02-06, 09:24 PM

I'd be horrified personally and would want nothing to do with you, or alternatively dob you in to local authorities.

You're eating sentient people. Without any hesitation and for no other reason than you want to sample the taste of their flesh.

You're a monster. An uncaring monster. You don't care about your victims dignity in death and you also don't care about the horror of those around you that would be appalled by your actions.

It indicates to me that you're evilly aligned.

5e disagree with you. Lizarfolk do eat sapient beings, and they're usually not evil.

slavery and necromancy.

5e does not consider necromancy to be evil. It indicates that only evil people animate Undead regularly, but it's because magically controlling insane serial killers who will escape and try murdering everything if you **** up even once is not something a person who doesn't want to unleash pain and destruction on the world would do regularly.

5e does consider most forms of slavery to be evil, though the MM entry on Djinn says they have slaves that they treat as valued/adoring followers, without being evil.

sightlessrealit

2018-02-06, 09:25 PM

<-< Who says this character lacks empathy? When you'v decided to straight up come to a conclusion without asking the important question.

Op, is this character just going to kill folk to eat them. Or for example would he ask someone, perhaps a loved one of a dead person to request to cook their remains.

A question like that can really change the Outlook of the character.

Now if the character is told no but does anyways than it's still bad.

Naanomi

2018-02-06, 09:33 PM

I could imagine a certain brand of neutral character eating human (that happened to be available and prepared) out of curiosity ‘just to try it’; but engaging in it more than just a one off would be a quick path to Evil. And probably make you a wendigo or something.

Unoriginal

2018-02-06, 09:35 PM

CursedRhubarb

2018-02-06, 09:37 PM

It can also depend on where your character is from. While most "civilized" people would look down on cannibalism as evil and bad, if you look at the beliefs of the cannibalism tribes, the beliefs can vary. Some it would be as simple as humans are animals too so why waste good meat? Others it is along the lines of eating the dead is an honor, and by eating them they become part of you, and those who will eat you, thus reaching a form of eternal life so long as the chain continues.

Naanomi

2018-02-06, 09:38 PM

Well according to the books it can be a way to worship Orcus.
Yeah, no doubt people doing such things are generally super-blatantly-Evil. Just saying I could *imagine* like... a Chaotic Neutral Planescape Sensate... saying ‘sure, why not’ if the opportunity presented itself unexpectedly

Requilac

2018-02-06, 09:44 PM

Setting aside all cultural and religious factors, most would say that there is nothing inherently evil with eating another humanoid. So long as that person was already dead or you were already going to kill them for a reason which most would consider okay, such as when it’s a kill or be killed type of scenario. It could even be considered a good action if you are sharing the meal among others in need, such as handing out the meat to orphans if you wanted to make it look saintly. When you factor in religion and culture though, that’s when it becomes a darker area. The act of eating a human corpse is not wrong in most people’s eyes, it’s how it effects the people around the cannibal. Many cultures put a lot of importance on the proper disposal of the dead, so by mutiliating a corpse you are defiling their religious or cultural beliefs and most likely disturbing the family and friends of the deceased person. You are actively doing something which you know will horrify and insult them in a manner which hits them on an incredibly emotional level. It’s in truth not much better than taking a religious symbol and burning it out on the street. The act of cannibalism isn’t evil by its nature, but due to the way people react to it the action is made ethically deplorable. {Scrubbed} But even then the right to cannibalism is reserved to loved ones and not everyone, so you can’t eat the corpse of someone who was not in your family without disturbing their family emotionally.

Naanomi

2018-02-06, 09:53 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-02-06, 10:15 PM

There is a sharp distinction, I think, in the act of eating the flesh of a sentient being (which may carry other supernatural risks but may not be Evil on its own); and intentionally killing a sentient being for the purpose of consuming them when other food is readily available.

Killing people when you don’t have to, and when the killing isn’t ‘justified’ in a cosmic sense, is the main Evil to consider in most classic examples of cannibalism.
{scrubbed}

The character himself would never kill anyone for food. As a matter of fact he would prefer not killing unless he absolutely has too.

He wants to give the world great food.
He wants to feed the poor because the poor are truely appreciative of the food and show it reapect.
He want to feed the rich because their refined pallet knows how to analyze his flavor.
If the world was given healthy food that made them happy there would be more love and happiness and people would fight less.

He seeks to know every flavor and serve the best, so he must try everything at least once so he can refine his art. He would never kill anyone for it, he would never serve it to others unless they knew it and were ok with it.

He wants to try out every flavor and ever animal and plant so he may know what they would asppriciate more.

If he comes across a piece of unknown flora or fauna he wants to know all about it, he treats it with the utmost reapect and dignity. To be tested and tried for cooking is a honored art, but he would never kill for it.

I saw him a chaotic good actually.

Malifice

2018-02-06, 10:24 PM

{Scrubbed}

Naanomi

2018-02-06, 10:25 PM

As I said, curiously trying it when you have a happenstance opportunity? Neutral to me... making a ‘checklist’ of sentient beings you want to indulge in so you can ‘have tried them all’... plunges into Evil land for me; regardless of other citations of altruism

(DnD Alignment generally doesn’t allow for ‘making up’ for intentional Evil actions with either conspicuous Good acts or self-perception of Good intentions... one of the reasons why it is so much easier to ‘fall’ to Evil than ‘rise’ to Goodness)

Malifice

2018-02-06, 10:32 PM

Yep.

I can now officually add canabalism to the list of other 'non evil' acts like murder, genocide, slavery, necromancy, mass fratricide, torture, infanticide and demon summoning.

Only on a DnD forum. Only here.

2D8HP

2018-02-06, 10:47 PM

...I can now officually add canabalism to the list of other 'non evil' acts like murder, genocide, slavery, necromancy, mass fratricide, torture, infanticide and demon summoning.... Being silly Malifice
:confused:

If you already have the first eight what do you need to do the summoning for?

Wouldn't the demons be late for the party?

And they'd horn-in and get all graby with the baby meat!!

Let the fiends get their own mealticket!!!

Though I suppose the Johnny-come-lately's could help some with the torture maybe.

Malifice

2018-02-06, 10:56 PM

Anyone who thinks it isnt evil in this thread is going to be totally comfortable with the Police officer or Soldier or Bank Robber or Executioner who takes the bodies of his victims home with him to feed the family.

That's not going to upset anyone now is it? That person is displaying empathy for others isnt he? Society doesnt condem the act largely due to that very fact does it?

Such a person clearly lacks empathy. If you cant see that, and have no problem with the above there is something seriously wrong with you.

Image your kid was killed (in war or whatever). Now imagine you find out he was also eaten by those that killed him, for no other reason other than the person eating him had a fetish for the taste of human flesh.

I mean freaking image that. Would it upset you? Would it upset most people to have a relative eaten? Would it upset you to watch someone else eating a person for no good reason?

There is a freaking reason that cannabalism is virtually univerally prohibited (outside of extreme scenarios such as survival; and even there it is hotly debated), and its not just the fact that the risks of disease are higher.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-06, 11:01 PM

The character himself would never kill anyone for food. As a matter of fact he would prefer not killing unless he absolutely has too.

...

He seeks to know every flavor and serve the best, so he must try everything at least once so he can refine his art. He would never kill anyone for it, he would never serve it to others unless they knew it and were ok with it.

...

I saw him a chaotic good actually.

If a player in one of my campaigns came to me with this idea, this would be what I'd be thinking:

> Why is this a character that's interesting to play? Where are you going with this? Do you have a character arc in mind?

> Will the player be playing this character seriously and consistently, or is it a bad joke/running gag?

> How is this going to affect the party? This character behaves in a manner that is repugnant to the living and disrespectful to the dead, irrespective of the theoretical "Not-Evil" of the actual activity.

> How is this going to affect the plot? This character will be a wanted criminal in any civilized place that knows of his activities.

> Why does this character want to try to eat sapient beings unless he's considering using them in future dishes??? Is this really just about how to be the best carrion scavenger, or is it a plan for some future Evil?

> Saying "you won't eat human because you get diseases from eating human" isn't going fly in D&D, at least in my campaigns. There are no bio-chemical barriers. D&D humans get exactly the same diseases as the other sapient beings, and can even procreate with virtually any sapient. If you indulge in eating sapients that are that close to your own subspecies, you will catch diseases.

> And finally, this is a character flaw that I, as a DM, will exploit for plot. You will find yourself having to explain to a grieving family why they cannot bury their delinquent son (or rather, why he's pre-buried in the outhouse behind the Flouncing Flumph Tavern). You will be attacked or arrested on sight by most civilized organizations.

Whether or not it counts as objective D&D-standard mechanically "Evil Act", it may not be a playable character, between the reactions of the PCs and NPCs in the game, and those of the other players at the table.

Sigreid

2018-02-06, 11:02 PM

I'd say eating people isn't evil. It's just meat man. Raising or hunting people specifically to be food is evil.

An example from Elder scrolls, the wood elves are religiously and culturally required to eat anything they kill. It's considered disrespectful and a sin not to. They don't, however, go after humans or orcs as a food animal. They do eat any of them they happen to kill in battle but it's not acceptable to start a battle just to generate food. They start battles for the same reasons, good and bad, that the other races do.

Malifice

2018-02-06, 11:05 PM

If a player in one of my campaigns came to me with this idea, this would be what I'd be thinking:

> Why is this a character that's interesting to play? Where are you going with this? Do you have a character arc in mind?

> Will the player be playing this character seriously and consistently, or is it a bad joke/running gag?

> How is this going to affect the party? This character behaves in a manner that is repugnant to the living and disrespectful to the dead, irrespective of the theoretical "Not-Evil" of the actual activity.

> How is this going to affect the plot? This character will be a wanted criminal in any civilized place that knows of his activities.

> Why does this character want to try to eat sapient beings unless he's considering using them in future dishes??? Is this really just about how to be the best carrion scavenger, or is it a plan for some future Evil?

> Saying "you won't eat human because you get diseases from eating human" isn't going fly in D&D, at least in my campaigns. There are no bio-chemical barriers. D&D humans get exactly the same diseases as the other sapient beings, and can even procreate with virtually any sapient. If you indulge in eating sapients that are that close to your own subspecies, you will catch diseases.

> And finally, this is a character flaw that I, as a DM, will exploit for plot. You will find yourself having to explain to a grieving family why they cannot bury their delinquent son (or rather, why he's pre-buried in the outhouse behind the Flouncing Flumph Tavern). You will be attacked or arrested on sight by most civilized organizations.

Whether or not it counts as objective D&D-standard mechanically "Evil Act", it may not be a playable character, between the reactions of the PCs and NPCs in the game, and those of the other players at the table.

Id just whack an ''E'' in the PCs alignment section, and let the authorities (and other players) sort it out.

I can assure you that once the PC ate (or attempted to eat) a sentient creature, the rest of the party (CG Swashbuckler, NG Druid, LG Paladin, LN fey Warlock, NE Bard) would simply either kick him out of the party in revulsion, or turn him over to the authorities.

In any event, problem solved. Player creates a new PC.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-06, 11:16 PM

Id just whack an ''E'' in the PCs alignment section, and let the authorities (and other players) sort it out.

Objective universal "Alignment" can be obnoxious and limiting. My preference is to have both laws for individual nations, and taboos/beliefs for separate cultures. I could imagine running a campaign where a PC-friendly, generally benevolent, enlightened and egalitarian culture also practiced ritual consumption of their revered elders after their death.

Unrelated: When I read the OP, my first thought was that the whole character was a setup for the pun "Variety is the Spice of Life".

Malifice

2018-02-06, 11:16 PM

I'd say eating people isn't evil. It's just meat man.

Awesome. Now put it in context. Imagine it.

Your 8 year old sister dies on the operating table. The doctor [after telling you he couldnt save her] also mentions that he's now going to eat her. He eats people all the time you see, and he hasnt tasted someone as young as your sister before.

Are you;

A) OK with this (because 'its just mean man'), or
B) Not OK with it.

Does this request (and the request alone) cause you additional and unecessary pain and suffering? Does it demonstrate a total lack of empathy by the doctor to even ask you?

What if the Doctor didnt ask you for permission, and just ate her anyway? You didnt even know, you just found out by accident afterwards?

People (even dead people) are NOT just 'meat'. They are also a collection of memories and feelings to other people. People dont take kindly (or react well) to knowing that their relative got eaten. People who eat other people dont care about this fact (making them evil for the most part). If forced into it (a survival scenario) most decent people debate long and hard before doing it for this very reason.

If Cannibailsm for no reason other than taste (pleasure) is 'not evil' then neither is Necrophillia (****ing dead bodies for no other reason than pleasure).

Are we seriously saying necrophillia is 'not evil''? Are we?

On second thought, please dont answer that question.

Malifice

2018-02-06, 11:21 PM

Objective universal "Alignment" can be obnoxious and limiting.

Why? Im not infuencing the PCs actions at all. Im not interfering with his agency by saying 'no you cant do that'.

You want to eat/ murder/ rape people, go nuts. You're evil and you go to Hell, (or the Abyss or wherever). Talismans of Good dont work for you anymore (and they burn you if you pick one up). On the plus side, if you have Paladin levels, you can freely enter the Oathbreaker class (presuming you have also broken your oath).

Im just doing my job as DM by Roleplaying Ao.

The PC can play his character how he wants. Thw Gods (who I control) judge him accordingly.

Kane0

2018-02-06, 11:23 PM

Yeah, it's evil. It might be necessary in some cases, but that won't stop it from also being evil.

Edit: The good news is that good and evil are things used for roleplaying in 5e, not mechanics.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-06, 11:31 PM

Your 8 year old sister dies on the operating table. The doctor [after telling you he couldnt save her] also mentions that he's now going to eat her. He eats people all the time you see, and he hasnt tasted someone as young as your sister before.

That's a simple case of malpractice. The doctor failed to provide Revivify within the time limit, so your insurance pays for the Rez and sues the doctor for the bill. Your sister got home from the temple an hour ago.

Most life insurance policies request that adventurers take at least three levels in Barbarian(Zealot) in order to lower policy costs across the board. /joke

People (even dead people) are NOT just 'meat'.

This is D&D. The memories and feelings (and, indeed, the whole soul) are now chillaxing on a celestial beach, watching the celestial fish jumping. Don't believe me? Call them up, or ask them to come back for a visit. The plane ticket's expensive, but they'll come if you pay.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but it's not unreasonable to theory-craft about how cultures in D&D campaigns would adapt to the fact that you could just ask your great-great-grandpa for clarification on his will, or bring your wife back from the dead.

Naanomi

2018-02-06, 11:47 PM

People saying all cannibalism is evil are vilifying a lot of historical and a few modern real-life peoples

Edit: The good news is that good and evil are things used for roleplaying in 5e, not mechanics.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

Kane0

2018-02-06, 11:49 PM

And i’m the first reply :P

Malifice

2018-02-06, 11:50 PM

Yeah, it's evil. It might be necessary in some cases, but that won't stop it from also being evil.

I wouldnt be happy to know that my girlfriend died in a plane crash, only to be eaten by the survivors. I could understand though if it was necessary for the others survival.

It wouldnt be easy though. It would haunt me forever knowing she'd been eaten.

But knowing that someone skinned, gutted and ate her, for no other reason ther than to enjoy the taste of her flesh?

Is this forum for real in claiming that this isnt evil?

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 12:05 AM

Kane0

2018-02-07, 12:12 AM

To he clear, I don’t say it’s evil for any in-world reason, but because it’s easier to run a game at a table with other people that way.
There’s tons of factors that come into play in fantasy-land, but the entertainment of the players comes before that. Avoiding the squick factor leads to a smoother game experience (unless you are specifically running a horror game or the like)

Edit: and i say that as someone who put cannabalistic arctic goblinoids in one of his own campaign settings. Once it came up that particular detail was put on the backburner by vote of the table.

Luccan

2018-02-07, 12:22 AM

I will say, table cohesion is probably a great reason not to be a cannibal. I might accept a not-too-graphic cannibal in an evil or horror game. Or even in a session where everyone has agreed to push past their comfort level. But in your day to day session, I'm not sure cannibalism is a good idea for a character trait.

Hmm, it occurs to me I've never considered eating a dragon weird, even though many are sapient. Must be the non-humanoid thing.

LeonBH

2018-02-07, 12:24 AM

While cannibalism is awful, it's different in D&D. After all, the table collectively condones the murder of sentient creatures, be they guards, goblins, orcs, etc. And murder is just as bad as cannibalism... unless it isn't for that particular table.

To look at a lesser crime, adventurers frequently steal from NPCs. So theft is condoned as well. I bet there are lots of other crimes (in the real world) that are permissible in D&D.

You just allow some crimes and disallow others for the sake of the enjoyment of everybody. Killing sentient creatures in fiction isn't a sign we're all harboring murder fantasies, so it doesn't follow that a cannibal character reflects the same of their player. But player discomfort is the #1 thing to be wary of, always. If the table isn't comfortable with cannibalism but they are with murder, that is how their table runs. It's a fantasy. The rules are different.

