In a non–game discussion with another player, a dark subject came up that I think you guys are the perfect foil to help me resolve. Cannibalism in the game.
I know that cannibalism is basically defined as consuming the flesh of one’s own kind. Thus, humans eating humans are cannibals. Dogs eating dogs are cannibals. If tiger eats man, we get offended, but the tiger is not truly a cannibal, just a man-eater. If man eats tiger some consider it a delicacy, others just shrug.
But, in a multi-racial game like ours, does racial sapience redefine the border of cannibalism? If a PC eats the flesh of another sapient creature (Human eating Elf or Dwarf eating Orc) does the sapience factor come into play and make this PC a cannibal? Does the definition ride more on whether one is a PC and the other NPC? If a PC eats a NPC is it ok, regardless of species? If a PC eats a PC, is it worse than PC to NPC?
Where is the borderline?
Give me some perspective, please.
Give me some perspective, please.
Design the "cannibal" template and submit it to Dragon as a feature article. This issue is just screaming for some consistent game rules!!
:P
We have a pygmy halfling in our campaign who eats "meat" but not people, becuase people are people and not food. According to the culture of the pygmies, everything outside of their tribe and allies is considered "meat"-wild boar, pixies, goblin (tough, but marinade it right and it's some goooood eatin's) chicken, dragon. They don't eat people. In fact, to suggest so is a grave insult. To become a person, one must prove oneself to be worthy and honorable. However, this doesn't make them evil. It's a purely societal thing that seems wrong to outsiders but they don't run around killing everything they see. They're still sweet, charming halflings but with a bit of a dark side.
For example, Queequeg the pygmy is captured by poachers who think that he's a strange little monkey creature. Waldengast saves him from the poachers and therefore, Queequeg becomes life-debted to him and Waldengast is now a person. Waldengast is much more aware of the standard social custom and teaches Queequeg that the city is not a big pen of meat but full of people. "You can only eat the people who attack us, becuase then they become meat. And then give me all the shiny coins becuase they're bad luck and I know how to deal with the bad luck, since I'm from the city"
It lead to some interesting roleplaying when Queequeg would begin to nibble on some "finger food" in a public place and get yelled at by Waldengast.
I'm not sure. I would think it would be cannibalism, but I do remember Bruenor Battlehammer a dwarf from the Drizzt's books eating giants. In fact he used their skulls as a pot to cook in...I'm not saying this is how it really goes, but that's how Salvator depicted how dwarves feel about eating other intelligent beings. Salvator does make his dwarves alittle on the slap stick side however. Now that I think about it I think he also said something about eating orcs to.
Fizz
A thought just popped up. What is you eat the heart of an enemy is that considered cannibalism? Assuming it has some symbolism and purpose besides food like power, respect, or magic of ones enemies.
Fizz
I think eating any intelligent being is cannibalism
Now, what if cows were bred for human speech capability and the development of light accountancy skills by H&R Block?
Bruenor mentioned making soup out of giant's brains. Apparently Ed Greenwood had some ideas about some Forgotten Realms dishes that included dragon in them, and back in the TSR days he was told that they didn't want to promote canibalism by implying that it was common for people to eat dragons.
Of course, that was back in the day when there was a division between the book department and RPG department, and the book department was fairly young when Bruenor made those comments (in The Crystal Shard).
CannibalismI think eating any intelligent being is cannibalismNow, what if cows were bred for human speech capability and the development of light accountancy skills by H&R Block?
Works for me. I'm a vegan and I only ever cannabalize parts from old songs for new ones.
I've always considered cannibalism to encompass all sapient creatures. So, yes, Bruenor is a cannibal along with all the demons of the Abyss that eat the pathetic manes.
From what I’ve seen so far, then, it seems that the sentience issue is the basic dividing line beyond the basic definition??? There may be exceptions, mostly stemming from social mores (alignment?), but in general the whole PC/NPC thing is non-germane.
So then, what qualifies one as “people”?
