|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I wouldn't be that traumatized" reflects a lack of empathy. Empathy is not about projecting your reaction in the same situation onto everyone else, but trying to appreciate they have a completely different perspective and reaction.
No, it reflects a desire to point out the flaw in your statement, which was phrased as an absolute...and needs to be an absolute to be universally applicable. My not feeling that way proves that not everyone feels that way, and I don't have to prove that nobody feels that way (nor would I try since some people clearly do) to prove your assertion incorrect.
"If they don't find out" is a cheap excuse that can be used to excuse any crime.
Not necessarily. Most things people say that about are wrong for other reasons (cheating on one's spouse is wrong because it breaks one's word, stealing things from someone is wrong because they still lose the thing even if they don't find out you took it, etc.) but that's not necessarily true of cannibalism. That's not morally wrong for any reason except it potentially causing slight emotional trauma if revealed.
And besides, I'd say that hurting someone's feelings in order to not die slowly and horribly is, in fact, not an Evil act.
That's where the decision to forebear and have faith in the god(ess) steps in and says "No. faith provides." I know that for those of us determined to maintain our cynical jaded street cred that this is an unacceptable answer, but I think the time has come to accept that this has become a circular argument and agree to leave this topic be.That is noble...but what if he is 'needed'. Lets assume that he is the only character with a score over 10, and that he is the only one with skill points in profession(shipwright). Or if they are lost and adrift on a life raft, he is the only one left with ranks in profession (cartography) and knowledge (geography). I know, unlikely, but it would be justification as to why he was at sea in the first place, since he was the only one in the order with experience with the sailing.
That could put him in the position of the only person with the ability to save most of the survivors. But that is only if he has the strength to take action.
"Well, if your faith doesn't provide for me, then just eat me and provide for every one else"-said the guy on death's door.
Plus, I somewhat question how much faith provides in a polytheistic world where gods often have a physical presence and are not omnipotent (they too might be busy fighting a demon army to send an angel to save your rear).
But I do think we have covered a lot of the key arguments for and against, haven't we?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone you loves dies you don't then see them as just a corpse.
My mother passed away just recently. I was holding the IV bag while the paramedics worked their best to save her. I felt the very atmosphere of the room change when she died, and I knew when it was. At that point, her body was what was on our living room floor, not my mother. It no longer felt like my mother because my mother was no longer within it.
So I will attest with the utmost sincerity that when someone you loves dies you do not see them as a corpse. You may, however, see their corpse as a corpse, and recognize them for what still remains in another form.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have little first hand knowledge of how the developers/former developers are in conversation/as GMs (are they that bad?).
They? No.
One in particular? Yes.
That's where the decision to forebear and have faith in the god(ess) steps in and says "No. faith provides." I know that for those of us determined to maintain our cynical jaded street cred that this is an unacceptable answer, but I think the time has come to accept that this has become a circular argument and agree to leave this topic be.
Except faith doesn't provide. In this world or another.
Paladins wouldn't need to exist if it did, after all. "Faith" would just provide everything, not a mere flesh and blood human.
That's where the decision to forebear and have faith in the god(ess) steps in and says "No. faith provides." I know that for those of us determined to maintain our cynical jaded street cred that this is an unacceptable answer, but I think the time has come to accept that this has become a circular argument and agree to leave this topic be.Except faith doesn't provide. In this world or another.
Paladins wouldn't need to exist if it did, after all. "Faith" would just provide everything, not a mere flesh and blood human.
Well, faith did kind of provide. I mean, you can gain access to an array of mystical powers and magics because you believed hard enough in the possibility to bring peace and order to the world. And we have had a lot of arguments of how a powerful paladin could use specific spells and mercies to solve some of our problems. But again, the gods help those that help themselves (because that makes them better conduits for divine powers)
|
Option 1:Eat your friend, raising your chance at survival, the chance of his next of kin being notified of his passing, the chance of him getting Ressurected, the chance of him getting a proper burial instead of rotting on a boat/in the desert/in the wilderness.
Option 2:Don't eat your friend, increasing the chance that you and your friend's corpse never get discovered, practically ensuring that your bodies will simply rot away, and raising the odds of either of your loved ones never knowing what happened to you, neither of you getting a proper funeral, and pretty much guaranteeing that you will never get Ressurected/Raised/etc.
Me, I choose option #1.
Option 1:Eat your friend, raising your chance at survival, the chance of his next of kin being notified of his passing, the chance of him getting Ressurected, the chance of him getting a proper burial instead of rotting on a boat/in the desert/in the wilderness.
Option 2:Don't eat your friend, increasing the chance that you and your friend's corpse never get discovered, practically ensuring that your bodies will simply rot away, and raising the odds of either of your loved ones never knowing what happened to you, neither of you getting a proper funeral, and pretty much guaranteeing that you will never get Ressurected/Raised/etc.
Me, I choose option #1.
Well, while you certainly noted the pros, there are a few more complicated cons
-This is a world where people turn into horrible monsters due to such acts. Ghouls, wendigos, and even the relatively mundane antipaladin are all major threats that can originate from such actions.
-The obvious question of 'are we sure it is necessary?' Imagine how you would feel if a rescue party showed up tomorrow. Egg (and other, less pleasant things) on your face, huh?
Clearly the best answer would be for the Paladin to eat enough to live, then use Ultimate Mercy, and rinse and repeat. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly the best answer would be for the Paladin to eat enough to live, then use Ultimate Mercy, and rinse and repeat. :P
....damn it....I just realized that you could theoretically eat someone without killing them, and then use lay on hands to seal the wounds (thus, it could be done to a limited degree by level 2).
Even if you are just collecting blood, the game and the hp mechanics doesn't cover slow starvation as nutrients are removed prior to healing, so I can only assume that it replenishes that (because you do not exactly have to up your ration intake, even if you are a paladin that has 33 uses of lay on hands and just lets himself bleed out near completely before healing himself until he runs out of LoHs)
Or would this be some form of con damage? Honestly, I can't say, since a lot of this is abstracted for very, very good reasons. Even then, a 4th level paladin could still do it using lesser restoration.
I guess faith provides......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im imagining a paladin eating himself now. Thanks guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that for the most part the idea of cannibalism is abhorrent for one of only a couple of reasons. One is the idea of the cannibal murdering people in order to sate his or her hunger, the second is the idea that my eating a corpse you are not paying proper respect to the family of the deceased, or not paying proper respect to the memory of the deceased. There is also this thought that people like to believe that in some way we are above animals in some sort of capacity (in that we have souls were as animals don't, or that we are on a higher level of consciousness and our decisions can affect the world as a whole). And by eating humans as we do with certain kinds of animals we are robbing our selves of that significance. There are even several religions that believe that the corpse staying intact is important for its afterlife.
The thing is that if none of these is true in the setting in which you are playing or they are sidestepped by some other extraneous factor, then the plain old eating of a dead persons corpse is not evil.
I've played in a game where the party was forced to deal with a situation where the food had run out and a party member had died. Others would have died if we couldn't have found nourishment, and we had to lug around the dead players body if we were to have any hope of raising him. Well. We saved the bones and he got raised. But we didn't go hungry. *shrugs*
Just my two cents.