Malifice

2018-02-07, 12:27 AM

Cannibalism is a very deep seated taboo for many cultures, so that sort of visceral reaction isn’t unexpected... many cultures have similar reactions to anything dealing with dead bodies at all... but it is hardly universal even in the real world (there are still a few groups practicing ritual cannibalism in Melanesia, and until relatively recently in history it had representation in many cultures)

The reason why is people dont cease to be people after death. They remain as memories in the people that remain.

It is incredibly hurtful and selfish to eat someone else. To that persons family, and to anyone else witnessing the act. It invokes feelings of horror and revulsion (Dude; you're not eating Steve. He was my friend/ is someones elses brother or father or son. How could you even suggest it?).

Only an evil person would eat other people for no other reason than to enjoy and sample their body, just like only an evil person would have sex with a corpse for no other reason other than to enjoy and sample their body in other ways.

In the context of a survival situation, for sure, but even then I would expect any good aligned person to have serious reservations about it, and in many cases refuse (even if means their own death from starvation).

Malifice

2018-02-07, 12:28 AM

While cannibalism is awful, it's different in D&D. After all, MY table collectively condones the murder of sentient creatures, be they guards, goblins, orcs, etc

Fixed that for you.

LeonBH

2018-02-07, 12:32 AM

Hmm, it occurs to me I've never considered eating a dragon weird, even though many are sapient. Must be the non-humanoid thing.

Well, some groups skin the creatures (dragon or not) and use the hide for armor. So, if you think about it, that's far more severe than cannibalism. "I'm wearing this creature's dead skin on my body, always."

And the DM even grants it mystical properties based on the creature in question.

While cannibalism is awful, it's different in D&D. After all, the table collectively condones the murder of sentient creatures, be they guards, goblins, orcs, etc

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it back.

Tetrasodium

2018-02-07, 12:33 AM

In 5e as far as alignments go.

Say I am playing a person who has no problem with eating other races, but not his own. Is it cannibalism?

Ex. I am playing a human who will not eat another human but he would eat an elf, dwarf. Or gnome ect.

Is that even really cannibalism?

If it is, it is automatically evil?

He does not kill people for food, but if he is traveling and is jumped by bandits and the group kills them, if they are not human he will harvest meat and cook it.

Is that evil.

VGtM 65 kobold don't really have any special views towards the bodies of their dead & will often eat them, but that doing the same with "talking meat" that was not part of the clan is generally discouraged because of how poorly/violently outsiders react to stories of such things. as to if it's evil though, it depends on the circumstances & culture.

Jumped by bandits along the triboar trail & want to eat them instead of one of those bird/tribex/etc in the forest?... yea... you might have a screw loose. Jumped by bandits & want to eat them in the deserts of athas?... be sure to drink the blood first mate!

Malifice

2018-02-07, 12:37 AM

Fixed it back.

Your table condones murder of guards and other sentient creatures.

Mine doesnt.

Heck, maybe your table also condones rape, geoncide and slavery as 'not evil'.

Dont impose your tables morality on mine thanks very much.

LeonBH

2018-02-07, 12:49 AM

If a player in one of my campaigns came to me with this idea, this would be what I'd be thinking:

> Why is this a character that's interesting to play? Where are you going with this? Do you have a character arc in mind?

> Will the player be playing this character seriously and consistently, or is it a bad joke/running gag?

> How is this going to affect the party? This character behaves in a manner that is repugnant to the living and disrespectful to the dead, irrespective of the theoretical "Not-Evil" of the actual activity.

> How is this going to affect the plot? This character will be a wanted criminal in any civilized place that knows of his activities.

> Why does this character want to try to eat sapient beings unless he's considering using them in future dishes??? Is this really just about how to be the best carrion scavenger, or is it a plan for some future Evil?

> Saying "you won't eat human because you get diseases from eating human" isn't going fly in D&D, at least in my campaigns. There are no bio-chemical barriers. D&D humans get exactly the same diseases as the other sapient beings, and can even procreate with virtually any sapient. If you indulge in eating sapients that are that close to your own subspecies, you will catch diseases.

> And finally, this is a character flaw that I, as a DM, will exploit for plot. You will find yourself having to explain to a grieving family why they cannot bury their delinquent son (or rather, why he's pre-buried in the outhouse behind the Flouncing Flumph Tavern). You will be attacked or arrested on sight by most civilized organizations.

Whether or not it counts as objective D&D-standard mechanically "Evil Act", it may not be a playable character, between the reactions of the PCs and NPCs in the game, and those of the other players at the table.

The questions you raise are all good ones, but they show that there could be some kind of story to follow (granting that you'll allow it in the first place). The way you ask the questions puts cannibalism in line with necromancy as well, so they might follow similar character arcs as necromancers.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 12:57 AM

The reason why is people dont cease to be people after death.
Again, hardly universal even in real-life cultures, let alone fantasy ones. There are several cultures around the world where there is no particular reverence for the remains of the dead, which are burned unceremoniously or even thrown out like any other waste. Even with reverence for the dead, ritual cannibalism is (with a few exceptions) generally seem as a very sacred and reverent act, a way of honoring and/or staying connected with the deceased, or as a necessary step in an afterlife transition.

Anthropologically, ascribing personhood and rights to the dead is very interesting. It is nearly universal in cultures found in either cold or dry climates... places where a body can be expected to last for some significant period of time. However, corpse taboos are much less common on wet, hot regions of the planet; and it is in these places we see the most ritual cannibalism: the Caribbean, the South Pacific; and historically (but not currently) Southeast Asia, West and Central Africa, and South America.

Note that I am not trying to defend the ‘cannibal chef’ as a Good concept, it is clearly questionably Neutral at best... but rather the idea that cannibalism itself is a very culturally bound concept that cannot be viewed as universally Evil in all cases except by cultural or theological fiat

Coffee_Dragon

2018-02-07, 01:00 AM

Tiadoppler

2018-02-07, 01:03 AM

The questions you raise are all good ones, but they show that there could be some kind of story to follow (granting that you'll allow it in the first place). The way you ask the questions puts cannibalism in line with necromancy as well, so they might follow similar character arcs as necromancers.

Absolutely. This sort of character would be one that's walking a knife-edge of falling to evil, but might be able to stay stable and sane long enough to save the world. It also has the potential of significantly disrupting the plot, and the table IRL.

Depending on your table dynamics, you may be able to make a "loathed and feared but technically not evil" party work, or you may have to deal with Paladin going smitey-smitey-smitey in the first session. As a DM, I'd want to get all the players' consent before allowing this sort of character, and I'd try to arrange things so that this one RP facet of this one character doesn't completely overshadow the rest of the game.

TL;DR: CAUTION. Approach with care.

LeonBH

2018-02-07, 01:08 AM

Absolutely. This sort of character would be one that's walking a knife-edge of falling to evil, but might be able to stay stable and sane long enough to save the world. It also has the potential of significantly disrupting the plot, and the table IRL.

Depending on your table dynamics, you may be able to make a "loathed and feared but technically not evil" party work, or you may have to deal with Paladin going smitey-smitey-smitey in the first session. As a DM, I'd want to get all the players' consent before allowing this sort of character, and I'd try to arrange things so that this one RP facet of this one character doesn't completely overshadow the rest of the game.

TL;DR: CAUTION. Approach with care.

Sounds absolutely reasonable. I'd add the extra requirement that I trust that the player knows what they're doing and I know they're not going into the subject for the lulz.

Malifice

2018-02-07, 01:16 AM

Absolutely. This sort of character would be one that's walking a knife-edge of falling to evil, but might be able to stay stable and sane long enough to save the world. It also has the potential of significantly disrupting the plot, and the table IRL.

Depending on your table dynamics, you may be able to make a "loathed and feared but technically not evil" party work, or you may have to deal with Paladin going smitey-smitey-smitey in the first session. As a DM, I'd want to get all the players' consent before allowing this sort of character, and I'd try to arrange things so that this one RP facet of this one character doesn't completely overshadow the rest of the game.

TL;DR: CAUTION. Approach with care.

Whats the difference between non-survival related cannibalism (eating a dead person for the taste and gratification and curiosity) and necrophillia (****ing a dead person for the feel and gratification and curiosity) to you?

Unoriginal

2018-02-07, 07:28 AM

They're not usually good either.

In a survival context I have no problem with the act being morally neutral.

Lizardfolk don't do it for survival.

Canabalism features in the Book of Vile Darkness. Its absent from the Book of Exhaulted deeds.

Probably a reason for this yeah?

The Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds have absolutely zero weight on 5e, since they are not 5e books and present an alignment system for a different game.

And it's a great thing, since those books consider forcing someone to be good by imprisoning them until they're magically transformed into a good guy to be a good act.

Oh bugger off mate. Yes it clearly does. Its clearly implied to be an evil act. Full stop.

Feel free to draw a different context from this (I cant stop you if you think 5E is saying the act of necromancy is just fine and dandy) but you're being intelectually dishonest and I have nothing more to say to you if so.

Oh, really?

*I* am the one who's intellectually dishonest?

Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the dose association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies

PHB p.118

So, either you didn't read the books, and still saw fit to tell me to bugger off for telling the truth, or you read the book, decided to lie about what is in it, and still saw fit to tell me to bugger off for telling the truth.

2D8HP

2018-02-07, 07:38 AM

PopeLinus1

2018-02-07, 07:48 AM

One more Thing- In D&D there are spells that can bring people back from the dead, which would change the way people think about bodies.

the_brazenburn

2018-02-07, 07:50 AM

Well obviously the proper choice depends on whether the elf or the halfling will provide more calories and/or nutrition.

Well, let's see.

An elf has a larger body mass than a halfling, but the meat is stringy without much fat. It also depends on the type of elf. High elves have large and tasty brains, but the meat of a wood elf is very gamey and too tough to be easily eaten without a lot of boiling. Drow just taste kind of nasty, like rot or spiders or something.

On the other hand, lightfoot halflings are not as good a choice as stout halflings. Due to their lower Con scores, they do not have as much flesh, and the meat they do have on them is not as tasty.

I would recommend stout halfling, pan-fried in butter, with a side of well-cooked asparagus.

... I'm a dark person:smalleek:.

Sigreid

2018-02-07, 07:52 AM

Awesome. Now put it in context. Imagine it.

Your 8 year old sister dies on the operating table. The doctor [after telling you he couldnt save her] also mentions that he's now going to eat her. He eats people all the time you see, and he hasnt tasted someone as young as your sister before.

Are you;

A) OK with this (because 'its just mean man'), or
B) Not OK with it.

Does this request (and the request alone) cause you additional and unecessary pain and suffering? Does it demonstrate a total lack of empathy by the doctor to even ask you?

What if the Doctor didnt ask you for permission, and just ate her anyway? You didnt even know, you just found out by accident afterwards?

People (even dead people) are NOT just 'meat'. They are also a collection of memories and feelings to other people. People dont take kindly (or react well) to knowing that their relative got eaten. People who eat other people dont care about this fact (making them evil for the most part). If forced into it (a survival scenario) most decent people debate long and hard before doing it for this very reason.

If Cannibailsm for no reason other than taste (pleasure) is 'not evil' then neither is Necrophillia (****ing dead bodies for no other reason than pleasure).

Are we seriously saying necrophillia is 'not evil''? Are we?

On second thought, please dont answer that question.

Thought I was pretty clear in my context. You're confusing cultural bias with absolute right and wrong.

2D8HP

2018-02-07, 08:34 AM

Well, let's see.

An elf has...

...I'm a dark person:smalleek:.

And I'm imagining

The Trolley Problem Dinner
,
"Come see who's on the menu, track your way to fine eatin'!"

Unoriginal

2018-02-07, 08:39 AM

And I'm imagining

The Trolley Problem Dinner
,
"Come see who's on the menu, track your way to fine eatin'!"

"I swear, it's the last time we let you choose where we eat, Dormund."

"Look, how could have I known the chef was a troll just because it was called 'Trolley' Dinner'?"

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 08:58 AM

All alignment questions are up to the table. There is nothing wrong with a little friendly eating.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 09:13 AM

Cannibalism and any other diet plan should not dictate or influence alignment.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 09:30 AM

Cannibalism is evil.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 09:32 AM

Cannibalism is good.

Sigreid

2018-02-07, 09:36 AM

Cannibalism is evil.

There are people who claim my enjoying a steak makes me irredeemably evil.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 09:37 AM

Cannibalism is evil.

As evil as veganism. Both choose what to eat. The difference is that our society perceives the two behaviours very differently, but that does not relate to one's alignment. The reason for which you are a cannibal, vegan, or anything else, may be a reflection of your alignment tho.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 09:41 AM

There are people who claim my enjoying a steak makes me irredeemably evil.

I didn’t say that cannibalism makes the cannibal irredeemably evil, just that the act itself is evil.

My enjoyment of meet isn’t quite as evil, but I don’t actually have a good rebuttal to moral veganism. I do evil things sometimes. I also am a complacent member of a society that does a great deal of evil.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 09:43 AM

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 09:43 AM

In a land of ‘speak with plants’ I’m not sure veganism has a particularly strong moral advantage over any other diet

hamishspence

2018-02-07, 09:45 AM

In a land of ‘speak with plants’ I’m not sure veganism has a particularly strong moral advantage over any other diet
There's also "speak with stones" (called Stone Tell in 3.5)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneTell.htm

- but in D&D, people don't generally need to worry about whether a stone is being ethically treated or not.

Plants are statted as objects.

A plant creature is to a regular plant, as an earth elemental is to a stone.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 09:49 AM

Lombra

2018-02-07, 10:00 AM

Me: Beating children is evil.
You: As evil as beating rugs. Both choose what to beat.

If you think that you made a fair and honest comparison then I'm done for the conversation and see no point in arguing any further with you, at least it's been quick, have a nice day.

Dudewithknives

2018-02-07, 10:13 AM

As evil as veganism. Both choose what to eat. The difference is that our society perceives the two behaviours very differently, but that does not relate to one's alignment. The reason for which you are a cannibal, vegan, or anything else, may be a reflection of your alignment tho.

People are acting like he is stalking through the streets with a butcher knife jumping people and hacking them up for meat.

He is just a chef, who if he comes across some plant or animal that he does not know he wants to at least give it a little bite to see how it tastes.

He will not kill people for food.
As a matter of fact he simply wants nutritious and healthy food for everyone.

He will not sit down to harvest 50 pounds of meat from the orc bandit that just tried to kill him, but if he just killed the orc out of self defense like every other adventurers that has ever existed in D&D he will take an ounce or 2 of meat to just give it a try.

He might not even like the flavor at all, but he at least wants to give it a try.

Circumstances, reasons, and intent matter.

It is the same with murder.

Holy warrior of Palor charges the head cultist of Tiamat and smites him, everyone rejoices he is a hero.
A evil assassin who worships Cyric that kills the priest of a temple just to see the city go into chaos is coldly evil.

Both killed someone.

Circumstances and reasons of the action define the alignment of the action.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 10:13 AM

Evil in DnD basically boils down to ‘intentionally causing *unnecessary harm to others; especially for selfish reasons or when other reasonable options are available’

+Killing people to eat them fits that
+Eating people in a way that causes distress to others (callously offending their religious or cultural sensitivities) may also
+risking harmful supernatural repercussions may qualify as well... negligently unleashing yourself as a ghoul/wendigo/whatever or creating ghosts/other undead of the person whose body you ate... or any legitimate afterlife effects... or if ressurection is common enough that fouling it is a legitimate ethical concern

But just eating the meat itself, absent of other (common) complications, doesn’t qualify

2D8HP

2018-02-07, 10:16 AM

...Beating children is evil....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aPvkzQmc68Y

the_brazenburn

2018-02-07, 10:17 AM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aPvkzQmc68Y

With a baseball bat...

smcmike

2018-02-07, 10:27 AM

I'm not sure that "beating children is evil" is even the majority opinion around the world. A lot of children get beat without any moral dilemma.

--

Why is cannibalism inherently evil? No one is inherently getting hurt. Some people may find it very respectful.

I’m willing to impose my particular set of moral beliefs on the fantasy worlds in which I play. I’m not actually arguing that you are wrong to play in a world where cannibalism isn’t evil, just that in my preferred system, it’s reserved as a marker of evil or aberrant behavior. This doesn’t necessarily rule out a subversion of this norm, such in I, Zombie. I just prefer to include the norm.

If you think that you made a fair and honest comparison then I'm done for the conversation and see no point in arguing any further with you, at least it's been quick, have a nice day.

As Elbeyon points out above, beating children is actually a far LESS frowned-upon act in our world than cannibalism. I really don’t see how my comparison was unfair, and I meant it seriously.

People are acting like he is stalking through the streets with a butcher knife jumping people and hacking them up for meat.

He is just a chef, who if he comes across some plant or animal that he does not know he wants to at least give it a little bite to see how it tastes.