As exampled above (Queequeg, I believe?), “people” don’t eat “people”; and since intelligence (sentience) seems the basic benchmark we’re already trending towards for designating who is “people” and who isn’t, we now have to look at that ugly social more thing (alignment) to see how/if it modifies that definition.
Would it be fair to say that no Good alignment would eat “people”?
Would it be fair to say that no Lawful alignment would eat “people”?
So, there’s no way a Lawful/Good aligned creature (PC/NPC/Monster) would eat “people”…yes/no?
Would it be fair to say that most Chaotic alignments would eat “people”?
Would it be fair to say that most Evil alignments would eat “people”?
So, there’s every expectation that a Chaotic/Evil creature (PC/NPC/Monster) would eat “people”…yes/no?
If you have an argument why one of these alignments would act differently than described, (social more exceptions/justifications), please explain.
Then, what about the Neutrals (True or otherwise)? Does their basic perspective on this come strictly from racial/species descriptions/imperatives, from intelligence (sentience) modifications, from social mores (alignment structures), or from somewhere else? Or, all of the above?
Examples:
Would a Drow eating a Sylvan Elf be considered a cannibal? If so, by whom? After all, Drow and Sylvan Elf are both “people” (given the sentience benchmark so far), and very closely related genetically. If "sentience"="people", what would except the Drow (to themselves or others) from the cannibal label? A similar differentiation can effectively be made between Dwarf and Gnome, I believe, so consider that context as well.
I know this seems like it’s getting overly complex, but this little acorn of a question has spawned a mighty oak of controversy here in my own home, and I’d like to be able to iron the kinks out before my next game session. My "Spidey Sense" is telling me that this is going to be an issue at my game table very soon and the better definition I can provide (with examples, exceptions, etc.) when it happens, the less disruption it will cause. Chalk it all up to “preventative maintenance”…LOL
Would a Drow eating a Sylvan Elf be considered a cannibal?
The difference between Drow and Sylvan elves is the same as between Africans and Caucasians...
And to the subject, I suggest a simple rule of thumb:
If things that can inter-breed eat one another - that's cannibalism and is frowned upon by most cultures.
If things that can't inter-breed AND have vastly different INT eat one another - that's sensible exploitation of resources.
If things that can't inter-breed BUT have similar INT eat one another - that's just smurfed up.
Cannabalism should be defined by the eater and not the eaten.
If a troll (sentient) eats a pesky adventurer it means a full belly for the troll, and the troll may or may not get any kind of sadistic glee from it depending on whether or not it was attacked by said adventurer.
Whereas a sadistic cultist who eats elven children would certainly know what he is doing is cannabalism and loves it.
A farmer goes hunting and kills a wild turkey. No one in his family is going to whine about how that turkey had one hell of a good life, and the turkey can't complain either, but the druid of the nearby woods may object with violence calling it cannabalism of a fellow living thing.
A paladin eats his dead and frozen friend to survive. Is that a bad thing? No, the paladin is being smart. If he survives he may be able to res his buddy and continue fighting the good fight. Does the friend care if he is being eaten? Again, the answer is no, because he's dead.
We can assume that the act of cannabalism is not an inherently bad or good thing, it depends on the reason for commiting the act. A culture that eats their dead ancestors to gain their wisdom is doing a good thing in their own opinion while outsiders may look at this act with disdain. The people of this culture may not even know that this is normaly defined as cannabalism elsewhere. The cultists mentioned above knows that he is doing an evil deed and will continue to do so.
It's all opinion.
I play a PC in a game that usually eats the heart of his conquered foes, most times the Big Bad, some one who rivals his martial prowess, similar to the ancient tribes. Even as a DM I have PC's who take trophies off dead, horns, eyes, etc.
Is there any difference to eating the fallen as to looting their bodies and taking all their stuff?
|
The ability to inter-breed is also not a solid rule in this case, I'm afraid. As was pointed out, there is more than one printed example of recipes for dragon parts. The wing joints, I believe, are a very expensive delicacy in parts of FR. Most dragons are considered 'sentient beings', and they have the ability to inter-breed with many other creatures.
