A while back, perhaps when Encounter at Blackwall Keep was first released, a DM posted a thread about (if memory serves...) the moral implications of performing a coup-de-grace. In the example the DM mentioned that the lizardmen had eaten the wounded and dead soldiers defending the Keep and the thread partially sidetrekked to the moral implications of this action by the lizardmen. There was even discussion over the proper definition of cannibalism since the lizard men in the example were eating human corpses and not their own species. I remember thinking at the time "with all due respect for the flavor it adds, why would you even think to include such a bizarre detail?".
Fast forward ... the original thread disappears in the archives and I am at home looking up notes on psionics. While flipping through the DMG (Gygax, 1979), I was shocked to see the following entry on page 105 "Lizard men will serve a human master only because of fear or religious awe. Either case requires continual maintenance in order to keep the lizard men serving... Lizard men troops will also tend to fall upon dead and wounded of either side and devour them if not strictly officered at all times."
Gee, I guess I owe the original poster an apology. You're not just some twisted individual but historically (in D&D terms) accurate in your portrayal of the lizard men's actions.
Who knew?
A while back, perhaps when Encounter at Blackwall Keep was first released, a DM posted a thread about (if memory serves...) the moral implications of performing a coup-de-grace. In the example the DM mentioned that the lizardmen had eaten the wounded and dead soldiers defending the Keep and the thread partially sidetrekked to the moral implications of this action by the lizardmen. There was even discussion over the proper definition of cannibalism since the lizard men in the example were eating human corpses and not their own species. I remember thinking at the time "with all due respect for the flavor it adds, why would you even think to include such a bizarre detail?".
Fast forward ... the original thread disappears in the archives and I am at home looking up notes on psionics. While flipping through the DMG (Gygax, 1979), I was shocked to see the following entry on page 105 "Lizard men will serve a human master only because of fear or religious awe. Either case requires continual maintenance in order to keep the lizard men serving... Lizard men troops will also tend to fall upon dead and wounded of either side and devour them if not strictly officered at all times."
Gee, I guess I owe the original poster an apology. You're not just some twisted individual but historically (in D&D terms) accurate in your portrayal of the lizard men's actions.
Who knew?
Leave it to Gygax to make the lizzies all cannibalistic and what not eh? Not quite up there with huge man eating toads but definitely Gygax style.
Cannibalism is sick and twisted to us, but perfectly normal for some species, and even some human cultures use ritual cannibalism for purposes that make sense within their own cultural world. (Think about the New Guinea tribe that used to eat the brains of the deceased as part of their funerary ritual--doing this was supposed to pass on some kind of knowledge or connection to the ancestors, IIRC. In China, there are all kinds of traditional stories of filial sons and daughters who sliced off bits of their own flesh and put them in the soup to feed to an aging parent--an act that was supposed to be able to cure the parent of otherwise incurable chronic diseases--the stories may be exaggerated, but probably more than a few desperate children copied them). Given the emphasis on survival of the tribe (see recent ecology of the lizardfolk article in Dragon), it probably makes sense that they avoid wasting any good sources of protein--it's the only way your brother's corpse can meaningfully contribute to the tribe's survival.
The taboo in most human cultures against eating one's own kin is probably intertwined with ideas about death pollution (a functional response to the risks of transmitting disease) and with ideas about corpses needing to be whole for the afterlife. Of course, many human cultures, historically, did not have taboos against eating their enemies (or specific parts of them, like hearts or livers). These acts served the psychological purpose of intimidation or revenge, and were often believed to give one magical powers, just like human sacrifice (which was widely practiced in various parts of the world in prehistoric times and is deeply symbolic in Judeo-Christian theology even as Jews and Christians ultimately rejected its actual practice.
So cannibalistic lizardfolk are not really an oddity, or even evidence of a twisted imagination--they just come from a different moral world than our own. And it's possible to imagine that the act of devouring their own kin or their slain enemies doesn't make them inherently evil, even though most humans would see things that way. They're not doing it to be cruel, nor to gain favor with evil outsiders. They're just doing it because it's part of their way of survival.
There is some interesting research I have read recently, it might have been online or in Natural History magazine, I can't remeber which. Anyhow the research says that there is no conclusive prove of any society actually practicing regular canibalism. Now I know we have all heard the stories (and in some cases read them in books) about tribes in New Guinea and Kuru (human form of Mad Cow disease) and what not, but it seems that some researchers fell that the evidence is seriously lacking.
That having been said as far as a good reasoning for cannibalism, if it existed in New Guinea is given by Jared Diamond in his stunning pultizer prize winning book, Guns, Germs, and Steel (a must read for anyone interested in humaninity, history, or biology/botany). It is that there is a serious protein deficency in the diet of New Guineans, mainly from a lack of protein bearing endemic domesticatable palnt species and that fact that when humans first arrived in New Guinea they hunted to exitinction all large mamalian species. So if there is to little protein, you have to get it from somewhere, humans it is! Maybe the lizard folk have the same problem, with humans pushing them deeper into the swamps, and away from traditional hunting grounds, they have to begin to cannibalize humans and their own to supplement their diet.
I prefer though a more ritualized cannibalism, such as what Peruhain was talking about with hearts and livers. It would be really cool and definetly make sense, if the PCs discover the lizard people eating the hearts and/or livers of the human dead in a ritual designed to take upon themselves the power of their enemies. I think that is cool, and was done in real or ritual fashion by nearly every culture on earth, including as was mentioned Christianinty (can we say Blood of my Blood, Flesh of my Flesh, especially if you consider catholicism and Transubstantiation, no offense meant to anyone, just pointing out a fact).