This is basically Sixth Degree Hosteler Tu, a character from Barry Hughart’s Eight Skilled Gentleman (everyone should read Hughart). He is . . . not good. If your goals in life include tasting me, you get lumped in the evil category. Sorry!

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 10:43 AM

I’m willing to impose my particular set of moral beliefs on the fantasy worlds in which I play. I’m not actually arguing that you are wrong to play in a world where cannibalism isn’t evil, just that in my preferred system, it’s reserved as a marker of evil or aberrant behavior. This doesn’t necessarily rule out a subversion of this norm, such in I, Zombie. I just prefer to include the norm.

Oh, that's cool. That's pretty much what everyone does to run the game. A portion of people seem to want to impose their own morality on other people. Every table's good and evil is going to be different. I don't really have any strong feelings towards cannibalism. I'd be fine playing in a game were cannibalism took up any alignment slot. Lawful, chaotic, good, evil, or neutral.

2D8HP

2018-02-07, 10:47 AM

..... I'd be fine playing in a game were cannibalism took up any alignment slot. Lawful, chaotic, good, evil, or neutral.

I strongly suspect that the OP was being tongue-in-cheek.

Also, liver-heart-and-thighs-in-cheek

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 10:49 AM

A trolley is on its way to run over a halfling, but you can divert it onto an elf by flicking a switch. Is it evil to divert the trolley for the reason that...

* You've already tasted halfling, but you've never eaten elf?

* You've eaten both halfling and elf, and honestly it's not a contest, elf is better?

* You've got two halfling orphans to feed, and if you feed them the halfling it's definitely cannibalism, but if you feed them the elf that's kind of a grey area?
This guy is asking the real questions

Thought I was pretty clear in my context. You're confusing cultural bias with absolute right and wrong.

I'm not sure that "beating children is evil" is even the majority opinion around the world. A lot of children get beat without any moral dilemma.

--

Why is cannibalism inherently evil? No one is inherently getting hurt. Some people may find it very respectful.
There are no inherently evil acts in 5e. There just aren't. There are good and evil characters but no good or evil acts.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.

Note the caveats: "As expected by society." "As their conscience directs." "Help others." Those are very broad definitions, and almost wholly subjective.

Is this character evil? Well, the vast majority of societies will view this practice as wrong, so this character probably can't be lawful. I would argue in this act the character is acting evilly, since this character's driving reason is "they just wanna eat people" which is a selfish motivation at the expense of others and the qualifier for good is "Does his best to help others."

But, depending on the circumstances...

*Sigh* sure. But any time you need to come up with some super-convoluted story to justify your action, you have to acknowledge that it will probably never come up. If you go out of your way to create that scenario, that's the point when I as a player start to get creeped out. IRL I genuinely view cannibalism as absolutely, morally, wrong, and if you got some kinda fetish that way and you bring it to the table, you are going to make me very uncomfortable. I can conceive of a (very very convoluted) case where rape could be justified, but if you as a player intentionally create that scenario, I am officially creeped the crap out by you.

Aside: Lizardfolk are intended to be creepy. That said, if I ever had a player who was going to play one I would demand that their lizardfolk be 'socialized' to the point where they won't do things that piss off their party, even if they have no moral qualms.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 11:07 AM

I strongly suspect that the OP was being tongue-in-cheek.

Also, liver-heart-and-thighs-in-cheekYou're tempting my relative morality. I don't want to be disrespectful toward others' belief systems. Here, I'll turn my back and they may or may not eat the elf. I'll never know. He did what he thought was right or wrong. I'm not one to judge. Maybe he used ketchup on a well cooked piece. I can't tell. I've plugged my nose.

I'll hold off on passing judgement until later.

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-07, 11:14 AM

Sometime, I'd like to play a Moon Druid who spends a lot of time Wild Shaped and tends to take 'meat is meat' approach to any corpses they come across.

The thing is, it's hard to see him as a good person. I think he'd be neutral at best. Evil if he got special pleasure from consuming sapient flesh.

Anyway, my general view on cannibalism is that it probably depends to some degree on local culture and religion. However, whilst I'm sure there are some people/places in D&D where cannibalism wouldn't be considered evil, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people and places will think it a vile and evil act.

Put simply, whilst your specific character might not consider cannibalism to be in any way evil or wrong, be prepared for the players, their characters, the DM, the NPCs, the gods and, hell, maybe even some of the villains to all strongly disagree with you on that point.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 11:14 AM

As Elbeyon points out above, beating children is actually a far LESS frowned-upon act in our world than cannibalism. I really don’t see how my comparison was unfair, and I meant it seriously.

Beating (violently, I assume) a children vs beating a rug.

Eating human flesh vs eating porkchops.

Tell me how the two comparisons even relate.

As a disclaimer, I do intend cannibalism of already dead bodies, not hunting humans just to eat them.

Sigreid

2018-02-07, 11:19 AM

Friv

2018-02-07, 11:21 AM

I wouldnt be happy to know that my girlfriend died in a plane crash, only to be eaten by the survivors. I could understand though if it was necessary for the others survival.

It wouldnt be easy though. It would haunt me forever knowing she'd been eaten.

If my partner died in a plane crash, and I found out that after they died the survivors ate them, that would be a comfort. Not a comfort that outweighed their death, but the knowledge that even in death, they managed to save other lives? Nope. Wouldn't haunt me at all.

Now, I agree inasmuch as, if you're in a culture where descecration of the dead is considered to be bad, cannibalism is going to be bad, because you're hurting the living. But there is absolutely nothing about it that's actually inherently evil.

2D8HP

2018-02-07, 11:22 AM

....an opportunity cannibal who won't kill someone for food but will take the available nutrition if Fred dies when a tree branch falls and hits him in the head.

Fred?

Who's Fred?

*BURP*

smcmike

2018-02-07, 11:27 AM

Beating (violently, I assume) a children vs beating a rug.

Eating human flesh vs eating porkchops.

Tell me how the two comparisons even relate.

As a disclaimer, I do intend cannibalism of already dead bodies, not hunting humans just to eat them.

Human bodies, like human children, have special moral status, where as a rug or a bowl of oatmeal (your example was originally vegan) do not.

You rightly object to beating children, yet think it bizarre that I object to eating a child who was just killed in a road accident?

A corpse not just a thing, and thinking that it is is evil.

Max_Killjoy

2018-02-07, 11:27 AM

Eating people who just happen to have died isn't necessarily evil, even if it's incredibly risky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)). And IMO kinda ick.

Killing people for the purpose of eating them, yeah, that's straight-up evil.

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 11:29 AM

I would think that the majority of the cannibalism is evil attitude comes from the fairly natural assumption that cannibals are hunting or raising humanoids as a food animal. I consider that different than an opportunity cannibal who won't kill someone for food but will take the available nutrition if Fred dies when a tree branch falls and hits him in the head.

If food's not scarce, then it's very disrespectful to your friend's memory, at the least. I'm not going to comment on the people's that are cannibals IRL, but honestly their cannibalism was never about nutrition, really.

Also, how often is food actually a concern?

Beating (violently, I assume) a children vs beating a rug.

Eating human flesh vs eating porkchops.

Tell me how the two comparisons even relate.

As a disclaimer, I do intend cannibalism of already dead bodies, not hunting humans just to eat them.

You made a false equivalence: cannibalism == veganism.
He replied: that's as ridiculous as saying 'beating a rug == beating a child'

It's a perfectly valid point. You said that the thing being eaten is irrelevant to the morality of eating it. So he replied by comparing that statement to saying that the thing being beaten is irrelevant to the morality of beating it.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 11:42 AM

Funny enough. Cannibalism can have health benefits. In societies that didn't properly protect themselves from the spread of disease from bodies, cannibalism helped serve to protect the group by getting rid of the disease vector. The person eating the body was at greater risk, but overall fewer people got sick. The person eating the body was scarfing their own health for the group's good.

Killing people for the purpose of eating them, yeah, that's straight-up evil.Was it the killing them part and/or the eating them part?

If food's not scarce, then it's very disrespectful to your friend's memory, at the least. I'm not going to comment on the people's that are cannibals IRL, but honestly their cannibalism was never about nutrition, really.Unless, it's not? In some cultures cannibalism is being respectful to the dead.

Unoriginal

2018-02-07, 11:44 AM

Sigreid

2018-02-07, 11:47 AM

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 11:51 AM

KorvinStarmast

2018-02-07, 12:43 PM

My suspicion is it's all about being stand out quirky/weird/memorable. The various edge lords want to be as cool as Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lector. And they fail ... because they aren't Anthony Hopkins. :smallcool:

(They also fail to get to talk to Jodie Foster, but that's for other reasons).

There are no inherently evil acts in 5e.
Are you sure that you want to die in that ditch? :smallconfused:

Dudewithknives

2018-02-07, 01:07 PM

Something I don't get though, is that if the guy isn't going to, you know, kill people to eat them, what's the point of knowing how they taste?

Sure, it could be curiosity, but if you're never going to use their flesh in your cooking, it has nothing to do with a goal to become a master chef.

Think of it like having the knowledge and not using it is better than just not having it at all.

If he knew what the race tastes like itself it might give him a glimmer of insight into the flavors they may enjoy.

Think of it like going to a foreign land and trying their dishes just for the experience and knowing what it is like.

One of my best friends is British born and raised, blood sausage is not uncommon for him to cook. The concept of the food I find disgusting, but I did try it once just to see what it was like.

I will never eat it again but I have that knowledge if I need it for some odd reason.

Not to get into his VERY long backstory, but he is the child of two waring cults, both of which worship a different outer planes being.

His mother's family are powerful magic user who gained their power by making a deal with The King In Yellow.
His father's family are great craftsmen and hunters who worked for Nodens.

The joined family has been trying to kill each other behind the scenes but are wary of the war.

My character is the only son of the joined group, so the family made a deal.

He will grow up completely neutral and unaware of his family line, but one day he will have to make a choice.

Choose his mother's side and his family will grow in magical power but lose their crafting skills as his father's side will be wiped out.
or
Choose his father's side and his family will grow in crafting and hunting skills but lose their magic as his mother's side is hunted down.

He however is completely oblivious to all of this. He is just a boy who grew up in a great merchant house and joined the cooking guild to become a great chef.

He is a good and kind spokesman for his house, that is completely unaware of what they really do or what they really are.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 01:07 PM

You made a false equivalence: cannibalism == veganism.
He replied: that's as ridiculous as saying 'beating a rug == beating a child'

It's a perfectly valid point. You said that the thing being eaten is irrelevant to the morality of eating it. So he replied by comparing that statement to saying that the thing being beaten is irrelevant to the morality of beating it.

I made no false equivalence. Dead bodies, wether they're from animals or plants, are dead bodies. Vegans choose to not eat animals or their derivates, cannibals choose to eat other human's corpses, it's a 1:1 comparison between formerly living things. How society perceives dead bodies of different animals have nothing to do with how one person perceives dead bodies of different animals. I could enjoy steamed human toes and be the founder of idk, telethon or something universally identified as good, while the founder of ISIS may be vegan. What one eats does not influence one's behaviour.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 01:19 PM

Human bodies, like human children, have special moral status, where as a rug or a bowl of oatmeal (your example was originally vegan) do not.

You rightly object to beating children, yet think it bizarre that I object to eating a child who was just killed in a road accident?

A corpse not just a thing, and thinking that it is is evil.

"Special moral status" is entirely subjective. Indians won't eat cows because of religion, and they will peobably think of a cow eater whay you would think of a cannibal. In ancient egypt, cats were treated almost like pharoas. It's subjective, it does not relate to what "alignment" means.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 01:20 PM

Dead bodies, wether they're from animals or plants, are dead bodies.

This is our fundamental disagreement.

I do not think that a logpile is the same as a mass grave, in a similar way as how a child is not the same as a rug.

While different human societies have treated remains in different ways, only the most monstrous of them have treated bodies primarily as objects.

Even real human cannibals do not think of human bodies as equivalent to oatmeal. They knew,as you seemingly do not, that what they were doing was fraught with meaning.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 01:24 PM

This is our fundamental disagreement.

I do not think that a logpile is the same as a mass grave, in a similar way as how a child is not the same as a rug.

While different human societies have treated remains in different ways, only the most monstrous of them have treated bodies primarily as objects.

Even real human cannibals do not think of human bodies as equivalent to oatmeal. They knew,as you seemingly do not, that what they were doing was fraught with meaning.

So a cannibal can't be good?

smcmike

2018-02-07, 01:39 PM

So a cannibal can't be good?

Well, that depends, doesn’t it?

I don’t judge people harshly for acts done in extremis. If a person is starving to death and they resort to corpse-eating out of necessity, I’m not going to condemn them.

As for a cannibal from a traditionally cannabalistic culture, they inhabit an entirely different moral universe from me. They certainly don’t fit with my concept of goodness, though. (It’s worth noting that all cannibalistic traditions that I know of involve violent killing).

If you are just a curious Westerner who would be down to cannibalize, given the opportunity, no, you can’t be good.

In your D&D world, it can work however you like.

Malifice

2018-02-07, 01:41 PM

{scrubbed}

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 01:42 PM

So a cannibal can't be good?

Not even remotely what he said.

He said that every human civilization on earth recognizes that a human corpse is more than meaningless meat. For actual human cannibals, eating a person is born out of their view of the spiritual significance of someone's remains.

Some guy who wants to taste what people taste like is fricking sicko, which is a term that I find to be much more descriptive than good/evil.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 01:49 PM

Not even remotely what he said.

He said that every human civilization on earth recognizes that a human corpse is more than meaningless meat. For actual human cannibals, eating a person is born out of their view of the spiritual significance of someone's remains.

Some guy who wants to taste what people taste like is fricking sicko, which is a term that I find to be much more descriptive than good/evil.

What I wanted to get out of the discussion is the answer to the title of this thread, so asking him if a cannibal can be good is fine. Eating human(oid) meat does not inherently (<-important) dictate one's alignment. I am still not convinced of the opposite.

Pugwampy

2018-02-07, 01:51 PM

In real life land morality is in the eye of the beholder .

In dnd land slavery and cannibalism / eating sentient species is evil. No buts or deep thoughts about it . This is just a game .

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 01:52 PM

To me, this is like necromancy. Sure, you can justify it, but goodness/evilness of a character in dnd is determined by the society they live in and the principle of 'wanting to help others.' Is a cannibal helping others? No. If anything, he's causing extreme distress to others. Is his society down for cannibalism? Well, maybe. But that's going to be a different practice than the guy in the OP who just wants to know what elf tastes like.

Either way, my goliath grave domain cleric would shove a javelin up the ass of any PC who tried to defile a corpse in this manner. That'd be my in-character response. Unless you're a druid in bear form or a lizardfolk or something where cannibalism is plausible, my OOC response is: "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?"

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 01:53 PM

{Scrubbed}

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 01:53 PM

What I wanted to get out of the discussion is the answer to the title of this thread, so asking him if a cannibal can be good is fine. Eating human(oid) meat does not inherently (<-important) dictate one's alignment. I am still not convinced of the opposite.

He's asking if it's an evil act, which it is, insofar as evil acts exist in DND. It is a selfish desire acted out to the detriment of others and in direct contradiction to the standards of society. Textbook dnd evil.

I'd also argue it has implications about his character as a person.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 01:54 PM

{Scrubbed}

You can avoid writing censored profanities, you know? It makes it easier for you to type and easier for me to read, not to mention the fact that it's unpolite. I like that you put your heart in what you say tho.

What I get from you is that cannibalism is bad only if it makes someone suffer, so my point stands, cannibalism is not inherently evil. Every adventurer would be CE by your reasoning, because only monsters commit murder, yet it appears that our society is funded by monsters.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 01:55 PM

He's asking if it's an evil act, which it is, insofar as evil acts exist in DND. It is a selfish desire acted out to the detriment of others. Textbook dnd evil.I brush my teeth out of a selfish desire to keep them. Selfish desire drives a great deal of a lot of peoples doings.

trctelles

2018-02-07, 01:55 PM

{Scrubbed}

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 01:58 PM

You can avoid writing censored profanities, you know? It makes it easier for you to type and easier for me to read, not to mention the fact that it's unpolite. I like that you put your heart in what you say tho.

What I get from you is that cannibalism is bad only if it makes someone suffer, so my point stands, cannibalism is not inherently evil. Every adventurer would be CE by your reasoning, because only monsters commit murder, yet it appears that our society is funded by monsters.
The OP was asking about a specific character in a specific circumstance.

Opening it to everything everywhere makes this discussion impossible, since dnd morality is context dependent.

Although I do think that cannibalism is objectively evil at all times and places that has no relevance to our current discussion

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 02:00 PM

I brush my teeth out of a selfish desire to keep them. Selfish desire drives a great deal of a lot of peoples doings.