Would a character of mine eat dragon meat? Probably. In front of a half-dragon party member? Depends.
|
From what I’ve seen so far, then, it seems that the sentience issue is the basic dividing line beyond the basic definition??? There may be exceptions, mostly stemming from social mores (alignment?), but in general the whole PC/NPC thing is non-germane.
So then, what qualifies one as “people”?
As exampled above (Queequeg, I believe?), “people” don’t eat “people”; and since intelligence (sentience) seems the basic benchmark we’re already trending towards for designating who is “people” and who isn’t, we now have to look at that ugly social more thing (alignment) to see how/if it modifies that definition.
Would it be fair to say that no Good alignment would eat “people”?
Would it be fair to say that no Lawful alignment would eat “people”?
So, there’s no way a Lawful/Good aligned creature (PC/NPC/Monster) would eat “people”…yes/no?Would it be fair to say that most Chaotic alignments would eat “people”?
Would it be fair to say that most Evil alignments would eat “people”?
So, there’s every expectation that a Chaotic/Evil creature (PC/NPC/Monster) would eat “people”…yes/no?If you have an argument why one of these alignments would act differently than described, (social more exceptions/justifications), please explain.
Then, what about the Neutrals (True or otherwise)? Does their basic perspective on this come strictly from racial/species descriptions/imperatives, from intelligence (sentience) modifications, from social mores (alignment structures), or from somewhere else? Or, all of the above?
You're oversimplifying. I would agree that Good and/or Lawful creatures would not eat "people," as a general rule. To then make the extension that Chaotic and/or Evil people would do it is implying that those alignments would take Lawful Good behavior and simply do the opposite.
No. Most Chaotic and/or Evil creatures would NOT eat "people." While it is an evil act, that doesn't mean all evil creatures do it. The same could be said of, say, killing children. Killing children is evil, but not all villains see a point to doing so. Cannibalism is repulsive to the vast majority of people, regardless of moral disposition, and is likely to be avoided across the board.
Specific races and cultures will be the exception to the rule. Take the trolls of The Hobbit. Their desire to eat Bilbo is not because they're evil, but because they're trolls, and that's what trolls do. Saruman, on the other hand, would probably not eat a hobbit, even though he's evil, because that's gross.
Examples:
Would a Drow eating a Sylvan Elf be considered a cannibal? If so, by whom? After all, Drow and Sylvan Elf are both “people” (given the sentience benchmark so far), and very closely related genetically. If "sentience"="people", what would except the Drow (to themselves or others) from the cannibal label? A similar differentiation can effectively be made between Dwarf and Gnome, I believe, so consider that context as well.
Yes. Any of those would be cannibalism, by the general definition here. An evil act, for sure, but perhaps that's what the drow and dwarves of your campaign do. I would suspect that, in most campaigns, they don't do such things.
Cannibalism strikes me as a loose term, one that needs not be specifically pinned down. That said, I would say that any intelligent, humanoid creature eating another would be cannibalism, most certainly. Orcs, elves (of any kind), gnomes, dwarves, humans, (hob)goblins, etc.; if any of these dines on any other, that's cannibalism. However, a giant or troll or dragon eating any of them simply is that creature eating another, and if one side calls it cannibalism, well, that's their opinion. Same if a dwarf, human, orc, gnome, whatever, ate a dragon. If they ate a troll, I wouldn't classify that as cannibalism, but if they ate a very humanoid giant (fire, frost, storm, even an ogre), I'd call that cannibalism. But, that might just be my opinion! :)
(Are smiley faces appropriate in this thread?)
A thought just popped up. What is you eat the heart of an enemy is that considered cannibalism? Assuming it has some symbolism and purpose besides food like power, respect, or magic of ones enemies.
Fizz
Yes, and large part of real-world cannibalism is considered to be and have been like this...more ritual than nutritional.
