RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting fact: Within the last 100-150 years criminals have been skinned after execution. The skin was then tanned and turned into souvenirs. People were okay with this, and even paid good money to own a wallet or belt. One man's skin was turned into a pair of shoes.
Now today, because we are all so darn politically correct and believe we are on some high podium of moral obligations, that wouldn't happen. We label such things "evil" for various reasons, mostly because we wouldn't want that to happen to us personally. Probably because we watch Planet of the Apes and were too freaked out by the stuffed humans.
I would argue that even skinning a dead human wouldn't be an evil act under some circumstances, like skinning a dead criminal. I don't think it is a good one either, and I certainly would call foul if a paladin tried to skin an evil but dead member of his own race. I might even call foul if he knowingly owned human flesh. They wouldn't fall because of it, but they certainly would need to avoid it.
An alchemist shouldn't have any moral problems with human flesh that came from a dead evil guy. They could argue they needed it for scientific reasons.
Now, should you go and try to have peace talks with a tribe of yetis while you are wearing winter gear made of yeti? No. But that is common sense and not really an evil thing. You are either being a huge jerk or very ignorant. You also shouldn't expect any dragon to be friendly to you while you have dragon skin, teeth, claws, or bones displayed on your person.
Oddly enough, you can find human tribes who will be very friendly and welcoming to you should you choose to openly wear human teeth and bones as jewelry.
I guess morality is more subjective than we often think!
@Adamantine Dragon, it is here, this part, that I think is the crux:
Now I agree with you that leaves us with the question of what IS acceptable as a definition of morality, but it puts ethics more or less where it belongs.
Since there is no agreement among all cultures on what the fundamental moral principles of the universe are, or even if there ARE any such fundamental moral principles, we are left with a practical reality of moral relativism no matter how much some people would wish otherwise.
The generally accepted practice among most philosophers is to seek common ground from all cultures and use that as a basis for forming a "fundamental" morality.
As soon as you start questioning morality, any morality, and start attempting to work out "fundamental moral principles, you are back to ethics. In our world, it's hard enough. In the typical game world, with its multiplicity of gods with different concerns and afterlives for every alignment, it is even worse. In these worlds (and out of laziness I run one myself), there IS no ultimate moral code to be discovered, or at least the heavens and hells cannot agree on what such a code might be. This is where the 3.5 BoXD went wrong, as it very clearly exalted LG over every other type of good, with not a shred or fig leaf of justification for doing so.
Ethics would be every bit as important in such a world as in ours, albeit for different reasons. It would help people understand the relatively unambiguous will of their squabbling gods and how/why/IF it applies to them. Most likely, morality and religion would be at least partially decoupled. People would worship and propitiate gods, but not all would feel it necessary to be morally guided by them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, many, many human cultures routinely "skinned" their enemies. The native americans of the great plains routinely "scalped" their dead (and sometimes living) enemies and kept the scalps as a means of "counting coup" or keeping score.
Headhunters kept shrunken heads.
Presumably these cultures did not see themselves as evil, in spite of carrying around body parts of other human beings.
Actually, guess who started it? Europeans started scalping Native Americans so the Natives learn it is a good idea to do it.
Native Americans perfected it.
By the way, many, many human cultures routinely "skinned" their enemies. The native americans of the great plains routinely "scalped" their dead (and sometimes living) enemies and kept the scalps as a means of "counting coup" or keeping score.
Headhunters kept shrunken heads.
Presumably these cultures did not see themselves as evil, in spite of carrying around body parts of other human beings.
Actually, guess who started it? Europeans started scalping Native Americans so the Natives learn it is a good idea to do it.
Native Americans perfected it.
This is a myth propagated by the Seneca tribe back 200 years ago which has been historically disproven multiple times. Native Americans were scalping centuries before Europeans arrived and scalping was going on across the world pretty much everywhere humans lived.
Even where scalping was not prevalent, other body parts were routinely taken as trophies, including hands, fingers, ears, and even noses.
|
Definition of Cannibalism:the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind
Yetis are not their own kind (his character is a gnome). By definition, Human eating elf meat it's not cannibalism, its just sick.
The thing is, the word canibalism was coined and defined in a word where there's only one intelligent race. If there were ACTUALLY elves, dwarves, and the like living alongside humans, I rather think the definition for canibalism would be a bit wider to include dwarves eating elves, humans eating dwarves, or elves eating human.
It's sort of interesting to speculate about the morality of intelligent cross-species moral obligations since in our own world we only know for certain that one species is intelligent enough to even grasp the concept of morality.This isn't true. There is good evidence that some other species have developed a sense of morality. And there are tons of species who demonstrate altruism(even something as simple as ants)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-fr om-wrong.html
Evidence that other species sometimes ACT in what we view as an altruistic fashion is not even remotely PROOF that they "grasp the concept of morality."