You brushing your teeth doesn't cause detriment to others. If you steal someone's toothbrush, that's dnd evil.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 02:04 PM

He's asking if it's an evil act, which it is, insofar as evil acts exist in DND. It is a selfish desire acted out to the detriment of others and in direct contradiction to the standards of society. Textbook dnd evil.

I'd also argue it has implications about his character as a person.

So there can't be good cannibals? The answer to this question answers this thread's OP as well.

Friv

2018-02-07, 02:05 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I am confused by your post, sir.

First you say that you are angry at the SJWs, and then you support our position that cannibalism has a different context for different cultures. I am happy to have you onboard, but I am unclear on why you're hostile to your own side of this debate.

Anyway, it wouldn't be a proper elfgames thread without some people getting unduly upset over the ways in which their philosophies weren't being adapted to the table.

Max_Killjoy

2018-02-07, 02:09 PM

smcmike

2018-02-07, 02:11 PM

{Scrubbed}

Thanks! I didn’t know this. I guess I’ve only really heard of ritual cannibalism/headhunting in the South Pacific/New Guinea context. I remember hearing an anthropologist try to describe how he thought there was an emotion involved with the practice that doesn’t even have a name in English. That’s a trippy idea - an foreign emotion.

{Scrubbed}

If your goal is to show how annoying people can be with their opinion, you have succeeded admirably.

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 02:19 PM

So there can't be good cannibals? The answer to this question answers this thread's OP as well.

Duh. Good characters can do evil things. News at fricking eleven. You're comically missing the point.

However, Cannibalism in dnd is not neccesarily evil. It can be a selfish act carried out without any detriment to others (aka nobody minds) and not in direct contradiction to the values of society.

In other words, it's not evil for lizardfolk who are hanging out with other lizardfolk, but it is for literally everyone else in every single game that I've played, and also very much so in the case of the OP's Hannibal Lecter expy.

Dudewithknives

2018-02-07, 02:24 PM

Duh. Good characters can do evil things. News at fricking eleven. You're comically missing the point.

However, Cannibalism in dnd is not neccesarily evil. It can be a selfish act carried out without any detriment to others (aka nobody minds) and not in direct contradiction to the values of society.

In other words, it's not evil for lizardfolk who are hanging out with other lizardfolk, but it is for literally everyone else in every single game that I've played, and also very much so in the case of the OP's Hannibal Lecter expy.

Actually the character is nothing like Hannibal Lecter.

Lecter was a murderer and serial killer who killed people without remorse and tortured people for fun and enjoyed manipulating others.

The character itself is a chef who wants to know all the flavors of the world and will give anything a nibble at least once.

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-07, 02:29 PM

As for a cannibal from a traditionally cannabalistic culture, they inhabit an entirely different moral universe from me. They certainly don’t fit with my concept of goodness, though. (It’s worth noting that all cannibalistic traditions that I know of involve violent killing).

If you are just a curious Westerner who would be down to cannibalize, given the opportunity, no, you can’t be good.

The thing is though, if you're relying on subjective morality ('their culture has different moral standards, so cannibalism might be okay or even good thing when they do it'), then surely good and evil lose all meaning anyway? I mean, you say that it's wrong for a westerner, but if you're going by subjective morality, then what happens if that particular westerner doesn't consider cannibalism evil? Who gets to decide whose subjective morality is the correct version?

Lombra

2018-02-07, 02:31 PM

Duh. Good characters can do evil things. News at fricking eleven. You're comically missing the point.

However, Cannibalism in dnd is not neccesarily evil. It can be a selfish act carried out without any detriment to others (aka nobody minds) and not in direct contradiction to the values of society.

In other words, it's not evil for lizardfolk who are hanging out with other lizardfolk, but it is for literally everyone else in every single game that I've played, and also very much so in the case of the OP's Hannibal Lecter expy.

You're saying it like it was what you intended all along yet it's what I was arguing about the entire time, thanks for understanding anyways.

If at least a good cannibal exists, then cannibalism isn't evil. But some evil people happen to be cannibal.

I don't want to sound pressing, but I feel like my point has been misinterpretated since the beginning.

trctelles

2018-02-07, 02:33 PM

I am confused by your post, sir.

First you say that you are angry at the SJWs, and then you support our position that cannibalism has a different context for different cultures. I am happy to have you onboard, but I am unclear on why you're hostile to your own side of this debate.

Anyway, it wouldn't be a proper elfgames thread without some people getting unduly upset over the ways in which their philosophies weren't being adapted to the table.

I'm not siding with anyone. I just find it annoying to see people go absolutely bat**** crazy about one person saying "Well, in my view and games, cannibalism isn't so bad", and the person go "OMG CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT! CANNIBALISM IS CRIME FOR A REASON AUSHDOASJDAOÇJASDALSKFAXSDNLAo" and just bash their heads in the keyboard with arguments... Yeah, cannibalism is a crime, and it's horrible. In our society. This is not our society. This is a game. If you think it will be enjoyable that someone in the party eats other people, go ahead.

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 02:35 PM

If at least a good cannibal exists, then cannibalism isn't evil. But some evil people happen to be cannibal.

The argument for "It's not inherently evil." can also be used to argue that literally anything in DND is not inherently evil. Rape? My wife detests me, but if I don't get her with child, the realm may be thrown into chaos, and my society doesn't think that marital rape is a thing. (Harmful, but not selfish.) Genocide? I'm trying to forge a future for my people in the great plains of this country and these primitives need to be eliminated. (Harmful, not selfish.) Any amount of torture? Thousands of lives could depend on this information. (harmful, not selfish.) Necrophilia? Her brother said he didn't mind what I did with the corpse. (Not harmful, selfish)

Just because there's an edge case where within dnd's shaky moral framework something is not evil doesn't mean that it isn't "evil" for any and all practical purposes.

DND's moral framework is not actually a moral guideline. It's just a way of thinking about your character's relation to other people. Like all subjective systems, it's basically meaningless beyond a very general idea of "Do right by your neighbor."

I also don't want such things in my game.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 02:41 PM

Which... makes no sense, because the eater likely becomes a new infected vector. Hm. Maybe, this thought will help. Let's say someone butchers an animal. They can cook it up and eat it, or leave it in their workshop.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 02:41 PM

While different human societies have treated remains in different ways, only the most monstrous of them have treated bodies primarily as objects.
Defining real cultures of real people as ‘monsterous’ is a pretty specific ethnocentric stance that doesn’t lend itself well to objectively understanding those cultures, including (especially?) things that your own cultural baggage finds abhorrent

Lombra

2018-02-07, 02:43 PM

The argument for "It's not inherently evil." can also be used to argue that literally anything in DND is not inherently evil. Rape? My wife detests me, but if I don't get her with child, the realm may be thrown into chaos, and my society doesn't think that marital rape is a thing. (Harmful, but not selfish.) Genocide? I'm trying to forge a future for my people in the great plains of this country and these primitives need to be eliminated. (Harmful, not selfish.) Any amount of torture? Thousands of lives could depend on this information. (harmful, not selfish.) Necrophilia? Her brother said he didn't mind what I did with the corpse. (Not harmful, selfish)

Just because there's an edge case where within dnd's shaky moral framework something is not evil doesn't mean that it isn't "evil" for any and all practical purposes.

DND's moral framework is not actually a moral guideline. It's just a way of thinking about your character's relation to other people. Like all subjective systems, it's basically meaningless beyond a very general idea of "Do right by your neighbor."

It also doesn't mean that I want such things in my game.

O... kay? So a curiously cannibal chef can be of any alignment. That's the point of the discussion.

MadBear

2018-02-07, 02:43 PM

We should probably differentiate between a cannibal, and an act of cannibalism.

It's theoretically possible for there to be someone who engages in an act of cannibalism in order to survive a harrowing ordeal. That person isn't normally a cannibal, and their act while not good, wouldn't necessarily be evil.

A cannibal as someone who regularly engages in the act of eating others by choice, is a frigging monster. Malifice is right, rationalize it all you want, you are in fact a monster. Does that mean you can't do it? no. Entire games are built around players playing evil characters. Just don't pretend that it's anything other then an evil act.

Also, this SJW point is just stupid. This conversation is no more about anything do to with SJW's then it would be if I said "those arguing in favor of cannibalism are a bunch of idiotic libertarians".

Dudewithknives

2018-02-07, 02:48 PM

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 02:51 PM

I think people are still under the impression that he does it every day.

He wants to take at least a little bite of everything in the world.

He will literally eat one bite of each type of creature once.

Not like he eats people every day.Is this character being brought to a table, or is this a thought experiment?

Lombra

2018-02-07, 02:51 PM

Let me try again: being a cannibal does not make you evil. Performing cannibalism directly in spite of others' beliefs, or in direct offense to someone, is evil because it represents lack of empathy, the same way that an atheist cursing among atheists is just fine while an atheist cursing to a catholic is not fine?

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 02:53 PM

A cannibal as someone who regularly engages in the act of eating others by choice, is a frigging monster. Malifice is right, rationalize it all you want, you are in fact a monster.
So you are comfotable declaring real people in the real world today who engage in ritual cannibalism... actual human beings... as ‘frigging monsters’? Real people? I’m never comfortable dehumanizing people that way, even individually for the most part (I work in mental health dealing with extreme behavioral issues, I’ve worked with more than a few ‘monsters’ in other people’s perception), let alone as an entire people.

strangebloke

2018-02-07, 02:55 PM

{Scrubbed}

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 03:00 PM

or bury it, or burn it...We know that. I'm not suggesting people eat Karen down the road if she dies. I'm saying in groups were cannibalism exists there is some benefit to it. This is more of a side step. It's not really related to good or evil. I just thought it was interesting.

MadBear

2018-02-07, 03:00 PM

So you are comfotable declaring real people in the real world today who engage in ritual cannibalism... actual human beings... as ‘frigging monsters’? Real people? I’m never comfortable dehumanizing people that way, even individually for the most part (I work in mental health dealing with extreme behavioral issues, I’ve worked with more than a few ‘monsters’ in other people’s perception), let alone as an entire people.

1. That's great, we genuinely need more mental health workers, and people willing to help out.

2. Yes, I'd call a society that engages in cannibalism monsters. the same way that I call societies that engage in slavery/mass murder/etc. monsters.

Then again, I find purely subjective moral systems to be dumb.

Waterdeep Merch

2018-02-07, 03:06 PM

After reading yet a second long, heated thread on this, I've actually decided that, in your average D&D game... cannibalism is actually worse than it is in our world.

We're talking about places where you can be magically resurrected. However, only the most potent magics imaginable can resurrect you if your body has been even partially destroyed, which being cooked and eaten would generally qualify as. This would point to your body still being your possession, even after death. It also makes dead-raising necromancy more monstrous than I was giving it credit for being.

I could give a pass for extreme circumstances where the alternative is likewise awful (namely if it's the only way to survive), and cultural factors can play a part in this (eating relatives as part of their funerary rights, same with honored rivals and others. This is the only reason I'd give lizardmen a pass, and I'd still give them the stink-eye if they continue doing this after learning about how it disturbs those around them). That's about it, though, and I'd never call those acts good.

Resurrection and the existence of an afterlife is the crux for my argument here. If such magics are so rare as to be mostly unknown, it might be different. And if they don't at all, even more different. I'm also thinking a powerful magocracy might use execution and resurrection as a tool for punishing particularly bad criminals. What better way to show them the error of their ways than a brief tour of the Nine Hells?

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 03:09 PM

Yes, I'd call a society that engages in cannibalism monsters. the same way that I call societies that engage in slavery/mass murder/etc. monsters.You keep saying it's evil. Why is it evil even if all the participants agree that it's fine?

smcmike

2018-02-07, 03:12 PM

If at least a good cannibal exists, then cannibalism isn't evil.

This doesn’t follow.

The thing is though, if you're relying on subjective morality ('their culture has different moral standards, so cannibalism might be okay or even good thing when they do it'), then surely good and evil lose all meaning anyway? I mean, you say that it's wrong for a westerner, but if you're going by subjective morality, then what happens if that particular westerner doesn't consider cannibalism evil? Who gets to decide whose subjective morality is the correct version?

You are right that I’m not making any real objective claims about morality. I’m ok with subjective morality, though. Who gets to decide? We all do. My decision is that cannibalism is, generally, evil. What happens if a particular westerner doesn’t consider cannibalism evil? If he acts on this thought, the usual outcome (I hope!) is that he is arrested and his name gets splashed in the headlines as a monster.

Defining real cultures of real people as ‘monsterous’ is a pretty specific ethnocentric stance that doesn’t lend itself well to objectively understanding those cultures, including (especially?) things that your own cultural baggage finds abhorrent

When I discuss cultures that treat bodies as objects, I am specifically thinking of bodies stacked like cordwood in the camps of Europe, though obviously you can find atrocities in many times and places. If calling that monstrous reveals my ethnocentrism, so be it.

I think there may be a disconnect here, though - when I discussed treating bodies as objects, I was not including most cannibalistic traditions that I know of, since I do not know of any human cannibalistic tradition in which the human body is considered to be essentially the same as any other sort of meat. This is an attitude I’ve only seen in make-believe cannibalism.

Lombra

2018-02-07, 03:20 PM

This doesn’t follow.

It does. If a good cannibal exists, it means that it is not cannibalism the source of evil, because if it were, then no cannibal could bossibly good, because every cannibal would be inherently evil, since cannibalism is just evil. However there exist good people that happen to be cannibal, so the only logical consideration about cannibalism, is that it does not influence one's alignment.

Following the principle that the opposite of "nothing" is "at least one", and the opposite of "everything" is "at least not one"

MadBear

2018-02-07, 03:28 PM

You keep saying it's evil. Why is it evil even if all the participants agree that it's fine?

because I don't buy into purely subjective morality, where if everyone agrees to something, that it makes it ok.

Elbeyon

2018-02-07, 03:31 PM

because I don't buy into purely subjective morality, where if everyone agrees to something, that it makes it ok.I get that. Why do you think it's objectively evil?

Honest Tiefling

2018-02-07, 03:31 PM

Canabalism features in the Book of Vile Darkness. Its absent from the Book of Exhaulted deeds.

According to this logic, several clubs in San Francisco are quite evil for daring to indulge in a bit of BDSM and no exalted mind-rape. When will those fools learn that bondage = bad but altering a person's mind to your whim is good and holy!??!?!?!

People saying all cannibalism is evil are vilifying a lot of historical and a few modern real-life peoples

That's what she said. Automatically assuming that cannibalism is evil is a little squicky to me due to this logic. There needs to be an actual, logical reason for the cannibalism to be evil else it's just the whole darn poison debate again from third edition.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 03:36 PM

It does. If a good cannibal exists, it means that it is not cannibalism the source of evil, because if it were, then no cannibal could bossibly good, because every cannibal would be inherently evil, since cannibalism is just evil. However there exist good people that happen to be cannibal, so the only logical consideration about cannibalism, is that it does not influence one's alignment.

Following the principle that the opposite of "nothing" is "at least one", and the opposite of "everything" is "at least not one"

This requires the additional proposition that commiting any evil act means that one is an inherently evil person. I don’t think anyone actually subscribes to this idea - we all have committed at least small acts of evil in our lives.

In fact, although alignment in 5e generally focuses on the motivations of the character, I don’t have much use for categorizing people as “good” or “evil” in the real world, and am much more willing to categorize actions that way. I’d also be careful with the use of “inherently.”

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-07, 03:36 PM

There needs to be an actual, logical reason for the cannibalism to be evil else it's just the whole darn poison debate again from third edition.

I suspect I'm opening a rather big an of worms here, but could I ask what poison debate you're referring to?

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 03:36 PM

{Scrubbed}

Waterdeep Merch

2018-02-07, 03:38 PM

That's what she said. Automatically assuming that cannibalism is evil is a little squicky to me due to this logic. There needs to be an actual, logical reason for the cannibalism to be evil else it's just the whole darn poison debate again from third edition.

It's the difference between swallowing a piece of flesh so that your grandparent can live on as a part of you and eating that bandit because 'DWARFS IS GOOD EATS'.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 03:41 PM

This, to me, is ‘treating a body like an object’... and I could easily envision a fantasy culture just eating the dead with a very similar ‘intentionally dismissive’ mindset

Hmmm. Good points.

Requilac

2018-02-07, 03:43 PM

I think there may be a disconnect here, though - when I discussed treating bodies as objects, I was not including most cannibalistic traditions that I know of, since I do not know of any human cannibalistic tradition in which the human body is considered to be essentially the same as any other sort of meat. This is an attitude I’ve only seen in make-believe cannibalism.

Not all cannibalisic cultures are like that, take The aghori in India for example. I don’t want to say too much about them because I fear I will misrepresent them, but they put massive spiritual value on corpses and it is one of the reasons why they eat them.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 03:45 PM

Honest Tiefling

2018-02-07, 03:46 PM

I suspect I'm opening a rather big an of worms here, but could I ask what poison debate you're referring to?