For purpose of prion diseases I think the own race is most dangerous but in terms of society I think eating any sentient being of one's own society would be frowned upon (except in situations of ritual cannibalism, mentioned above). However, the society might consider for example goblins or giants or such sentient races to be "below us" and thus ok to be eaten. Or that wild halfling tribe or drows might indeed consider everyone else to be lesser beings...
Very interesting, have had my brain humming on this a while and it makes me want to start drawing charts with levels of cannibalism with degrees and stuff. Wow, what fun. Interesting twists abound; like; is a minotaur food or is that cannibalistic or both; it is part bull, part man; definately humanoid, certainly sentient; shares a common language, skilled with tools.
I would think different religions and cultures would define this concept differently and thus have a bit of tension. Some might believe that eating the hearts of your enemies grant you their strength; but, may only be done as a religious ritual to honor your dead foe, so are you a cannibal; hmm. How would an environment of the D&D world look at this with all the races that basically are casual eaters of everything; trolls, giants, orcs, kobolds and who knows what a halfling would turn their nose up at - orc stew might just be vengence in their book. Some culture might even be so extreme as to do it as a prevention of the raising of the dead; hence, self preservation in societies that are pre fire or dont live in the burn belt of funeral observance which is generally aligned with the frost belt.
I am leaning toward that you are a cannibal if you eat any race that shares with you the same basic physical make-up in the loosest terms, ie humanoid, uses tools; has a developed language or speaks a common language. Keep in mind that jewelry of any kind, cloths, and even sticks can be tools. It is also interesting that all fish are considered cannibals as they eat anything smaller than themselves. So eating your own species is definately cannibalistic.
So, in my game anything that walks on two legs pretty much and eats something else that walks on two legs is a cannibal. hehe Vegipygmies; cannibal or vegetable? Can get very confusing with some of the fey that are bound to trees or other plants; shambling mound salad anyone?
Cannibalism strikes me as a loose term, one that needs not be specifically pinned down. That said, I would say that any intelligent, humanoid creature eating another would be cannibalism, most certainly.
…any race that shares with you the same basic physical make-up in the loosest terms
…
So, in my game anything that walks on two legs pretty much and eats something else that walks on two legs is a cannibal.
{Emphasis added}
Ok…so, beyond the basic definition…”eating the flesh of one’s own kind… and having a certain level of smarts…we seem to be adding physiology. If they are “people” enough (not just sentience [Intelligence=human or above]) but also humanoid (upright biped with bilateral symmetry), then cross consumption of flesh = cannibalism.
That helps a lot…but…
What about a species with human or above intelligence that is not “humanoid”? Here’s one additional example: Kirin.
In 2e, this creature has species intelligence well above human, but is a quadruped (looks a lot like a horse). Would a humanoid that ate the flesh of such an animal be considered a cannibal? I’m not just talking the ritualistic homage to one’s foe... I’m talking about slicing steaks for bar-b-que, making ground round, fajita filler, etc. Can cannibalism now be limited to 1) one’s one kind, plus 2) others with similar physiology, plus 3) creatures of similar or superior sentience level?
If they have a different number of legs than the obligatory 2, and are at least as smart as other “people”, would gnashing on a good Porterhouse cut from one be considered cannibalistic by most other “people” (never mind the religious considerations, that’s far too subjective and variable to make a hard and fast, broad-scale ruling)?
If they have a different number of legs than the obligatory 2, and are at least as smart as other “people”, would gnashing on a good Porterhouse cut from one be considered cannibalistic by most other “people” (never mind the religious considerations, that’s far too subjective and variable to make a hard and fast, broad-scale ruling)?
I would think so. I would rule as long as it can talk and hold a reasonable conversation, it's cannabalism when considering the ruling. However, one still has to consider the culture of the person as well. I think it's been stated above several time, but the example with the dwarf and giant stew is perfect. To an outsider, it's cannabalism. To the dwarf, it's a victory feast. As a ruling, I would state that while it is cannabalism, it doesn't affect the alignment of the dwarf becuase he doesn't see it as cannabalism.