Such things are quite easily explained as instinctive responses to genetic evolution.
John, if you can prove that another species on this planet is "intelligent enough to even grasp the concept of morality" then you have a shiny new Nobel Prize and a cash award of over $200,000 just sitting there waiting for you.
So go for it man.
The thing is, the word canibalism was coined and defined in a word where there's only one intelligent race. If there were ACTUALLY elves, dwarves, and the like living alongside humans, I rather think the definition for canibalism would be a bit wider to include dwarves eating elves, humans eating dwarves, or elves eating human.
Definition of Cannibalism:the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind
Yetis are not their own kind (his character is a gnome). By definition, Human eating elf meat it's not cannibalism, its just sick.
Black widow spiders eating their mates is cannibalism, but eating other types of spiders is not considered cannibalism. still agree it would be a stigma though.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
The thing is, the word canibalism was coined and defined in a word where there's only one intelligent race. If there were ACTUALLY elves, dwarves, and the like living alongside humans, I rather think the definition for canibalism would be a bit wider to include dwarves eating elves, humans eating dwarves, or elves eating human.
Definition of Cannibalism:the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind
Yetis are not their own kind (his character is a gnome). By definition, Human eating elf meat it's not cannibalism, its just sick.
I am pretty sure everything eats elves. They are so tasty that everything seems to target them first for swallow whole.
That was not a Borg, that was an adolescent fantasy. :P
Perhaps, but a damn fine one at that!
Every time one I hear one of my wife's friends say something along the lines of "women aren't built like Barbi", I'll google a 7-of-9 pic for them and ask "You were saying?".
Okay guys I am just crushing some snacks right now and I think it is time for me to get up in on this.
If an animal performs actions that are harmful to itself in order to benefit others, thats a good example of morality.
Wow. Just one final look at this because I find your statement here so utterly fascinating.
Let's first look at "performs actions." The level of conscious choice involved in an animal performing an action is highly debatable, but it is thought even by the most generous scientists that insects (one of your examples above) almost certainly are not "choosing" their actions, but instead are following instinct or hormonal instructions. So what appears to be "altruistic" is more accurately described as "programmed."
Next, I don't think you could find a single significant philosopher who would suggest that an action taken without conscious choice could be described as a "moral choice". For a choice to be "moral" it had to be taken consciously or else it's just preprogrammed or random behavior.
Now let's look at "in order to benefit others". For a choice of that sort to be made, the chooser has to be capable of recognizing so many complex concepts that it's rather challenging to know which ones to deal with here. First there's the "in order" part. That means the action was taken with deliberate intent. Deliberate intent implies consciousness and an awareness that one choice is more beneficial than another choice. This implies cognition, analysis and judgment. So far as I am aware, as of this typing, NONE OF THOSE THINGS have been proven to exist in any animal other than human beings.
Oh heck, I'm gonna stop there. This whole thing is just so silly.
To make a moral choice you have to be able to grasp the concept of morality (or more colloquially, "right or wrong").
If an animal performs actions that are harmful to itself in order to benefit others, thats a good example of morality.Wow. Just one final look at this because I find your statement here so utterly fascinating.
Let's first look at "performs actions." The level of conscious choice involved in an animal performing an action is highly debatable, but it is thought even by the most generous scientists that insects (one of your examples above) almost certainly are not "choosing" their actions, but instead are following instinct or hormonal instructions. So what appears to be "altruistic" is more accurately described as "programmed."
I will grant insects, but sticking to animals, you could argue the same thing about humans. There isn't anything significantly different in the specific neural activities. We do convey this information differently(tied to our complex use of language.
Now let's look at "in order to benefit others". For a choice of that sort to be made, the chooser has to be capable of recognizing so many complex concepts that it's rather challenging to know which ones to deal with here. First there's the "in order" part. That means the action was taken with deliberate intent. Deliberate intent implies consciousness and an awareness that one choice is more beneficial than another choice. This implies cognition, analysis and judgment. So far as I am aware, as of this typing, NONE OF THOSE THINGS have been proven to exist in any animal other than human beings.
.Lets address those three things in order.
Cognition- This is basically thinking. An extremely vague term. Every animal thinks. Heck, even insects can interpret sensory input and guide physical actions. I struggle to think of an animal that can't do this. Sponges I guess.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/cognition
Analysis- Analysis is the ability to break something down into its individual...
LOL, assert what you like John. I say again, if you can prove that animals make moral choices that Nobel Prize is yours.
Go get it. I'm rooting for ya man!
Read into studies on chimps.