In third edition, all and any poison use was evil because it causes undue suffering. Keep in mind, other tactics such as physical control spells, mind-control, and yes, MIND-RAPE were all legitimate. Exalted Deeds also introduced GOOD aligned poisons because why not at this point!?

Keep in mind, poisons have been in use throughout human history as a tool for hunting. By the rules of third edition, these traditional hunting methods would have made these people evil. And yes, maybe poisoning the evil tyrant isn't the best thing around, but if you are a helpless servant you can't really try to bludgeon the guy to death so easily can you?

The origins of the rule has been linked to poison being banned by honorable combat of medieval knights, giving it a morally confusing and eurocentric basis as poison probably doesn't always carry such a negative reputation in the mythology of other peoples. I mean, our old pal Hercules dipped his arrows into venomous blood and while far from good-aligned, he was a hero figure.

As for cannibalism not treating the body as meat, that was sometimes the basis of it. People would sometimes eat the departed of their own group to gain their strength. The person wasn't killed for the purposes of gaining strength, and they'd probably want their family members to prosper...So why is that evil?

And there is already a 'fantasy' culture that treats the body as meat. They are called Klingons. But they aren't the best example of goodlyness (they have some sexism issues and a honor before reason culture that kept getting into the way).

MadBear

2018-02-07, 04:02 PM

I get that. Why do you think it's objectively evil?

That's honestly a longer answer then I'd care to go into on a D&D forum, but the short answer is:

morality is about well being (both directly and indirectly). A society where you know that your corpse will be treated as food, reduces a persons well being.

(there's more to it then simply this, but again, I'm not going to write a multi page response encompassing the entirety of morality).

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-07, 04:03 PM

In third edition, all and any poison use was evil because it causes undue suffering. Keep in mind, other tactics such as physical control spells, mind-control, and yes, MIND-RAPE were all legitimate. Exalted Deeds also introduced GOOD aligned poisons because why not at this point!?

The idea of a 'good-aligned poison' is quite wonderful, though probably not in the way the designers intended. :smallbiggrin:

Keep in mind, poisons have been in use throughout human history as a tool for hunting. By the rules of third edition, these traditional hunting methods would have made these people evil. And yes, maybe poisoning the evil tyrant isn't the best thing around, but if you are a helpless servant you can't really try to bludgeon the guy to death so easily can you?

The origins of the rule has been linked to poison being banned by honorable combat of medieval knights, giving it a morally confusing and eurocentric basis as poison probably doesn't always carry such a negative reputation in the mythology of other peoples. I mean, our old pal Hercules dipped his arrows into venomous blood and while far from good-aligned, he was a hero figure.

Also, doesn't America currently use poison as a method of execution because it's considered more humane than most/all of the alternatives (hanging, Guillotine, electric chair etc.)?

Anyway, thanks for explaining. I must have missed that particular debate. :smalltongue:

KorvinStarmast

2018-02-07, 04:09 PM

This, to me, is ‘treating a body like an object’... and I could easily envision a fantasy culture just eating the dead with a very similar ‘intentionally dismissive’ mindset Best post in this thread, thanks for sharing that. (I snipped the rest of it).

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 04:16 PM

morality is about well being (both directly and indirectly). A society where you know that your corpse will be treated as food, reduces a persons well being.
I have trouble personally following this argument. If I and my society expected, or were even honored by, nourishing others after my physical death (or it was viewed as necessary to the transition to the afterlife, etc); how does failing to do so reduce my well being?

In real life I hope that on death every part of my remains will find some way to help another directly through organ transplants; or indirectly through aiding the education of future doctors and scientist. Anything they can’t find a use for can go right into medical waste disposal. How is my well-being or the well-being of others diminished by this instead of being stuck in a box in the ground to take up valuable real estate space?

Max_Killjoy

2018-02-07, 04:26 PM

Not all cannibalisic cultures are like that, take The aghori in India for example. I don’t want to say too much about them because I fear I will misrepresent them, but they put massive spiritual value on corpses and it is one of the reasons why they eat them.

Right, which is why I distinguished in my first comment between those who eat the dead who have died by unrelated causes, and those who murder other people specifically for the purpose of and with the intent of eating them. The first can be a cultural practice arising from underlying beliefs that is not inherently evil (even if I find the idea of eating another human utterly disgusting personally), the second is inherently evil as an act of murder.

If a culture believes that eating their deceased relative returns their strength to the tribe or releases their spirit to the afterlife, then while I'm not sitting down to join them, I would not call it evil if they consume the dead as part of the mourning process. (Even if it's really not healthy to do so, prion diseases are a real thing.)

If a culture believes that they need to hunt down and eat the rival tribes in order to steal their strength, and they go out and murder people from across the river or down the valley and cook them up for a ritual feast... then that culture is actively evil, sorry postmodernists and moral relativists.

Max_Killjoy

2018-02-07, 04:27 PM

Hm. Maybe, this thought will help. Let's say someone butchers an animal. They can cook it up and eat it, or leave it in their workshop.

Then it's the cooking that might do some good, and they'd be even better off carefully cremating the body and the bedding and the clothes.

Honest Tiefling

2018-02-07, 04:33 PM

I have trouble personally following this argument. If I and my society expected, or were even honored by, nourishing others after my physical death (or it was viewed as necessary to the transition to the afterlife, etc); how does failing to do so reduce my well being?

Think of the organ trade. While donating your organs to those in need is very noble in my mind, it...Has some very unfortunate side effects in that people will try to profit from the same procedure by preying upon the weak and poor. Basically, it puts a value upon a person and some people are going to try to cash in on that value.

The issue with the logic as I see it is that if you label ALL cannibalism as detrimental because it encourages killing people and stealing the body, then organ donation is also evil as it creates the infrastructure and procedures necessary for illegal organ harvesting to even be viable. The problem lies within the method (murder) as opposed to the end result (cannibalism or organ donation).

There's also the argument that it wouldn't work with endo-cannibalism, since I don't think many people are going to take a club to grandma to get her prowess. If they do, that culture is probably highly inefficient to begin with and probably on the decline.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 04:37 PM

If a culture believes that they need to hunt down and eat the rival tribes in order to steal their strength, and they go out and murder people from across the river or down the valley and cook them up for a ritual feast... then that culture is actively evil, sorry postmodernists and moral relativists.
Right, I think the argument is that it is the unjustified killing that is the bad part, not what they do with the bodies afterwards. Killing the peaceful village across the river is bad whether it was because you wanted their beads, or the spirits told you to, or their ancestors insulted your ancestors, or you thought you could eat their power... the cannibalism makes it icky, the unjustified murder makes it Evil

Knaight

2018-02-07, 04:47 PM

First things first - funerary cannibalism is being either unknowingly or deliberately ignored by several people in this thread. The practice varies a bit, but it effectively comes down to some sort of formalized ritual eating the dead to honor those same dead. It's not particularly applicable to the specific case of the chef, but there have been a lot of general statements made that need some push back.

Funerary cannibalism aside, there's also two major alternate cases. There's cannibalism for sheer survival, which everyone here is at least willing to treat as an unpleasant necessity at times. Then there's murdering someone to eat them, which everyone here is willing to call evil (at least in a D&D context, out of that there's likely some aversion to the word evil as being morally imprecise, but that basically just changes how exactly the emphatic condemnation is expressed).

Whats the difference between non-survival related cannibalism (eating a dead person for the taste and gratification and curiosity) and necrophillia (****ing a dead person for the feel and gratification and curiosity) to you?
Funerary cannibalism is non-survival, and it's not eating a dead person for taste, gratification, or curiosity.

As for a cannibal from a traditionally cannabalistic culture, they inhabit an entirely different moral universe from me. They certainly don’t fit with my concept of goodness, though. (It’s worth noting that all cannibalistic traditions that I know of involve violent killing).
Again, funerary cannibalism is a thing. There's no violent killing involved there. As far as entirely different moral universes go though, I will point out that it's not that long ago in western society that you had widespread cultural acceptance of a form of low level warfare where you go out and kill people to take their cattle to eat for food, and the gap between that and going out and killing people to eat for food isn't exactly huge.

In the real world people tend to get upset when their relatives get eaten. Its a crime for a ****ing reason. Just like most people are upset when their relatives bodies get defiled, have necrophilliac acts performed on them, or whatever.

You eating someone is disregarding that pain and suffering. Either because you're an emotionless sociopath who flagrantly disregards societies laws and moral norms (and dont care who you hurt) or because you can somehow rationalise the pain you cause others for your own entertainment/ curiosity/ pleasure or because you actively enjoy causing that pain to others.

In the real world people get upset when their relatives remains are disposed of in basically any fashion other than the one(s) they find acceptable. People will get incredibly upset about their relatives being cremated, or buried, or, yes, eaten. A lot of these trace back to beliefs about the afterlife, often involving needing to either have or not have a body to get there, where people are distinctly not happy about their relatives being kept on earth while dead instead of allowed into the afterlife.

I mean seriously. Imagine your sister or mother died and you went to the funeral house to view her body and she had been partly devoured by the mortician. How would this make you ****ing feel?
I'd be pissed, but if that came from the mortician coming from a culture of funerary cannibalism I wouldn't be any more pissed than the mortician flagrantly ignoring a cremation or burial request. Funerary arrangements are important, and some busybody mortician deciding they know best and ignoring the actual deceased and their loved ones is cause for anger regardless of how exactly this meddling manifests.

morality is about well being (both directly and indirectly). A society where you know that your corpse will be treated as food, reduces a persons well being.
Citation needed. Knowledge that your corpse will be given the traditional funerary rites of your culture as it has been for generations isn't going to reduce well being for people on board with the cultural standard. For people not on board with the cultural standard, well, other funerary rites have the same problem.

Speaking personally, there are culturally accepted funerary rites that I would despise far, far more than my corpse being eaten. For instance, my body could be used as a glorified prop in a religious sermon masquerading as a funeral for a religion I despise.

Waterdeep Merch

2018-02-07, 04:54 PM

Right, I think the argument is that it is the unjustified killing that is the bad part, not what they do with the bodies afterwards. Killing the peaceful village across the river is bad whether it was because you wanted their beads, or the spirits told you to, or their ancestors insulted your ancestors, or you thought you could eat their power... the cannibalism makes it icky, the unjustified murder makes it Evil
Bodily theft could be a thing, too. While I think organ donation is a very noble and charitable thing, I don't think people should be harvesting them from anyone that hasn't agreed to it. With resurrection being a thing, you could make a solid claim that a body still belongs to the deceased. Otherwise, it belongs to their next of kin; a very common law in our world. Failing that, it belongs to the religion or state that the person was a member of.

Just because something is done culturally doesn't mean that it's beyond reproach. Cannibals who kill others or take bodies that don't belong to them for consumption are evil by simple 5e alignment standards (since we're talking about causing undue harm with their actions), and would be a hard sell in most peoples' subjective morality outside of it. While characters are more complex than that and might be upstanding outside of this one thing (hence generally good, much like Robin Hood isn't evil just because he picks pockets), this would always be a sour note in my book. In the case of the chef in the OP, I'd require them to do tremendous good outside of these culinary nightmare scenarios to be considered non-evil on the whole.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 04:58 PM

Waterdeep Merch

2018-02-07, 05:07 PM

Ressurection Magic definitely has the potential to alter the morality a bit, but so does other magic... ‘bury our dead? So any old Necromancer can raise them up?!? No thank you, I will keep eating them and protect them from the chance of such indignities... I hope my children respect me enough to do the same when my time of rest comes’
I could see that being a common belief in some places, though that would be part of ritual funerary cannibalism. So long as they all believe in it and agree with it, there's nothing wrong here. Making the organ donor comparison again, it's completely different if you choose to do this. Something that would be horrific if forced can be admirable if consented.

MadBear

2018-02-07, 05:16 PM

I'd be pissed, but if that came from the mortician coming from a culture of funerary cannibalism I wouldn't be any more pissed than the mortician flagrantly ignoring a cremation or burial request. Funerary arrangements are important, and some busybody mortician deciding they know best and ignoring the actual deceased and their loved ones is cause for anger regardless of how exactly this meddling manifests.

the quote you used was Malifice not me. (probably just a copy paste error)

Citation needed. Knowledge that your corpse will be given the traditional funerary rites of your culture as it has been for generations isn't going to reduce well being for people on board with the cultural standard. For people not on board with the cultural standard, well, other funerary rites have the same problem.

Speaking personally, there are culturally accepted funerary rites that I would despise far, far more than my corpse being eaten. For instance, my body could be used as a glorified prop in a religious sermon masquerading as a funeral for a religion I despise.

like I already acknowledged, to give a fully sufficient reply would require more work then I'm willing to do for this thread.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 05:47 PM

I could see that being a common belief in some places, though that would be part of ritual funerary cannibalism. So long as they all believe in it and agree with it, there's nothing wrong here. Making the organ donor comparison again, it's completely different if you choose to do this. Something that would be horrific if forced can be admirable if consented.
There is probably some ethical murkiness here as well. If there really was a Necromancer running around forcing everyone who leaves even a trace of a body behind into eternal tortured undead slavery, and a passing cannibal happend upon your body... would it be ethical for him to eat it to spare you that fate?

Honest Tiefling

2018-02-07, 05:54 PM

There is probably some ethical murkiness here as well. If there really was a Necromancer running around forcing everyone who leaves even a trace of a body behind into eternal tortured undead slavery, and a passing cannibal happend upon your body... would it be ethical for him to eat it to spare you that fate?

Maybe a tangent, but humans are kinda bad at digesting bones and certain organs are best left be. I think this example works best (and I've used it to justify a cannibal PC) if the opposing force needs a somewhat-intact body as opposed to any trace. As it relates to the OP, a chef is probably not going to be able to eradicate every trace so it wouldn't even justify the OP's concept.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 06:04 PM

Maybe a tangent, but humans are kinda bad at digesting bones and certain organs are best left be.
A cost any altruistic cannibal looking to help a stranger out is willing to pay

Tiadoppler

2018-02-07, 06:17 PM

Requilac

2018-02-07, 06:21 PM

Just curious what people think. I'm morbidly fascinated by this thread.

If I am being fair, isnt everyone here morbidly fascinated with alignment threads? How long did the necromancy one stretch on for? Virtually everyone despised each other afterwards. And for what purpose did people continue debating that for? because it certainly was not to get the other side to agree with them. We play grounders, and perhaps all of humanity, are indeed quite a strange people.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-07, 06:25 PM

isnt everyone here morbidly fascinated with alignment threads?

Yep!

A possible motivation for this character might be:

"I need to sample every species' flavor so that I can create a Prestidigitation spell to mimic each flavor. This way, I can start a humane exotic restaurant of sapients without ever harming anyone."

Honest Tiefling

2018-02-07, 06:31 PM

> Found a living person of a rare species, offered thousands of gold pieces and a resurrection in exchange for the right to kill and eat them.

I'd lean to this not being a good idea. Ressurection is typically in the realm of the divine, and I would worry about cheapening the divine if people did resurrections willy-nilly. But that's more of a tonal issue than a moral one. if the god in question would hold such deeds in high estem then I'd not care so much, but even then I'd worry about the ol' revolving door of death.

I'd say the moral issue would rest in the use (or abuse) of resurrection magic. For instance, why not save it for someone who has died prematurely rather than satisfying curiosity or a taste for flesh?

> Found a living person of a rare species, offered hundreds of gold pieces and full magical healing in exchange for a leg.

No. For a good-aligned character, this is a hard no as you are coercing someone into mutilation when they have little ability to refuse. You are also leaving them in a bad position, as many cultures that are both pre-industrial and prone to orc raids aren't going to have much ability to take care of someone who is physically disabled. I'd even be highly dubious of a neutral character using such extreme exploitation to get what they want.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-07, 06:36 PM

I'd lean to this not being a good idea. Ressurection is typically in the realm of the divine, and I would worry about cheapening the divine if people did resurrections willy-nilly. But that's more of a tonal issue than a moral one. if the god in question would hold such deeds in high estem then I'd not care so much, but even then I'd worry about the ol' revolving door of death.

I'd say the moral issue would rest in the use (or abuse) of resurrection magic. For instance, why not save it for someone who has died prematurely rather than satisfying curiosity or a taste for flesh?

I was thinking that this character might actually be the Cleric in question performing the spell in the name of their deity (who might approve of such acts).

No. For a good-aligned character, this is a hard no as you are coercing someone into mutilation when they have little ability to refuse. You are also leaving them in a bad position, as many cultures that are both pre-industrial and prone to orc raids aren't going to have much ability to take care of someone who is physically disabled. I'd even be highly dubious of a neutral character using such extreme exploitation to get what they want.

Full healing means full healing. No physical disability involved. I should have stated that the limb is restored completely.

Friv

2018-02-07, 07:03 PM

How would this question of morality change if the character:

> Always used Speak With Dead to contact the soul in question to ask permission, and always was obedient to their wishes?

> Always used Speak With Dead, got permission, and Resurrected the soul in question for free afterwards?