This is a hard subject and almost impossible to define in D&D terms. Orcs are suppose to eat all kinds of other humanoids (they don't always do it all the time, an orc COULD be peaceful!), this isn't cannibalism to them. Of course, Humans find Orc's barbaric and tend to send adventurers in to clear out their populations...
hehe good luck eating that Kirin :) ok; seriously, eating a Kirin would not be cannibalism in my book; but if it was polymorphed into said humanoid and was eaten; then it would be; of course, in my game the physical manifestations of outsiders on this plane dissolve into ectoplasm then vapor; then nothing when they are killed so have your fork and knife at the ready :)
The stranger question would be; how about eating a beholder? definatly has intelligence, language, and can use tools it it wanted to; heck it uses slaves; I don't think a humanoid eating one would be cannibalistic; just a bit deranged or desparate. Even wierder would be cutting your own foot off and eating it; it is still you; stays with you; turns into you; keeps you going; but I think definately cannibalistic though no death occured and your foot alone doesnt qualify, but ick.
Do you remember the book; Restraunt at the End of the Universe? one of the later Hitchhikers Guide books where the cow would come to your table and talk about its breeding and how tasty various parts of it would be if consumed? Eating cow is not cannibalism; but is eating a talking cow? I would still say no, but doubt I would eat it anyway.
My friend ate a kirin. She said undigested golden scales were rougher on the exit than corn any day of the week.
...eat the heart of an enemy...
I'm making that into a prestige class. It's just too cool to pass up.
On the cannibalism bit--never comes up in my games (but some of my players frequent the boards, so it might now). Cannibalism is defined as eating another of your own species, but I think the question of what a species is comes into question here. Elves and humans are capable of producing fertile offspring, so they are, for scientific purposes, the same species. Dunno about dwarves, though. And in a multi-species world, eating someone of another intelligent species will probably get you killed by his/her relatives, so its not practical anyway (Why do you think mind-flayers are hated so much?).
Doesn't see it as canibalism from an earlier post makes me cringe. This is the classic D&D problem of Good and Evil; are they separate concepts or dictacted by each pantheon of dieties point of view. Is cannibalism in game terms Evil in itself or only evil as per defined by certain dieties. I dont think the game was really thinking anyone would want to play a cannibal or basically play any bad guys so these rules are a big vague; really; how much can anyone write about Good and Evil in game terms as GMs are just going to define it themselves anyway.
I follow the basic; when in Rome; do as the Romans ruleset. So, as you change areas of Panteonic diety control; so do the basic rules for good and evil change; those like priests and paladins that carry their dieties power with them; still follow the old ruleset but still have to interact with those of this pantheon sphere of control. So, in my game; Good and Evil or concepts inforced by the dieties so two priests of various religions can cast detect evil and get different results; yes, complicated; some gm rather just say there is a greater good and greater evil so detect evil always reads the same; I run my game with more shades and areas of vagueness which I believes enhances my players perceptions and allows them to explore new ideas.
I think the real issue is murder, not cannibalism. Really, if you are intent on killing someone, what you plan to do with the body afterwards isn't the victim's main concern.
I used to have a thing for dining on tennis ball 3-pak cans. Doctors called that Canofballism. Does that count?
Let me see if I can boil this down, now:
Cannibalism =
1) Eating your own species
2) Eating “people”, defined as: another intelligent species (generally considered in game terms to be human level and above)
3) Eating another species that is humanoid, particularly if they qualify under #1 and/or #2 above.
General exceptions to the above:
1) Species specific. Orcs, Giants, Trolls, and other species generally noted for their indiscriminate diets, do not classify themselves and cannibal, while others might.
2) Cultural: Generally, the more “barbaric” a species, the more likely members of it may indulge in relativistic cannibalism than others, as exampled most typically by the consumption of an enemy’s heart (or whatever) to honor a fallen foe.