Ah, reminds me of the last time I saw Soulent (sp?) Green. Good old Charlie "It's People! Soulent Green is People!!"
Not going to go down the road of arguing human dietary choices.
Although I am reminded of that famous comparrison
Party A - is a strict (mostly anyway) Vegiterian who abhores smoking, abstains from drinking, asks women not to wear cosmetics as they use animal products, and dresses less ostentatiously then those of lesser station around him.
Party B - eats tons of meat, smokes up a storm of cigars, and drinks so much that it is quoted that he could not be an alcoholic because alcoholics do not drink that much.
Of course Party A is good old Hitler
Party B is Churchill
Not that I really love Churchill, although the man knew how to do a good speech. The facts are also bent a little as it is now thought that Hitler did drink a little champagne with Eva every once in a while and did eat some meat on rare occasions. Anyhow sorry, I should not go down this road.
Perhaps I overstated when I said I thought the original person who brought up the lizardmen cannibalism was "twisted". I found it an interesting detail and certainly something that added flavor (no pun intended ;-) ) to the scenario, it was just an idea that was a little farther outside the box than I am used to drawing inspiration. Now that I've discovered that this behavior among lizardmen is "canon", I think it's really cool and shall certainly keep it in mind for future adventures (lizardmen have always been some of my favorites anyway). Upon further reflection, I kinda like the idea (whether Gygax or whomever originated it) of this type of taboo behavior (from a strictly Western human perception) taking place when PCs encounter different races. As discussed on some other recent threads, I for one (and there are others) often fall into the trap of playing all races a little too "humanish". For D&D to have its full scope, it's good, I believe, for the players to get a sense of what it is really like interacting with sentient beings that are not human. I'm reminded of the line in Star Trek 2:Wrath of Khan when Mr. Savik remarks to Spock that Captain Kirk is "so human"; then at the end when Spock dies, Kirk tries to pay him what he regarded as the highest compliment by stating that Spock was the most "human" being he had ever met.
Anyway, long live the cannabalistic lizardmen!
Perhaps I overstated when I said I thought the original person who brought up the lizardmen cannibalism was "twisted". I found it an interesting detail and certainly something that added flavor (no pun intended ;-) ) to the scenario, it was just an idea that was a little farther outside the box than I am used to drawing inspiration. Now that I've discovered that this behavior among lizardmen is "canon", I think it's really cool and shall certainly keep it in mind for future adventures (lizardmen have always been some of my favorites anyway). Upon further reflection, I kinda like the idea (whether Gygax or whomever originated it) of this type of taboo behavior (from a strictly Western human perception) taking place when PCs encounter different races. As discussed on some other recent threads, I for one (and there are others) often fall into the trap of playing all races a little too "humanish". For D&D to have its full scope, it's good, I believe, for the players to get a sense of what it is really like interacting with sentient beings that are not human. I'm reminded of the line in Star Trek 2:Wrath of Khan when Mr. Savik remarks to Spock that Captain Kirk is "so human"; then at the end when Spock dies, Kirk tries to pay him what he regarded as the highest compliment by stating that Spock was the most "human" being he had ever met.
Anyway, long live the cannabalistic lizardmen!
think about it, is lizardmen eaten the bodies of their fallen foes any more unsavoury (no pun intended) than how us english feel about the fact that the french might eat a horse or that some asian cultures might eat monkeys or dog... as has been said their culture dictates the way they behave and their particular practices. i have to say though SirMarcus, we in the west have our own form of canibalism... after all the holy sacrement involves symbolic canibalism
|
think about it, is lizardmen eaten the bodies of their fallen foes any more unsavoury (no pun intended) than how us english feel about the fact that the french might eat a horse or that some asian cultures might eat monkeys or dog... as has been said their culture dictates the way they behave and their particular practices. i have to say though SirMarcus, we in the west have our own form of canibalism... after all the holy sacrement involves symbolic canibalism
I think (as a confirmed carnivore) that eating a sentient species seems a bit wrong, even if they are not the same species as you. Or am I just sqeamish?
Not sure if this is really salient to the conversation, as I am addressing evil monsters, not the neutral lizardfolk, but there are two monsters in my campaign world that my PCs have come to expect PREFER to dine exclusively upon sentient beings: vampires and dragons. They're just somehow more satisfying! Vampires actually find more sustenance from sentient victims on a necromantic level, and dragons consider other sentient life to be further down on the food chain than themselves, but still delicacies.
|
I don't think that it is morally questionable to portray cannibalistic lizard men in an adventure. It could really add flavor to have the PCs realize how savage these guys are.
And there are several sentient creatures in D&D that hunt humans for food. Cannibalism is something that spawns fear within people from the beginning of ages. It's really archaic... Grimms fairy tales are full of threads of beeing eaten. Sure, it is somehow disgusting but the same goes for smashing tiny goblins with large bludgeoning weapons, hmm?
And what i really cannot understand is your change in view, Sir Marcus. You found the idea of cannibalistic lizard men a little to heavy (if i got that right) and now you think it's cool because you found out Gygax intended them to be like that? Don't get me wrong, i respect your opinions (both) but this really doesn't make sense to me...:)
I was the original poster on that thread. No offense taken; as some on these boards know, I AM twisted. :P