That seems fine to me (provided that it was fine to your god, obviously.) The difficulties that cheap resurrection introduce into a setting are a whole other ballpark.

> Found a living person of a rare species, offered thousands of gold pieces and a resurrection in exchange for the right to kill and eat them.

> Found a living person of a rare species, offered hundreds of gold pieces and full magical healing in exchange for a leg.

That is probably a Neutral act, but from a legal and societal perspective I would be really worried about where it would lead.

Putting money into the equation for something like this puts pressure on people to accept something shameful in exchange for their survival, doubly so because the common D&D setting is one with a lot of rampant poverty. You end up with a situation in which someone feels the need to trade something they don't actually want to give up out of desperation to survive or thrive, and the rich wind up exploiting the poor. That's the reason that many countries outlaw selling blood, or organs, or similar things. It's always the poor that get it in the neck.

And yes, even if you resurrect someone or regenerate their leg, you're talking about deliberately causing them pain in a situation in which they can theoretically refuse, but effectively are highly pressured into consent. It's bad news.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-07, 07:07 PM

And yes, even if you resurrect someone or regenerate their leg, you're talking about deliberately causing them pain in a situation in which they can theoretically refuse, but effectively are highly pressured into consent. It's bad news.

Excellent point. This could not be a "Good" character in my opinion, but might be Chaotic/True Neutral. I was thinking something like an Awakened Vulture Druid or some other carrion-eating species. Yeah, the social aspects would be exploitative (and therefore Evil), even if the deal's "fair".

Knaight

2018-02-07, 07:12 PM

And yes, even if you resurrect someone or regenerate their leg, you're talking about deliberately causing them pain in a situation in which they can theoretically refuse, but effectively are highly pressured into consent. It's bad news.

It's basically highly predatory capitalism in action, at the sort of level you'd use in a blunt allegory.

Unoriginal

2018-02-07, 07:13 PM

Interestingly, 5e Yuan-Ti might eat other Yuan-Ti either as a follow-up to brutal, uncarring murder OR as a gesture of respect toward a powerful individual, in a funerary rite.

smcmike

2018-02-07, 07:16 PM

Again, funerary cannibalism is a thing. There's no violent killing involved there. As far as entirely different moral universes go though, I will point out that it's not that long ago in western society that you had widespread cultural acceptance of a form of low level warfare where you go out and kill people to take their cattle to eat for food, and the gap between that and going out and killing people to eat for food isn't exactly huge.

Thanks. You aren’t actually the first to give this pushback on funerary cannibalism, but you’re no less right to point it out. Between this an Naanomi’s very interesting points, I think I’m backing off most of my strong stances.

On the other hand, I’m not sure what your point about premodern cattle raiding is - when I read stories from these sorts of societies, their moral universe also strikes me as very foreign. Achilles is a really strange person to modern eyes!

Knaight

2018-02-07, 07:18 PM

On the other hand, I’m not sure what your point about premodern cattle raiding is - when I read stories from these sorts of societies, their moral universe also strikes me as very foreign. Achilles is a really strange person to modern eyes!

Just that from a moral historical perspective this stuff is surprisingly close to modernity even in western systems. Cannibalism with killing isn't as culturally alien as we'd like.

Luccan

2018-02-07, 07:22 PM

A cost any altruistic cannibal looking to help a stranger out is willing to pay

Or, stay with me on this one, burn the bodies. So people don't have to eat literally everyone who dies. Because we're bad at it.

Edit: Although I could see this as an interesting cultural/religious phenomenon in a game. Say, people that live somewhere that ghosts are especially easy to create. How do you prevent ghosts? Ensure the dead person re-enters the life cycle as quickly as possible.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 07:24 PM

On the other hand, I’m not sure what your point about premodern cattle raiding is - when I read stories from these sorts of societies, their moral universe also strikes me as very foreign. Achilles is a really strange person to modern eyes!
Attempting to interpret the morality of ancient cultures through a modern lens gets impossible quick... look at all the rapeing Beowulf does in his backstory (intended to make us understand what an awesome badass he was) and you just realize there is either a *lot* of cultural understanding that needs to occur, or a lot of just ignoring those parts, to have value in those narratives

EDIT:
Or, stay with me on this one, burn the bodies. So people don't have to eat literally everyone who dies. Because we're bad at it.
“clearly you’ve never heard of an ash-wraith, summoned from the cremated remains of your loved ones... a particularly nasty type of undead”

Luccan

2018-02-07, 07:28 PM

Attempting to interpret the morality of ancient cultures through a modern lens gets impossible quick... look at all the raping Beowulf does in his backstory (intended to make us understand what an awesome badass he was) and you just realize there is either a *lot* of cultural understanding that needs to occur, or a lot of just ignoring those parts, to have value in those narratives

EDIT:
“clearly you’ve never heard of an ash-wraith, summoned from the cremated remains of your loved ones... a particularly nasty type of undead”

Actually, I hadn't. Are they in 5e yet? Although at this point, I expect this necromancer just creates his undead from inside people who have recently eaten.

Naanomi

2018-02-07, 07:43 PM

Actually, I hadn't. Are they in 5e yet? Although at this point, I expect this necromancer just creates his undead from inside people who have recently eaten.
I’m pretty sure they are not. The thing about moral beliefs, of course, is that it really doesn’t matter if eating people is an effective way to stop necromantic horrors... only that the cannibal believes they are

smcmike

2018-02-07, 08:11 PM

Just that from a moral historical perspective this stuff is surprisingly close to modernity even in western systems. Cannibalism with killing isn't as culturally alien as we'd like.

Maybe it’s a matter of perspective, but I would say, on the contrary, that premodern western cultures are far more alien than we sometimes assume. I would also say that (nonsymbolic) ritual cannibalism is quite alien to western culture. The fact that Europeans happened to have other violent traditions doesn’t make cannibalism less foreign, in my mind.

Attempting to interpret the morality of ancient cultures through a modern lens gets impossible quick... look at all the rapeing Beowulf does in his backstory (intended to make us understand what an awesome badass he was) and you just realize there is either a *lot* of cultural understanding that needs to occur, or a lot of just ignoring those parts, to have value in those narratives

Yeah, this is kind of my point.

Lord Vukodlak

2018-02-08, 02:52 AM

Malifice

2018-02-08, 04:11 AM

I wouldn’t call it evil per say. But it’d be certainly taboo and likely illegal to eat any “civilized race” by that I mean any race accepted by the society in question. So a Human is likely to be arrested or shunned for eating elves.

Why would virtually all societies arrest and shun him for the act?

Is it because he's desecrating and defiling the body (and memory) of another sentient creature, and causing great pain to other people (the victims friends and family) in the process?

Is it because even people who didnt know the victim cant help but be horrified and shocked by the practice?

Think this through. We're not just talking about meat here. A person doesn't stop being a person once they die. They remain on as memories to other people.

Example:

Assume you have children. How would you feel if (after one of your children died on the operating table), the Doctor who was performing the surgery, suddenly decided to skin, gut and eat large portions of that child.

You find out 2 days later. How does this make you feel?

Now imagine the Nurse was forced to watch. How does this affect her? How does that make her feel?

Would you want to see the Doctor prosecuted or punished for the harm, pain and suffering he did to your child,
the Nurse (and you)?

It's evil to eat someone for reasons other than survival, because you do so either in ignorance or defiance of the harm you do to others.

Only a sociopath of the highest order (or an animal incapable of morality or human empathy) views dead people as nothing more than meat.

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 04:23 AM

@Malifice

Do you think that in every case (besides survival) the cannibal is committing some evil? What if no one ever finds out about the act? What if it's consensual? The societal norm? You keep saying it's evil because of how other people view it. What if everyone involved don't view it the same way as you? What if people aren't offended or hurt by someone eating a human body?

Malifice

2018-02-08, 04:35 AM

@Malifice

Do you think that in every case (besides survival) the cannibal is committing some evil?

Largely yes I do. Barring some kind of extreme outlier (a society where everyone is OK with the practice; mothers for some reason dont mind their children being eaten after death etc).

What if no one ever finds out about the act?

Irrelevant. The act itself has the potential to cause great harm to others. Engaging in it (while knowing this fact) makes you evil.

If my neighbor was a secret cannibal, I'd still think he was evil (as would the Courts and Jury that would send him to prison, and his victims families) should be caught.

What if it's consensual?

More difficult. Im reminded of the German guy that ate his lover he met on the internet (it was consensual cannibalism) a few years back.

He put his own personal desires (the desire to eat someone) over the shock, revulsion, horror and pain he caused others (in particular his consensual victims family).

To me that points towards evil.

The societal norm? You keep saying it's evil because of how other people view it. What if everyone involved don't view it the same way as you? What if people aren't offended or hurt by someone eating a human body?

Im not here to deal in hypotheticals. People are hurt and caused pain by having their loved ones eaten after death, just like they would be if some person had sex with the corpse of their loved ones after death.

A good person is likely to show respect for his fallen foes. He affords them a proper burial, and doesn't desecrate the corpse. He is inclined to minimize harm to others. A Neutral person likely leaves them to rot (possibly looting them first). He doesn't go out of his way to cause (or prevent) harm. An evil person desecrates the corpses, by eating them, having sex with them, or animating them as undead. He is inclined to cause additional harm.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, there is zero difference between eating a person to sample the taste of their flesh (curiosity and sensation), and between having sex with their corpse after death to grant yourself pleasure in other ways (curiosity and sensation).

Its an act of selfish self gratification (or morbid curiosity) at the expense of a high probability of other peoples pain, anguish and horror (should they find out). Few people could bring themselves to do it (unless they had very good reason - i.e. survival) because they possess basic human empathy (for the victim, and for the victims families).

Its a crime in virtually all of the world for a reason.

If I discovered that my local mortician had been secretly eating (or having sex with) dead people before burying them, I would have zero hesitation in calling that person evil.

As would the 12 good men and women of a jury, and as would the judge.

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 04:47 AM

@Malifice That all sounds logical and makes sense to me.

I am curious about the idea of people consenting and the 'outsider's' utter shock and pain causing the action to be evil. How far does that go? Is suicide evil? What about a person helping with assisted suicide? A requested mercy killing? This is taking the question to the limit, but try to bear with me. If a person is from a society that is extremely xenophobic and one of their society members broke taboo by marrying an outsider, would that person have committed an evil act? The act itself not necessarily being evil, but the extreme pain it inflicted on others.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 04:52 AM

Largely yes I do. Barring some kind of extreme outlier (a society where everyone is OK with the practice; mothers for some reason dont mind their children being eaten after death etc).

You mean the extreme outlier of, say, culture after culture that developed funerary cannibalism? That one?

I'll also repeat my contention that the exact same thing applies to burial and cremation, where up until fairly recently cultures that did one were generally horrified by the other.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 04:57 AM

{Scrubbed}

Malifice

2018-02-08, 05:01 AM

{Scrubbed}

Malifice

2018-02-08, 05:08 AM

I want to reiterate in this thread that in our world (as far as I can tell) morality is a human construct that lacks any objectivity about it.

We're talking a world with objective morality though (the assumption in DnD). With actual gods, and actual heaven and actual hell, and magic items, classes and other abilities that expressly function (or dont function) for people who are not (objectively) good or evil.

I have no problem running a game for a player who wants to play a cannibal and genuinely thinks he isnt evil (both the player, and the cannibal PC).

On behalf of Ao, I write 'E' on his character sheet for him. When he dies, he goes to the Abyss (or Hell or similar). Healing spells are not maximized for him in a unicorns lair. Talismans of Good burn him (but he can wear a Talisman of Evil no problems). And so forth.

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 05:10 AM

No; offending a persons evil sensibilities (such as racism or xenophobia) by falling in love with a member of a different race and consequentially consentually marrying each other is not evil.

I would have little hesitation in labeling the prejudices and bigotry of the prevailing society as evil however (as I would to any in that society who embraced that bigotry and prejudice).Again, I'm not trying to change your mind. I just find the last answer interesting, and I'm curious. A family member breaking taboo can ruin a family, their standing, and cause the family a lot of harm. Why does that harm not matter?

I want to reiterate in this thread that in our world (as far as I can tell) morality is a human construct that lacks any objectivity about it.

We're talking a world with objective morality though (the assumption in DnD). With actual gods, and actual heaven and actual hell, and magic items, classes and other abilities that expressly function (or dont function) for people who are not (objectively) good or evil.

I have no problem running a game for a player who wants to play a cannibal and genuinely thinks he isnt evil (both the player, and the cannibal PC).

On behalf of Ao, I write 'E' on his character sheet for him. When he dies, he goes to the Abyss (or Hell or similar). Healing spells are not maximized for him in a unicorns lair. Talismans of Good burn him (but he can wear a Talisman of Evil no problems). And so forth.What would you say about the dm and players deciding that cannibalism is neutral or good?

Knaight

2018-02-08, 05:10 AM

Are you aware there are cultures that engage in ritualized and frequent pedophilia, where such practices are not only tolerated but actively embraced, often as a rite of passage?

Yes. There's also a rock solid harm argument there that doesn't depend on an existing cultural taboo.

Sorry, but in a universe featuring objective good and evil, pedophilia (like rape and murder, and cannibalism and necromancy and torture) are evil.
Going down the list here there's direct harm, direct harm, direct harm, oblique cultural harm dependent on cultural taboo, entirely fictional concept that can be implemented in a bunch of different ways, and direct harm. It's almost like there's distinct groups here, some of which map much better to objective evil than others.

The culture that practices those acts (even condoning them) might not subjectively think so. But Ao has different ideas.
Ah, divine command morality. For when you want a might makes right system, but without the negative connotations of the term "might makes right". Ao's irrelevant here.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 05:36 AM

Going down the list here there's direct harm, direct harm, direct harm, oblique cultural harm dependent on cultural taboo, entirely fictional concept that can be implemented in a bunch of different ways, and direct harm. It's almost like there's distinct groups here, some of which map much better to objective evil than others.
.

Cannibalism doesnt harm people simply due to violation of a cultural taboo.

People have empathy for other people (most of them in any event). They tend to get upset or disturbed when other people get eaten. This empathy is what spawns the taboo.

Ive yet to see anyone provide any evidence that a society exists in which when the tribal elders ritually eat a Mothers dead child in front of her, this act does not cause the mother additional pain and harm.

Iget that such cultures exist where the practice happens. Ive yet to see evidence that everyone is totally cool with the practice in those societies.

I find it difficult to imagine anyone being OK with seeing their child skinned, gutted and eaten before their eyes. Even animals appear to get quite upset when you start interfering with the body of their dead children (going to far as to violently attack anything that gets near the corpse).

You seem to think that in societies where [ritual sacrifice] or [ritual cannibalism] are the norm, people still arent upset or hurt by either practice.

Its false reasoning.

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind. I just find the last answer interesting, and I'm curious. A family member breaking taboo can ruin a family, their standing, and cause the family a lot of harm. Why does that harm not matter?

Because harm caused by opposing evil (marrying outside of your race or culture to the annoyance of your family) is not in and of itself evil.

A German woman who resists the Nazis by marrying a Jewish man she loves is not evil, any more than a Paladin who smites an Orc marauder down in defense of a village is evil.

In Law we often distinguish between objective tests and subjective tests. For example in cases of misleading conduct and fraud, we need to determine NOT if the actual person was defrauded (they might be subjectively easy to bull****, being dimwitted or gullible), but instead determine if the activity that lead to them being defrauded would have been objectively misleading.

To do so we create a legal fiction ('the Objective reasonable person') to assess whether an objective threshold has been met. This person does not exist, but is described (in the UK) to be 'The person on the Clapham Omnibus, on his way to work, reading the London Times.' What would this fictional average, aggregate person of average intelligence, think of the conduct?

No 'objective reasonable person' would view the 'harm' done to someone on account of [marrying outside of your culure/ race] or refusing to eat a human, refusing to have sex with a child or refusing any other reprehensible activity or cultural norm, to be actual harm.

In fact, the 'objective reasonable person' would likely applaud you for resisting such taboos or cultural norms, and would instead deem you a good person for so doing (and deem those taboos and norms as evil).

Get it yet? Throw subjectiveness out the window (as much as you can; I can already sense the Postmodernists reading this and smirking).

What would you say about the dm and players deciding that cannibalism is neutral or good?

Your table, your morality. Maybe your Overgod is a dude that is down with such acts. Maybe your God of Good laid down in his tablets or Commandments 'Rape and Cannabilism is the path to Heaven.' Go nuts.

Good luck convincing the objective reasonable person of such things though.

Unoriginal

2018-02-08, 05:39 AM

You can't say "I'm not here for hypothéticodéductifs situations" and then declare that people are hurt if their family's or friends' corpses are eaten as if it was an universal truth.

It's not because we Western-morality-influenced humans find the practice disgusting that every culture or sapient species will.

How a corpse is considered in D&D certainly is not an universal truth. Wearing an armor made of dragon hide doesn't make people consider you the equivalent of the killer from "Silence of the Lamb".