3) Religious: Religious dogma may modify these basic species guidelines, for or against, on an individual basis and is thus too complex to attempt to codify at this level.
4)
Special notes:
1) Alignment plays only a relative role as does Religion (above). It may individually modify behavior but has no impact on the actual definition. The alignment of either the “consumer” (sic? – on more than one level) or the consumed has no essential bearing on the definition itself.
2) Particularly obvious differences in species (i.e. Humanoid vs. Equine) disqualify all of the above; thus humanoid eating equine, octopoid, piscine, et al, (or vice-versa) nullifies application of the “cannibal” label.
That seems to kind of wrap it then…
Oh, …uh…What about ½ breeds? I understand that if a ½-Elf eats either Human or Elf, he would be considered a cannibal by both, as would either an Elf or Human eating a ½-Elf. Likewise with a ½-Orc re. Human and Orc meat. But…How about Centaurs? If you slice off a shank of just the horse part does that qualify? And…as I recall, there are some species that look equine outside but are carnivores by description, yet if they munched only on the Human part of the Centaur, would that qualify?
LOL! *then hangs head in shame *
You see my quandary. Exactly this kind of blather (different subject matter of course) has cropped up in games in the past. I don’t mind the time taken. As long as they’re having fun with it I don’t have a problem…after all I like a good debate as much as the next guy. I respect my players’ views and try to accommodate the occasional departures, but sometimes I just want to scream.
Thanks for the help, folks. Believe it or not, this has been both entertaining and educational. I appreciate the perspective and the patience.
My friend ate a kirin. She said undigested golden scales were rougher on the exit than corn any day of the week.Gramma called it "roughage."
She was a wise woman. I'd imagine passing magic pony body armor probably does make for quite the rough age.
Is it really relevant to have 'rules' for cannibalism?
As far as I see it, it is a label applied by people. If you don't want to be considered a cannibal by a certain people, ask them what they find cannibalistic and don't eat that.
The concept varies per race, there's no way to pin it down.
It's like asking 'what is faith?' or 'what is a good life?'
Everyone has an answer, everyone bickers, but I doubt any will either be defined by rules, let alone be accepted by everyone as such rules.
My run would be to think about the cultures of the creatures in question and see how they stand on the point of cannibalism and take it from there. Read back through the thread, pretty much every race noted has its own ideas.
The dictionary defines cannibalism (in its most rudimentary form) as the eating of one's own kind. If you take the above definition into account a human who eats an orc is not a cannibal and neither is a goblin who eats an elf. Whether the creature is sentient is irrelevant. If that were the way cannibalism worked then every sentient carnivorous monster in the game of D&D would be a cannibal.
Now I think a lot of people are confusing the issue by throwing ethics and morals into the equation. In the real world the act of cannibalism basically falls into three categories - ritualistic cannibalism that occurs in some 'primitive' cultures (such as in some parts of Papa New Guinea), cannibalism born of desperation (eating the corpse of a fellow crash victim to survive), or cannibalism born of intense psychological dysfunction (a serial killer who eats his victims). The first two are ethically and morally ambiguous. In the first, eating the flesh of a fellow human usually holds some sort of special religious or social function, while in the second it's a choice between living and dying (remember that cannibalism does not necessarily mean killing the person you are eating).
Now while a human from Cormyr might consider eating an elf cannibalism, technically it's not. In Cormyr (or Khorvaire, etc) the act would be considered wrong and the laws would probably prohibit the act of eating fellow humanoids. These same laws probably don't recognize trolls as humanoids (and they are giants), but some might still consider them cannibals because they can speak and make tools.
There is no one true answer to this question. It depends on the DM and the campaign he's running. He might consider cannibalism to be evil and/or unlawful, or he might consider it to be completely understandable depending on the circumstances.
Let me see if I can boil this down, now:
Cannibalism =
1) Eating your own species
2) Eating “people”, defined as: another intelligent species (generally considered in game terms to be human level and above)
3) Eating another species that is humanoid, particularly if they qualify under #1 and/or #2 above.General exceptions to the above:
1) Species specific. Orcs, Giants, Trolls, and other species generally noted for their indiscriminate diets, do not classify themselves and cannibal, while others might.