Or just search animal morality on google and find plenty of scientific articles that prove this.
Top search for chimpanzee morality on google link.
Too bad scientists have already done a bunch of studies or John could be that much richer.
Added link :)
Are you guys deliberately misreading these studies?
Here is what they say: "Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. ".
"Precursors". Do you know what that word means?
Apparently not.
Here, I'll help: "A person or thing that comes before another of the same kind; a forerunner."
"Argue". Do you know what that word means?
It means they are still making their case. That even the PRECURSOR to morality in animals is not proven, much less moral behavior itself. And other scientists referenced in the very articles you linked DISAGREE with the theories and say that morality is purely cultural.
So yes, scientists are providing evidence that there are behaviors in animals that resemble human altruistic behavior.
But they are far, far from proving that animals have any moral conscience.
Maybe they do. I'm not arguing they don't. I'm saying it's not PROVEN.
Read into studies on chimps.
Or just search animal morality on google and find plenty of scientific articles that prove this.
Top search for chimpanzee morality on google.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all
Too bad scientists have already done a bunch of studies or John could be that much richer.
Give you three guesses why they're still doing studies on the subject.
The first two don't count.
on humans eating elves... Ill argue it's still cannibalism.
If, IRL a dwarf or a midget killed you, and ate you would it be cannibalism?
What If I ate a pygmy?
Too similar to call a different creature. Africans might have a different set of stat blocks than asians, but eating eachother would still be cannibalistic.
Which means no elves eating halflings.
Why not turn dead bandits, into studded leather for guardsmen?
Pend, a dwarf IRL is a human, a dwarf or elf in dnd is not human. It says so on the character sheet.
I did add this as a side problem to some players in a kingmaker like game. Some thri kreen arrive (which normally love the taste of elves), and they are here to hunt and eat some of the fey in the region. They are not evil, just hungry. They insist the humans don't realise how good they taste. Fey are sometimes human like, sometimes pretty weird. It is weirding out the players and they have said no to the kreens. Don't eat the nice bathing fey ladies.
Nom nom nom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
on humans eating elves... Ill argue it's still cannibalism.
If, IRL a dwarf or a midget killed you, and ate you would it be cannibalism?
What If I ate a pygmy?Too similar to call a different creature. Africans might have a different set of stat blocks than asians, but eating eachother would still be cannibalistic.
Which means no elves eating halflings.
Ehm, the difference is that a dwarf is still of the same race as us, and shares much of the same DNA besides a slight difference (I can't remember exactly, it's a split Y chromosome or summat for dwarfism? I was never a very good Bio student), but Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, etc. are quite literally different races, as different from us as we are from a tiger or turtle, except just as intelligent.
Hell, Elves aren't even from the same plane of existence originally (aren't they Fey descendants n Golarion?).
It's not cannibalism, by definition. It is still kinda wrong, except in dire circumstances, but it's not cannibalism.
Elves of golarion are so alien, it hurts to look at them.
Can they go with rice though, or would they have a woody after-taste?
too bony, like a frog, the only good part is the legs.
Pretty sure only Elves, Orcs, and Humans can inter-breed. Never heard of a Half-Dwarf for example.
So eating Dwarf flesh still isn't cannibalism.
Dark Sun "Muls" were half dwarf. There have also been Half Giants, Half Ogres, Half Dragons and Half-lings!
what about erinyes eyeball soup?
Where's the full Ling?
Are they really tall or something?
I dunno, call China, someone might tell you were the "Lings" live.
By our biological classifications they would all be the same species. Species is classified by the ability for organisms to produce fertile offspring.
This.
Leaving Biological classifications and 'science' right out of it... You shouldn't eat anything you can BREED with.
And the Racial Heritage feat adds the dwarves,halflings gnomes and others into that mix beyond just elves and orcs...
Had a similar situation come up in a game a few months ago.
The group was trekking through something of a barren wasteland, and I was playing an archer who was constantly concerned about running out of arrows (4 arrows a turn on a full attack, Snap Shot, and an ability from a Super Genius product that allowed me to expend 10 arrows in a round to threaten everything in a cone out to my first range increment).
We were sent to investigate the disappearance of a caravan, found it, and all the caravaners were dead. My fellow party members went to look for clues as to what happened, while I...went to collect some bones from the deceased to make arrows with later. Everyone started making a fuss, and I pointed out that A) running out of arrows isn't good, B) they don't need their bones any more, C) there was no way we were burying everyone in this rocky place, D) my character is something of a survivalist, a soldier, and a realist. Ultimately, everyone let it pass, but there were definitely some uncomfortable looks later.
think of all the WEIRD stuff that are spell components? (or at least used to be in older editions)
By our biological classifications they would all be the same species. Species is classified by the ability for organisms to produce fertile offspring.