Malifice

2018-02-08, 05:47 AM

You can't say "I'm not here for hypothéticodéductifs situations" and then declare that people are hurt if their family's or friends' corpses are eaten as if it was an universal truth.

Go outside your house right now to your local cemetery, and ask mourners if they would be OK if you skinned, gutted and ate thier dead family member or friends remains.

Pretty confident you know what the result would be. You'd get the **** kicked out of you for even asking. Every time.

Also, I'm not saying it is a universal truth. I dont believe in universal truths in this reality (beyond self existence, and the inability to know universal truths beyond this). Im a Cartesian dualist (look it up).

If you want to defend cannibalism as not being evil, go ahead. Eat someone and explain it to the Judge and your dinners family how it wasnt evil, right before you go to jail. Im prepared to bet you any amount of money that they disagree with you.

It's not because we Western-morality-influenced humans find the practice disgusting that every culture or sapient species will.

Other cultures find pedophilia perfectly good and acceptable. Good for them. You wont convince me that this is objectively true however either.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 05:49 AM

I find it difficult to imagine anyone being OK with seeing their child skinned, gutted and eaten before their eyes. Even animals appear to get quite upset when you start interfering with the body of their dead children (going to far as to violently attack anything that gets near the corpse).

Extrapolating a personal revulsion to other people and then using that as a moral argument is a sketchy practice at best. Putting aside how it's a pretty reasonable assumption that the standard funerary rites of a culture are broadly accepted by the members of a culture you've basically mixed an argument from incredulity with moralizing from disgust. This is how we get stuff like miscegenation laws. This is how we get state sanctioned violence brought to bear against harmless activities. It's moral negligence, and while I wouldn't use the term "evil" for it it certainly isn't good.

Go outside your house right now to your local cemetery, and ask mourners if they would be OK if you skinned, gutted and ate thier dead family member or friends remains.
...
If you want to defend cannibalism as not being evil, go ahead. Eat someone and explain it to the Judge and your dinners family how it wasnt evil, right before you go to jail. Im prepared to bet you any amount of money that they disagree with you.
Really? You realize you're basically responding to the idea that something is a culture specific taboo and not a human universal by pointing out that people within the culture in question disapprove of it. That demonstrates nothing.

More than that, you also position judges and juries as perfectly trustworthy arbiters of morality. The cannibalism discussion is largely abstract; the practice of assuming judges and juries are perfectly trustworthy arbiters of morality and that the law is basically moral causes real harm in the real world.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:02 AM

Extrapolating a personal revulsion to other people and then using that as a moral argument is a sketchy practice at best.

No dude, its called empathy. Its a basic human condition. Identifying with the feelings of other people.

I know that I would be upset if you skinned, gutted and ate my child. This would remain the case if cannibalism was legal or otherwise. If I were to watch you skin, gut and eat a child, I would feel horror because somewhere out there is a mother of that child who would feel the same way, and you dont seem to care about this one iota (you lack empathy). I would feel horror on behalf of that child, who while once playing with his toys, has now met such a grizzly end. I would feel horror at your total lack of empathy for any of those people (your victim, or his family, or even for me watching
you for that matter).

This is basic human empathy 101. I sometimes fear that Im talking to sociopaths or autistic people on this forum, seeing as many of you dont seem to be able to relate to that horror.

To be fair, I probably am talking to a lot of people on the spectrum. My experience has been that RPGers and others drawn to this hobby tend towards the autistic spectrum and similar types of neurological disorders (anti social personality disorder, which is a form of sociopathy or lack of empathy).

Its no co-incidence that these boards are flooded with suggestions on a weekly basis condoning mass genocide, infanticide, necromancy, cannibalism, torture and worse.

It doesn't help that these acts are always inflicted on fiction people in a fictional world. Its hard to demonstrate empathy for a fictional person.

I can happily have my PC murder a person in cold blood, after torturing them without feeling a thing as a player. As a real person, I could never bring myself to do such a thing in the real world, due to the empathy I feel for my victims suffering.

People forget the empathy factor. Its easy to do in a fantasy game with fantasy people, and exacerbated even more by the nature of people who play the game. Generally (but certainly not exclusively) socially ostracized adolescent young men with critically low or even maladapted EQ.

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-08, 06:06 AM

Going down the list here there's direct harm, direct harm, direct harm

Hitting someone with a sword causes direct harm.

Blasting someone with a fireball causes direct harm.

Using divine power to Smite someone causes direct harm.

However, none of these are considered inherently evil acts. Indeed, when used to stop evil people/monsters, they may even be considered good acts.

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 06:08 AM

Hitting someone with a sword causes direct harm.

Blasting someone with a fireball causes direct harm.

Using divine power to Smite someone causes direct harm.

However, none of these are considered inherently evil acts. Indeed, when used to stop evil people/monsters, they may even be considered good acts.Actually, I consider those all evil actions. All harm is bad.

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-08, 06:10 AM

Actually, I consider those all evil actions. All harm is bad.

So why isn't every character automatically evil after the first couple of sessions?

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 06:13 AM

So why isn't every character automatically evil after the first couple of sessions?Presumably, the characters are doing some good too. If a character goes around stabbing, smiting, and blasting away people they better have a good reason to do it. If they don't, they are probably evil.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:16 AM

Hitting someone with a sword causes direct harm.

Blasting someone with a fireball causes direct harm.

Using divine power to Smite someone causes direct harm.
However, none of these are considered inherently evil acts.

They are considered evil acts. If you walk up to someone on the street and murder them with a sword, you've just done an evil act.

Dont try this at home but I assure you if you do this, you go to prison for a very long time, and [to the objective reasonable person] you're an evil monster.

They only time they cease to be evil acts is when you do them in a proportionate response in self defense or the defense of others, and no other option is reasonably open to you.

Indeed, when used to stop evil people/monsters, they may even be considered good acts.

Nope. Killing is never a good act. A US GI machine gunning down Nazi solders (trying to kill him in return) is not doing good. Killing is not morally good. It might on occasion be necessary, but no-one is ever going to label warfare and killing as morally good.

He isnt doing evil either. He's using proportionate force (lethal force in this case) in self defense and the defense of others.

The objective reasonable person (this fictional person again) doesnt view machine gunning down people in war to be 'morally good'. He views it as necessary to protect people from harm, and not evil (if you dont act, innocent people die; if you do act, they dont).

Knaight

2018-02-08, 06:18 AM

No dude, its called empathy. Its a basic human condition. Identifying with the feelings of other people.

Empathy untempered by actual reflection, aggressively geared towards condemnation, and utterly unable to extend past people just like you. So yes, morally dangerous at best.

This is basic human empathy 101. I sometimes fear that Im talking to sociopaths or autistic people on this forum, seeing as many of you dont seem to be able to relate to that horror.
Empathy is a major reason that your moral system reads as a threat, with a basic knowledge of history filling in much of the rest. There's a combination of perfect moral assurance and a drastically underdeveloped ability to see any perspective but your own, coupled with an almost fetishistic adoration of state violence.

It's largely the basic historical knowledge that makes one know how this sort of thing usually turns out. It's empathy that makes one care.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:19 AM

So why isn't every character automatically evil after the first couple of sessions?

If your PCs are wandering around killing people who arent trying to kill them (or trying to kill other people) then yes, they're evil.

Its not evil to storm the Kobolds lair to recover children they abducted, using lethal force if necessary to do so (the Kobolds dont hand them over peacefully).

Just wandering over to a lair of Kobolds (who arentt doing anything wrong) and slaughtering them, is evil.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:22 AM

Empathy untempered by actual reflection, aggressively geared towards condemnation, and utterly unable to extend past people just like you. So yes, morally dangerous at best.

Lol.

Displaying empathy (horror at the eating of a human child before your eyes by someone who doesnt seem to care) is morally dangerous?

Dare say that makes all people morally dangerous then.

Empathy is a major reason that your moral system reads as a threat, with a basic knowledge of history filling in much of the rest. There's a combination of perfect moral assurance and a drastically underdeveloped ability to see any perspective but your own, coupled with an almost fetishistic adoration of state violence.

What the **** makes you think I 'adore State violence?

Provide a single example.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:24 AM

Ao's irrelevant here.

Not in Faerun he isnt.

If the DM decides Ao isnt down with Cannibalism (it's an objective evil) then it is.

Again, Im not talking about the real world here. In the real world I agree that ALL morality is subjective.

I personally think all reality is subjective in the real world.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 06:29 AM

Displaying empathy (horror at the eating of a human child before your eyes by someone who doesnt seem to care) is morally dangerous?
Displaying that empathy? No. Jumping straight to moral conclusions from it? Absolutely. That this particular very specific instance is potentially harmless (at least until it's used as a pretext for, say, a colonial power massacring an indigenous culture that practices funerary cannibalism) doesn't make the practice in general safe.

What the **** makes you think I 'adore State violence?

Provide a single example.
We'll start with every instance of terms like "thrown in prison", written with obvious relish.

Dr. Cliché

2018-02-08, 06:30 AM

Presumably, the characters are doing some good too. If a character goes around stabbing, smiting, and blasting away people they better have a good reason to do it. If they don't, they are probably evil.

Except you just said that the reason was irrelevant. Every time they use a sword, spell or such to inflict harm they are, according to you, committing an evil act.

They are considered evil acts. If you walk up to someone on the street and murder them with a sword, you've just done an evil act.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Dont try this at home but I assure you if you do this, you go to prison for a very long time, and [to the objective reasonable person] you're an evil monster.

You do understand that I was talking in the context of the D&D universe, right?

They only time they cease to be evil acts is when you do them in a proportionate response in self defense or the defense of others, and no other option is reasonably open to you.

I guess your players must either be evil or pacifists. Because apparently they're not allowed to do anything untoward to the murderous lich until all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Have fun with that.

Nope. Killing is never a good act. A US GI machine gunning down Nazi solders (trying to kill him in return) is not doing good. Killing is not morally good. It might on occasion be necessary, but no-one is ever going to label warfare and killing as morally good.

Could you maybe pull your head out of your rectum for just a brief moment?

You keep talking about the bloody real world, which isn't what we're discussing.

This is a world that his literal, objective evil. if you're seriously saying that killing a bloody demon would be considered an evil act, then you are going to lose all credibility.

He isnt doing evil either. He's using proportionate force (lethal force in this case) in self defense and the defense of others.

And who gets to say what counts as 'proportionate force'?

Is there a God of Semantics in the D&D universe now?

The objective reasonable person (this fictional person again) doesnt view machine gunning down people in war to be 'morally good'. He views it as necessary to protect people from harm, and not evil (if you dont act, innocent people die; if you do act, they dont).

And what if his opponent is not just a human but an actual devil? A creature that is the incarnation of evil and exists only to bring harm and corruption to others?

Are you seriously saying that destroying actual evil can't be considered a good act?

If your PCs are wandering around killing people who arent trying to kill them (or trying to kill other people) then yes, they're evil.

In other news, strawmen are made of straw.

Its not evil to storm the Kobolds lair to recover children they abducted, using lethal force if necessary to do so (the Kobolds dont hand them over peacefully).

Do you even know what your own argument is anymore?

Just wandering over to a lair of Kobolds (who arentt doing anything wrong) and slaughtering them, is evil.

What counts as 'aren't doing anything wrong'? Does it matter if they've been raiding the nearby villages and murdering the inhabitants? Does it matter that they've been stealing livestock and causing the people to starve? Is all that fine, so long as they're not doing it at the time the PCs show up?

I say again, the rules you're laying down here should have every PC ever being classed as Evil.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:34 AM

Displaying that empathy? No. Jumping straight to moral conclusions from it? Absolutely. That this particular very specific instance is potentially harmless (at least until it's used as a pretext for, say, a colonial power massacring an indigenous culture that practices funerary cannibalism) doesn't make the practice in general safe.

Displaying empathy leads to genocide and mass warfare?

I'm not sure you understand empathy. If Im horrified by cannibalism on account of my empathy with the victims and their family, then why on earth would my empathy abandon me when it comes to mass war and colonial genocide?

Empathy would lead to abolishing the practice with non violence. Not slaughtering the people engaged in the practice.

We'll start with every instance of terms like "thrown in prison", written with obvious relish.

Yeah. I do find rapists, murderers, pedophiles and cannibals being thrown behind bars to be satisfying.

Be happier if there were no rapists, murderers, pedophiles and cannibals though.

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 06:38 AM

Except you just said that the reason was irrelevant. Every time they use a sword, spell or such to inflict harm they are, according to you, committing an evil act.

Exactly, everything that inflicts harm is evil. I made no mention of any good. A character can kill a human (evil) to save a child (good.) The character most certainly did an evil thing by killing that human. They also did a good thing by saving that child. There are people that would say the character did a good act. Some will say they did neutral. Some will say that all killing is never justified, and they, in fact, did an evil thing. If that character stopped the human without killing it and saved the child (good), they would have only committed a good act. It's a matter of balance. That person better be doing more good than evil or they are probably neutral/evil.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:47 AM

I guess your players must either be evil or pacifists. Because apparently they're not allowed to do anything untoward to the murderous lich until all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Lol. If the lich is murderous, he needs to be brought to justice. If he resists (and he will resist) you can use force proportionate to that level of resistance.

This is a world that his literal, objective evil. if you're seriously saying that killing a bloody demon would be considered an evil act, then you are going to lose all credibility.

Lol!

Killing a demon is not evil becuase demons are (by nature) evil murderous raping monsters. You cant meet a demon that hasnt just murdered and raped something, and wont go off to murder and rape something after you walk out the room. In fact, seeing as its a demon, why isnt it trying to rape and murder you already?

Get it yet? Demons dont sit around not doing evil stuff. When the PCs encounter a Demon it's invariably up to murder and evil, not just sitting around playing cards and minding its own buisiness.

And who gets to say what counts as 'proportionate force'?

In the real world, a Jury of your peers.

In Faerun, Ao (and also Kelemvor).

Are you seriously saying that destroying actual evil can't be considered a good act?

Yes. 'Killing evil people' has never been defined as being morally good in DnD (barring some crap that Gygax said once based on his own 'eye for an eye' born again morality)

Same deal in the real world. If you murder a murderer in prion, you get a conviction, and get your prison stay extended. Its deemed to be morally wrong in virtually all real world societies to kill people unless you're doing so in self defence or the defence of others.

What counts as 'aren't doing anything wrong'? Does it matter if they've been raiding the nearby villages and murdering the inhabitants?

If thats the case, then you can use self defence or the defence of others. They're raiding villiages and murdering inhabitants. You're within your rights to respond with force, including lethal force, in order to stop that from happening.

If the lay down arms and sue for peace at any stage, a good person accepts that truce (if given in good faith). They then seek restitution, and repentance for that evil.

Does it matter that they've been stealing livestock and causing the people to starve? Is all that fine, so long as they're not doing it at the time the PCs show up?

Slaughtering a neighboring village simply because some people (or kobolds) in that village have been stealing cattle, isnt a good thing to do.

You can go get your cattle back, and demand the thieves are brought to justice. If the kobolds refuse and attack you, lethal force approved. Go nuts.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 06:52 AM

Displaying empathy leads to genocide and mass warfare?
The particular kind of "empathy" limited to moralizing from disgust? That's part of its storied history, yes.

I'm not sure you understand empathy. If Im horrified by cannibalism on account of my empathy with the victims and their family, then why on earth would my empathy abandon me when it comes to mass war and colonial genocide?
I'm not sure your understanding of empathy isn't a stunning example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action. If your empathy is unable to distinguish between morals and mores, and you're willing to use violence as a necessary evil to stop perceived evil, and you categorize a behavior as evil, yeah, a willingness to use large scale violence is a fairly natural conclusion. This conclusion is also backed up by historical events.

Meanwhile a form of empathy that has a thought step before being booted directly into morals doesn't have this issue. Of course, that's inconvenient to you, so it's easier to just pretend that the empathy step doesn't exist. Someone isn't willing to join you in your condemnation of funerary cannibalism in cultures where it's accepted and the harm isn't there? Clearly they also have no empathy for the harm caused in cases that don't fit that profile.

Here's a question - are you even able to empathize with someone who doesn't want the body of their loved ones cremated/buried, and then has that happen anyways, against their wishes?

Yeah. I do find rapists, murderers, pedophiles and cannibals being thrown behind bars to be satisfying.
Also apparently people disagreeing with you in forum arguments about morals, who haven't actually done anything, given who this relish has actually been aimed at. This also conflicts pretty blatantly with the idea of violence as a necessary evil at best when done by non-state actors.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:53 AM

Except .

I just want to be clear on this dude.

If your Good aligned PCs are walking thorough the forest, and you come across a Kobold or Orc village, do you just start slaughtering the inhabitants 'because they're evil'?

Like; they just happen to live in this forest. To the best of your knowledge they havent done anything wrong to anyone.

Or do you need a reason to resort to lethal force (i.e: these are the Kobolds/ Orcs that have been raiding the local village, murdering people and razing nearby towns)?