2) Cultural: Generally, the more “barbaric” a species, the more likely members of it may indulge in relativistic cannibalism than others, as exampled most typically by the consumption of an enemy’s heart (or whatever) to honor a fallen foe.
3) Religious: Religious dogma may modify these basic species guidelines, for or against, on an individual basis and is thus too complex to attempt to codify at this level.
4)Special notes:
1) Alignment plays only a relative role as does Religion (above). It may individually modify behavior but has no impact on the actual definition. The alignment of either the “consumer” (sic? – on more than one level) or the consumed has no essential bearing on the definition itself.
2) Particularly obvious differences in species (i.e. Humanoid vs. Equine) disqualify all of the above; thus humanoid eating equine, octopoid, piscine, et al, (or vice-versa) nullifies application of the “cannibal” label.That seems to kind of wrap it then…
Oh, …uh…What about ½ breeds? I understand that if a ½-Elf eats either Human or Elf, he would be considered a cannibal by both, as would either an Elf or Human eating a ½-Elf. Likewise with a ½-Orc re. Human and Orc meat. But…How about Centaurs? If you slice off a shank of just the horse part does that qualify? And…as I recall, there are some species that look equine outside but are carnivores by description, yet if they munched only on the Human part of the Centaur, would that qualify?
LOL! *then hangs head in shame *
...
I really love this post :) hehe; Jade you and your tennis balls are funny :) you 1/2 problem is the same one about the minotaur ie; half bull/half man. I still consider Ogres and Trolls cannibals, but for them it is the norm and accepted within their own culture. How about a ghoul, is a ghoul a cannibal; how about a ghoul that was a human once, I am thinking they are cannibals even though I dont think they eat other ghouls; are you a cannibal in gaming terms if you just eat someones life force and not their body? I would think so; it is like eating the frosting off a cake and leaving the bread part. Eating someones life force is definately evil; I am not sure that in game terms cannibalism of flesh is always evil. Sick, disgusting; disturbing; sure, but not always evil.
As Frats said...concept of cannibalism is so much tied to a specific society that making rules for them does not really make sense...except if you insist including funny biological effects like those prion diseases (Mad Cow etc.), or some sort of magical effects on cannibalistic ritual well performed.
Otherwise, it is pure flavor (pun not intended).
Nice to hear though that there are other groups which ponder weird questions like these...
hehe I think we all live for wierd questions; the spice of life; uh; adds flavor to the game; uh; yes puns intended; have been wondering if Lawgivers "wrap it up" was intended as a pun as at the butcher when you buy meat you tell em to wrap it up; and we are talking about cannibalism...
have been wondering if Lawgivers "wrap it up" was intended as a pun as at the butcher when you buy meat you tell em to wrap it up; and we are talking about cannibalism...
Yes, indeed, I intended it as a joke, much the same way the "alignment of the consumer" comment was a joke...and you were the first one to actually say anything about it...thank you for noticing.
Is it really relevant to have 'rules' for cannibalism?
...concept of cannibalism is so much tied to a specific society that making rules for them does not really make sense...
As to the subject matter, I know it was dark, people, but it was just one of those things that came up for discussion and I couldn't stop my brain trying to work on it. I knew the easy answers, but I wanted to mull over the complexities of the idea and then decided to mob it. There were just too many permutations for me to go over by myself...one of those "can't see the forest for the trees" things, I guess. I highly suspect my next game session will involve this concept; we don't always have a choice about whether making rulings on a subject is "sensible" or not. Sometimes we just have to do it because there's no progress in the game without an answer.
I've got what I need, and thank you all again.
The dictionary defines cannibalism (in its most rudimentary form) as the eating of one's own kind. If you take the above definition into account a human who eats an orc is not a cannibal and neither is a goblin who eats an elf. Whether the creature is sentient is irrelevant. If that were the way cannibalism worked then every sentient carnivorous monster in the game of D&D would be a cannibal.