But modern Biology doesn't work in Pathfinder.
Actually the definition of what is and isn't a species is a bit more complicated than that, and lots of good species can interbreed, but either choose not to, so rarely interbreed it has no effect on the overall population, or the offspring somehow are less "fit" and either have trouble surviving or attracting mates
Revised: kill them all, take their stuff, their valuable body parts and EAT the rest. Food preservation used to savor the hard-fought meal later.
Still works both ways...
Now, where'd I put "How to Serve Elf", I need some quiche...
I like my elves unlikable, and extremist. In reaction to a Pc wanting to play a half-elf/half-orc (she had played one once in a Live action RPG) I said there are none.
There was some grumbling and moaning, after which I introduced an arm of the winter council, all inquisitors, who steal through the night and murder half-elf/half-orc babies where ever they may rumored to surface.....
As I said, I love my extremist elves. Thank you paizo for the Second Darkness look into elves and the winer council, great inspiration.
|
|
Needless to say, showing wanton disrespect for the feelings of intelligent living beings who have done you no harm, even if you do not share those feelings, is hardly the mark of a good person. And in general, unless you come from one of those exceedingly rare societies that doesn't disapprove of cannibalism and thus have a nonstandard system of personal morality, eating dead dragons would appear to indicate that you do not consider them truly to be people, that you consider people very unlike yourself to be lesser beings. So someone uttering the line you have postulated would usually be nongood, but for those reasons, not for seeing the practical side of what to do with a dead dragon. The act itself is neutral.
In many cases this boils down the the concept of "reciprocity" which is commonly understood by most folks raised in western cultures as the "Golden Rule", or "Don't do to other people things that you wouldn't want done to you, and treat others the way you'd want to be treated."
This is the key reason why my PF druid didn't practice cannibalism. Line of thought went as follows.
1) Humanoids are not fundamentally different from animals - differences in intelligence are quantitative, not qualitative, and genius humanoids are not more worthy of life than the average person.
2) Either it is immoral to eat animals, or it is moral to eat humanoids.
3) Predation is natural, therefore it is moral to eat other living creatures.
4) Humanoids generally consider cannibalism disrespectful or disgusting; while animals fear predation they do not consider it abhorrent.
5) While there is nothing inherently immoral about cannibalism, I will refrain for the practice out of respect for my humanoid companions' sensibilities.
Druid was NG and like Mikaze's character and Lantimonius was absolutely in the "If I die and you need supplies then eat me, I don't care, just save a hand for Reincarnate."
This is where the 3.5 BoXD went wrong, as it very clearly exalted LG over every other type of good, with not a shred or fig leaf of justification for doing so.
Gonna quote this because I think it needs to be said twice.
Leaving Biological classifications and 'science' right out of it... You shouldn't eat anything you can BREED with.
And the Racial Heritage feat adds the dwarves,halflings gnomes and others into that mix beyond just elves and orcs...
With polymorph magic in play, that means we're all vegetarians. The reason the half-dragon template can be applied to any corporeal living creature is that if it's alive and has a body, you can turn into it and have babies with it. And your half-dragon paladin could be half-siblings with a half-dragon cow.
With polymorph magic in play, that means we're all vegetarians. The reason the half-dragon template can be applied to any corporeal living creature is that if it's alive and has a body, you can turn into it and have babies with it. And your half-dragon paladin could be half-siblings with a half-dragon cow.
You can also be reincarnated into any creature or turned into a plant. Magic messes up everything and shouldn't be used to dictate morality. It makes the whole world 'fluid'.
I stand by my 'if you can mate with it... don't Eat it,' If you want to add 'Without using magic'... more power to ya ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my 'if you can mate with it... don't Eat it,' If you want to add 'Without using magic'... more power to ya ;)
i am not kidding when i say i just read this part aloud to one of my players, and he yelled "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED". turns out my freakshow campaign isn't to be PG13 after all.
i am not kidding when i say i just read this part aloud to one of my players, and he yelled "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED". turns out my freakshow campaign isn't to be PG13 after all.
I stand by my 'if you can mate with it... don't Eat it,' If you want to add 'Without using magic'... more power to ya ;)
LOL!!!
Part of me wants to hear how that turns out.... the rest does NOT!
i am not kidding when i say i just read this part aloud to one of my players, and he yelled "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED". turns out my freakshow campaign isn't to be PG13 after all.
I stand by my 'if you can mate with it... don't Eat it,' If you want to add 'Without using magic'... more power to ya ;)LOL!!!
Part of me wants to hear how that turns out.... the rest does NOT!
You may be on the fence for this one, but I'm all ears!