Which is it?

Lombra

2018-02-08, 06:54 AM

@Malifice causing (in)direct harm to someone is why cannibalism is inherently evil? Ok, do you know how many people are sufferimg just to provide you with the internet service you are using? Do you think that the pollution used to make the devices you are using is not shortening our planet's lifespan? You, I, everyone here is using tools born from human abuse and envirormental hazard. Are you evil? Don't you sympathize with the poor souls that are regularly expolited in factories and mining stations?

Malifice

2018-02-08, 06:58 AM

The particular kind of "empathy" limited to moralizing from disgust? That's part of its storied history, yes.

Lol.

Presuming I am disgusted by cannibalism (on account of empathy), why wouldnt I be disgusted with ****ing genocide and mass warfare?

Warfare, mass murder and genocide are far worse than cannibalism for gods sake. If caanibalism triggers my empathy, why on earth wouldn't genocide?

I'm not sure your understanding of empathy isn't a stunning example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action. If your empathy is unable to distinguish between morals and mores, and you're willing to use violence as a necessary evil to stop perceived evil, and you categorize a behavior as evil, yeah, a willingness to use large scale violence is a fairly natural conclusion. This conclusion is also backed up by historical events.

Hang on a minute.

I say killing an unwilling individual is only morally acceptable (not good, but also not evil) if it is done in self defence (or the defence of others) to stop the likely application lethal force from the person killed, and when no other option reasonably presents itself.

Every other type of killing is morally wrong. This is the only acceptable killing.

How on earth are you drawing from this an inference or conclusion that what I am really saying is: [its OK to murder cannibals]?

You're hilarious.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 07:05 AM

Unoriginal

2018-02-08, 07:06 AM

If you actually were a Cartesian dualist, you would believe that someone's body and their mind were separate and fundamentally distinct.

You would also believe that everything, including moral standards and social construct, should be questioned, as the only thing one can know for certain is the existence of their self, if not the nature of the self.

The viewpoint you expressed in this thread and many others is at odd with the principles of Cartesian philosophy.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 07:16 AM

If you actually were a Cartesian dualist, you would believe that someone's body and their mind were separate and fundamentally distinct.

I do.

To be more precise, I believe that the mind of a person is the only thing that can be known to exist (relative to that person) with absolute certainty.

Cogito ergo sum. I doubt that I exist, therefore I do exist.

The extension of that is that everything else in the universe (including my brain, body, the computer I type on right now, and you) cant be known to exist with absolute certainty. They might not exist. I can never be sure.

To be crude, I could be plugged into the matrix. This body I look down at, might not be there at all.

You would also believe that everything, including moral standards and social construct, should be questioned, as the only thing one can know for certain is the existence of their self, if not the nature of the self.

Thats precisely what I do believe in the real world. Ive repeatedly said that I dont believe in objective morality in the real world.

Heck, I dont believe in the existence of an objectively real existence/ universe, let alone an objective morality underpinning it.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 07:18 AM

Hang on a minute.

I say killing an unwilling individual is only morally acceptable (not good, but also not evil) if it is done in self defence (or the defence of others) to stop the likely application lethal force from the person killed, and when no other option reasonably presents itself.

In terms of you specifically state sanctioned kidnapping* is more your speed. This isn't about you specifically though, this is about the general pattern of thoughtlessly moralizing from empathy with a focus on disgust, which you're defending. That moral theory has an established history of results. Colonial warfare is part of that. Colonial reeducation camps are part of that. Miscegenation laws are part of that. As a moral theory it has repeatedly failed.

Now, empathy with a little thought put into it, where you at least try to parse what part of your reaction traces to actual harm and what part is cultural? Empathy used as a starting point for morality where actual thought isn't just excised? That has a much better track record. It's also what most everyone else in the thread appears to be using.

*See here:
Yeah. I do find... cannibals being thrown behind bars to be satisfying.

Lombra

2018-02-08, 07:23 AM

Strawman alert.

To answer your question, no I dont believe globalism, free markets, or the provision of a service like the internet or electricity, or TV to be evil.

Sigh.

Strawman alert?

When your whole points are about subjective feelings?

Ok.

smcmike

2018-02-08, 07:23 AM

I’m just glad you guys talked me out of agreeing with Malifice before he really got rolling.

That being said, I don’t have a problem using our taboos as signifiers for evil within the game. I’m not hung up on “objective evil,” so i don’t need a complex moral justification for saying to a player that they shouldn’t play a cannibal.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 07:25 AM

In terms of you specifically state sanctioned kidnapping* is more your speed. This isn't about you specifically though, this is about the general pattern of thoughtlessly moralizing from empathy with a focus on disgust, which you're defending. That moral theory has an established history of results. Colonial warfare is part of that. Colonial reeducation camps are part of that. Miscegenation laws are part of that. As a moral theory it has repeatedly failed.

Now, empathy with a little thought put into it, where you at least try to parse what part of your reaction traces to actual harm and what part is cultural? Empathy used as a starting point for morality where actual thought isn't just excised? That has a much better track record. It's also what most everyone else in the thread appears to be using.

*See here:

You're now equating the imprisonment of a cannibal in 21st century Australia (the context I made the comment in) to = 'State sanctioned kidnapping'. How hilarious.

Im not sure which is more disingenuous. That or you confidently stating that I would condone genocide on a culture that practiced cannibalism.

As a hint, cultures like that do exist (in Papua New Guinea, just above Australia) and I dont condone genocide against those people.

I dont condone imprisonment of those people as well. I do condone the abolishment of the practice, using non violent means such as advocacy.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 07:30 AM

Strawman alert?

When your whole points are about subjective feelings?

Ok.

You dont understand cartesian dualism (or its close relative solipsism).

I might doubt the objective reality of your existence (and indeed the objective existence of the entire universe), but I am prepared to use faith to presume that you do (in fact) exist, and feel the same **** that I do.

I just recognise on a fundamental level that I could be plugged into the matrix, and that I could be wrong. You could be a program and feel nothing. I could be in a coma, or be being tortured by demons with a realistic illusory reality. Other people might not feel anything at all, and could just be automaton.

To put it another way, I might doubt the existence of a gun and its bullets, but you wont see me playing Russian roulette any time soon.

Doubt does not mean 'it doesnt exist'. It means 'I cant ever be sure if it does exist; and if it does, in what form it takes'.

Contrast athiesm (God does not exist) with agnosticism (We can never know if he does or does not exist) for example.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 07:33 AM

That being said, I don’t have a problem using our taboos as signifiers for evil within the game.

I presume that when the game designers use the term 'Evil' and 'Good' they use them in the same context as we the readers understand the terms.

Murder, pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, necrophilia, genocide, war crimes and torture (as defined in the Criminal codes of your State or Country) are evil.

These things featured in the Book of Vile Darkness for a reason.

Perhaps the writers no longer think those things are evil with the change of editions of the game. But I doubt it.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 07:35 AM

You're now equating the imprisonment of a cannibal in 21st century Australia (the context I made the comment in) to = 'State sanctioned kidnapping'. How hilarious.

That's what imprisonment is - you take someone against their will, then you hold them against their will in some sort of facility. It is at times very much necessary, but pretending that it isn't a form of violence that maps neatly to kidnapping is disingenuous.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 07:43 AM

That's what imprisonment is - you take someone against their will, then you hold them against their will in some sort of facility. It is at times very much necessary, but pretending that it isn't a form of violence that maps neatly to kidnapping is disingenuous.

You cant equate imprisoning a criminal for a crime they have been convicted of, to kidnapping the innocent.

Or to be more correct, you can equate the two, but they are not the same thing. They have a totally different context.

Same deal as you cant equate Murder [intentional killing of another person against their will] with Manslaughter [negligently killing another person] with euthanasia [killing another person with their consent, with the intent to end suffering] with suicide [killing yourself] or lethal force in self defence and so forth.

Much like you cant equate kidnapping an innocent child with placing a murderer under citizens arrest to stop more murders.

You can equate them, but only if you totally ignore context.

Knaight

2018-02-08, 07:50 AM

You cant equate imprisoning a criminal for a crime they have been convicted of, to kidnapping the innocent.

In the context of a victimless crime that's only criminal because of an unjust law it's the only sensible comparison to make. In any other context it's still a reasonable comparison, where if the crime is severe enough the response of "it's kidnapping; they had it coming" is entirely sensible.

Same deal as you cant equate Murder [intentional killing of another person against their will] with Manslaughter [negligently killing another person] with euthanasia [killing another person with their consent, with the intent to end suffering] with suicide [killing yourself] or lethal force in self defence and so forth.

It's not even slightly the same deal. The differentiating aspects here are intent vs. accident and whether the killed person goes along with it, and while those aspects could be applied in some cases (knowingly kidnapping someone against their will vs. accidentally transporting someone in a vehicle when you didn't know they were there) they don't apply.

A better analogy would be murder [intentional killing of another person against their will] and a death penalty [intentional killing of another person against their will]. Suddenly those look much more similar.

Malifice

2018-02-08, 08:16 AM

In the context of a victimless crime that's only criminal because of an unjust law it's the only sensible comparison to make.

Cannibalism is not a 'victim-less crime' any more than necrophilia is a 'victim-less crime'.

Maybe in your ideal world morticians should be allowed to bang your mothers corpse, or eat her (you clearly cant see any victims here; including yourself and the rest of your family, and your mother). Good for you.

Naanomi

2018-02-08, 08:22 AM

Not in Faerun he isnt.

If the DM decides Ao isnt down with Cannibalism (it's an objective evil) then it is.
AO has power over the Gods of one Crystal Sphere... determining Alignment effects is at *least* two steps beyond his cosmic Paygrade. He has literally no power over such things

Question: in my real life culture that I grew up in, being forced to look at a dead body or talk about a recently dead person’s being dead is a horrible, abhorrent, revulsion-Inspiring taboo. Not some tiny group in Melanesia; me in real life in the United States.

I have family so horrified by the idea that when we travel with them we carefully map our trip to avoid cemeteries. Is burial therefore Evil? If you traveled to the reservation, and you talked about burying your dead mother are we justified in arresting you?

What if we were the dominant culture on the planet, and most people were horrified by burial practices... does that make it Evil to do so?

Elbeyon

2018-02-08, 08:25 AM

Does Ao have an official stance on cannibalism, or was that injected into their character for this thread?

Malifice

2018-02-08, 08:29 AM

AO has power over the Gods of one Crystal Sphere... determining Alignment effects is at *least* two steps beyond his cosmic Paygrade. He has literally no power over such things

Lol. He ensures the Gods police alignment and domains.

If Kelemvor starts allowing mass rapists into Celestia, and Torm accepts them, he demotes (destroys) those Gods.

Technically speaking, while Ao is an overgod (his game rules are 'he wins, you lose'), but he does answer to a 'luminous being' (hinted strongly at being the DM).

If your DM decides that Ao thinks rape and murder is OK, and one can be a mass rapist or killer and retain a LG alignment, and get into Celestia (Heaven), and he directs Ao to uphold this, then go nuts.

Naanomi

2018-02-08, 08:38 AM

Malifice

2018-02-08, 08:41 AM

Does Ao have an official stance on cannibalism, or was that injected into their character for this thread?

Canonically yes (he is responsible for ensuring that deities uphold their alignments and portfolios). He has an official stance on everything (while existing outside of everything, including alignment).

If Torm started allowing LE Cannibals into Celestia, Ao would remedy this. Not Torms portfolio, and not his alignment.

Pretty sure the 'god' of Cannibalism in Faerun is Turaglas (Demon prince, not a god technically). Its generally speaking Demons that advocate the practice.

In Greyhawk the deity of cannibalism is Karaan (CE). Ao has nothing to do with him though.

Naanomi

2018-02-08, 08:46 AM

And yet, Ubtao has cannibalism as part of his worship and is True Neutral, and AO doesn’t care at all. And Gruumsh (and most of his followers) are Chaotic Evil, but their afterlife is on the Lawful Evil world of Acheron, again AO does not care at all

Alignment is a thing well beyond the Gods in DnD, they are just as bound to its rules as anyone (though they get to break a few, breaking cosmic rules is kind of their thing) and they definitively have no hand in defining alignment; barely a hand in enforcing it; and in fact are cosmically pressured to stay out of it (Gods that got involved in the War of Law and Chaos, or who actively involve themselves in the Blood War, tend to get de-powered by the Cosmos)

Malifice

2018-02-08, 08:52 AM

AO enforces the Gods (of one specific world) to do their jobs. Full stop. That is his only duty and his powers revolve around that. There are Gods that take their followers to the ‘wrong’ plane on death, which he doesn’t stop. Demons and Devils steal the souls of the innocent sometimes, and he doesn’t lift a finger to stop it.

Devils dont steal anything. They can only gain souls by way of voluntary contract (they approach souls waiting to be judged by Kelemvor on the Fugue plane, and offer them contracts and a way 'out' - sell your soul before judgement, in the hope of maybe one day becoming a lemure and working your way up to pit fiend instead of being turned into wallpaper by big K).

Demons can only abduct the Faithless (tearing them from the wall of the faithless). They cant touch the faithful souls (who are assured of heading to their respective afterlife in the outer planes as petitioners, getting their cosmic reward or punishment as determined by their actions in life).

If Kelemvor started shipping everyone to Byopia, he wouldn’t be doing his job as Death God and AO may step in. But Alignment matters are built into the cosmos, AO has not a single drop of power to influence the Outer Planes themselves (except in the tiny domains of the Gods that dwell there under his authority)

Ao is responsible for ensuring gods uphold their domains and portfolios. Bearing in mind those domains included alignment domains in 3.5 this strongly infers that he ensures the Gods stay true to (and uphold) their alignment as well.

I dare say if Torm started to murder babies, and changed alignment to LE, Ao might very well have something to say about that.

Naanomi

2018-02-08, 08:57 AM

Demon cults can and do steal souls in a variety of methods *on Toril*... in addition to their antics in the Fugue Plane.

Another God that allows cannibalism: the Chaotic Good god Thard Harr, god of the (Lawful Neutral) Wild dwarves of Chult

Malifice

2018-02-08, 09:03 AM

And yet, Ubtao has cannibalism as part of his worship and is True Neutral

I dont see cannibalism as part of Ubtaos portfolio anywhere.

Source?

and AO doesn’t care at all. And Gruumsh (and most of his followers) are Chaotic Evil, but their afterlife is on the Lawful Evil world of Acheron, again AO does not care at all

Nope, Gruumsh and the rest of his pantheon live in Nishrek. This separated from Archeron when the World Tree cosmology replaced the Great Wheel (becoming its own plane, instead of a chaotic aligned subplane of Acheron), and in 4E split off from the Tree to form its own plane entirely.

Has Nishrek returned to Acheron in 5E?

Not sure where Gruumsh lives/ his status in 5E?

Malifice

2018-02-08, 09:09 AM

Demon cults can and do steal souls in a variety of methods *on Toril*... in addition to their antics in the Fugue Plane.

Can they? Source?

Recall the BoVD discussed soul distruction and stealing, but I cant recall this being canonical to Faerun.

Another God that allows cannibalism: the Chaotic Good god Thard Harr, god of the (Lawful Neutral) Wild dwarves of Chult

What? Where are you getting Thard Harr allowing or condoning cannibalism let alone haveing it as his portfolio?

Source?

Naanomi

2018-02-08, 09:10 AM

I dont see cannibalism as part of Ubtaos portfolio anywhere.

Source?
Not part of his portfolio, just his common practices of worship. At least as far back as ‘Jungles of Chult’

Thadarr Harr and his endorsement of cannibalism (as part of his broader portfolio of survival and not being wasteful) is detailed in Jungles of Chult as well, and in demihuman deities

Nope, Gruumsh and the rest of his pantheon live in Nishrek. This separated from Archeron when the World Tree cosmology replaced the Great Wheel (becoming its own plane, instead of a chaotic aligned subplane of Acheron), and in 4E split off from the Tree to form its own plane entirely.

Has Nishrek returned to Acheron in 5E?

Not sure where Gruumsh lives/ his status in 5E?
Considering there is no World Tree to be found anymore, and the Great Wheel is back, I made the assumption he moved back into the same place... even if not, AO was comfortable with him maintaining his plane ‘off Alignment’ for at least two editions before the move (and he isn’t the only God to have chosen to live in a Plane with an alignment that doesn’t match their own; like some of the Evil Giant pantheon living in the lower levels of Ysgard... but lots of random examples here and there as well)

Recall the BoVD discussed soul distruction and stealing, but I cant recall this being canonical to Faerun
Well, since FR is part of the larger Planescape setting every spell, magic item, and ability found over the years to forcefully steal souls is in play.

In 5e, succubus can steal them in some capacity, and of course liches and the like (if AO were so fixated on appropriately awarding alignment, one would think he would step in and stop lich soul devouring)

KorvinStarmast

2018-02-08, 09:13 AM