I´d guess that dictionaries don´t take fantasy worlds with lots of sentient races into account, so that does not help all that much. Technically, for our world, this definition is ok. But if you have to define it in the light of elves, goblins and more, the result may differ.
Most fantasy cultures would abhor eating sentient creatures, I´d say. Trolls may be one exception, and mind flayers another. But in general, it is viewed the same as in the real world most cultures abhor the thought of humans eating monkeys, as they are somewhat "close" to humans, I´d say.
Stefan
More thoughts about cannibalism (gee, the topic interests me a bit too much)...
In real world I would point out that people in general seem to prefer eating herbivores to carnivores, and biologically that also makes sense (shorter feeding chains leads to less accumulation of harmful substances). Some of the few exceptions in common menus are some types of fish and birds...(oh, in some places they eat alligators, dogs, bears etc but these are more an exception than a rule).
Similarly, I would say that in a society where eating other sentient beings was an option, given a choice people would prefer eating elves and centaurs over eg. humans, dwarves or goblins. Similarly, I would say that example mentioned above about dwarves eating giants is more a mocking ritual type of cannibalism than actual nutritional menu choice.
Ok, thinking too much now, but from last post came to mind some other biological facts...
How do dwarves deal with cancer (and elves and gnomes etc. but especially dwarves)? Cancer is a statistical disease, knowing the living conditions etc one can only give estimations what is the risk to get it. However, longer one lives, bigger the chance to get it (which is one reason why cancer is more common nowadays than before: people simply live longer and don't die of any other diseases). So logically thinking long-lived nonhumans should have higher chance of developing tumors, both bening and malign...
And while elves lead a lifestyle which could be described low-risk, it is definitely not so with dwarves. They live underground, meaning huge exposure to natural radioactive substances, especially radon. The children live there (dosage to growing children is much more dangerous than the same dosage to adults)! They work in mining and heavy industry (beside natural radiation, they are exposed also to other carsinogenic substances)! Why aren't dwarves dropping like flies from lung cancer (same goes for drows, svirfneblin etc.)? That CON bonus will take you only so far...
How do dwarves deal with cancer (and elves and gnomes etc. but especially dwarves)? Cancer is a statistical disease, knowing the living conditions etc one can only give estimations what is the risk to get it. However, longer one lives, bigger the chance to get it (which is one reason why cancer is more common nowadays than before: people simply live longer and don't die of any other diseases). So logically thinking long-lived nonhumans should have higher chance of developing tumors, both bening and malign...
And while elves lead a lifestyle which could be described low-risk, it is definitely not so with dwarves. They live underground, meaning huge exposure to natural radioactive substances, especially radon. The children live there (dosage to growing children is much more dangerous than the same dosage to adults)! They work in mining and heavy industry (beside natural radiation, they are exposed also to other carsinogenic substances)! Why aren't dwarves dropping like flies from lung cancer (same goes for drows, svirfneblin etc.)? That CON bonus will take you only so far...
A simple "cure disease," in the RAR, trumps all of those factors. Boring, but true.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dwarves...in...Chemo!
Three answers:
1) Cure Disease just, y'know, works.
2) Dwarves more than any other race are physically resistant to change. That includes genetic mutation.
3) Establishing that dwarves and elves and such long-lived folk are continually suffering from various cancers would break the spirit of the fantasy world. Not much fun, there.
Why aren't dwarves dropping like flies from lung cancer?
Not only do they have that Con bonus, but they also have an additional +2 bonus against poisons. Sure, cancer is a disease, but you contract it from being poisoned for long periods of time. Also, I'm sure that typical dwarven miners would have additional equipment (masks, ventilation, early warning systems such as canaries in cages) to prevent risk of exposure. And I wouldn't put it past them to have unique spells that dwarven adepts would learn early in their careers that would help even more.