| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up.
Is killing you're best friend for food evil?
Harmor, how on earth do you have so many questions about such varied aspects of the game? How many games do you have going on?!
And no. If you take the stance that they are manifestations that the nature spirits sent to help you.
If its.
meh I'm bored- hey that wolf looks like good food.
then yeah, I'd say evil.
However if you/your group are honestly actually *starving* with no other way to get food- its either yourselves or the animals.. well.. thats how nature works. Chop up the critter and have at it.
Thats my .02 anyway. Would be very heavy on the Rp though. this isn't something the character would do lightly or flippantly.
And then after 24 hours summon another (the bigger the better) for unlimited food! Feast for everyone!
It depends. Is the AC your buddy or just an animal to your group?
Reminds me of the most recent Friday the 13th remake...
3 people walking through the woods...
guy one: "Yeah... if we get lost out here... I'm definitely eating you first.
Guy two: "What the heck man?!?! I'll teach you to FISH!
guy one: "Ehhhhh... I don't like Fish."
I agree with Selgard. Like more alignment based questions, the WHY plays heavily into it.
Eating the AC to see Wolf tastes like chicken is fairly uncool. But eating said wolf to feed you and your starving friends I'd say isn't. It doesn't warrant a medal, but odds are if you starved and the AC outlived you...he'd eat YOUR corpse for food.
Also depends on if the players are gaming the system or if the sacrifice has merit and is powerful to the story.
Are they using the AC to go ahead and find all the traps so no one needs to put points in those trap skills?
Or do they sacrifice their AC as the seriously wounded PC limps off carrying the dying PC and the AC remains behind to delay the BBEG long enough for them to escape?
*growl*
Subtitle(Yes)
Is the AC willing to sacrifice itself for you? If there is no alternative (starving in the desert) then being eaten would have the same implications as taking a mortal blow for you, which an AC will do routinely. If you have more of a 'buddy' relationship, I'd expect it to feel betrayed and run off.
It's an animal.
No. It's not evil.
Unless you're playing with contemporary ethics.
If so, yes, it's evil in the eyes of many.
Killing people is more acceptable though.
If you have an animal companion, then there's a high probability that you can cast a spell that creates food, or have sufficient survival skill that you can squeeze sustenance from even the most unforgiving land. That's not to say that terrible situations can't arise, but you have to be trying very hard to fail to end up in them, given how many easy ways there are to have unlimited food.
Any animal companion bearing class should care enough about the animal companion not to do it. Even an evil character has enough reverence for nature for this to be an absolute last resort.
If the druid/ranger is witht he party deciding who gets eaten first, the first character to go should be the minstrel. After that, you draw straws. A good druid should want their companion to have an even chance of living, and an evil druid will probably shorten the straw for someone besides their companion
Circle of life, buddy. Circle of life.
Seriously I'm sure with some effort you could come up with real life examples of people being forced to eat a beloved animal due to circumstances. I doubt most people would condemn them as evil if they made the choice of their own life over an animal's, even a well loved one.
I think the closest rl example would be a cop eating his k9 officer or a search and rescue type eating their dog. It really hits on the nerves a LOT more than just eating a pet, that's a coworker.
How do you end up in that situation in the first place, if you're a nature-based character?
I would recommend reading some of Joseph Campbells works on early religions that worshipped animals, like the various Native Americans, early European tribes, etc. Especially for a Druid, I think that such an act can be done with respect. I would encourage the player to either pay for a reincarnation, or give them the opportunity to earn one as a boon from an NPC.
Soldiers often grow close to their horses, but there are plenty of stories where they are eaten in times of starvation.
Or maybe just recite a few words over your companion as you slit its throat.
"Oeru txoa livu, ma oeyä tsmukan. Hu nawma sa'nok tivul ngeyä tirea. Oeru txoa livu."
*shrugs* It seems to work on Pandora.
Greg
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A NE 'the natural world exists to serve me' Druid might do something like this *routinely.* He'd also be the least likely to kill his animal minion for the benefit of a bunch of city-slickers who got themselves in over their heads...
A CN druid might pit potential animal companions against each other and pick the winner as the 'strongest, most worthy to survive' as his companion and the two of them eat the loser. He might also have contempt for weak allies, unfit to survive.
A LN druid might do it dispassionately, talking about the 'natural order' or the 'cycle of life' or whatever. (Or he might let his allies starve, being equally unsympathetic to their plight.)
A NG druid might cry and feel miserable about it, and hate her travelling companions for getting themselves into this situation with their pathetic lack of survival skills and resent them for years, but do it anyway, to save their lives.
IMO, the NG druid would be *more* likely to sacrifice their companion to save others (with a heaping helping of guilt-trip!), while the NE druid might send her companion away and release it from service, just to spite whichever ally suggested making a meal out of Bubu the Wonder Aurochs.
There's various other times when a druid might find it more proper to kill their companion than to release it from servitude.
A Shoanti bear shaman might be sent to adventure in a faraway land, and his Companion is miserable there (big furry bear in the middle of Katapesh, frex). He can either release it to wander off and die of heat exhaustion and hunger a day or two later, or take it's life, eat it's flesh (instead of disrespectfully allowing it to go to waste and its death to be meaningless), make a keepsake from its teeth or claws or fur, and remember it always, perhaps placing his hand to his chest (where it's claws hang on a string around his neck) when he prays or seeks to center his thoughts.
I grew up on a farm, so my thoughts on the necessity and / or appropriateness of killing and butchering animals may not jibe with others.
But, IMO, 'druid' does not equal 'PETA.'
Harmor, how on earth do you have so many questions about such varied aspects of the game? How many games do you have going on?!
+1
I would vote 'no.' It's not Evil. The druid/ranger should feel TERRIBLE about it...
and...
I HAVE to assume this is AFTER all the Horses have been eaten right??
RIGHT?!?!
Your animal COMPANION is your character's FRIEND.
As mentioned by others, it depends on the situation. Are you Donner Party hungry, or just bored and wonder what wolf tastes like?
Why is it so important if it's an evil act?
The only class that really has a problem with evil acts are paladins. For the other classes, all they risk is changing their alignment.
And let it be clear once and for all that a single act can not change alignment. Not if you have to come here and ask if it's evil or not anyway. Changing alignments is a process over several encounters. It should be quite clear if the character is changing alignments and this single action should not have an effect on the end result, it can only prolong the result.With that said, the real question (ignoring paladins for now) is about the 'nature code' druid and rangers to a lesser extend, have to follow. Evil or not does not come into play here.
If you find that they are disrespecting nature a simple atonement spell or ritual should suffice.As for the paladin, it very likely not an evil act. The lives of people are much more important than the live of an animal. Paladins are not treehuggers.
A Shoanti bear shaman might be sent to adventure in a faraway land, and his Companion is miserable there (big furry bear in the middle of Katapesh, frex). He can either release it to wander off and die of heat exhaustion and hunger a day or two later, or take it's life, eat it's flesh (instead of disrespectfully allowing it to go to waste and its death to be meaningless), make a keepsake from its teeth or claws or fur, and remember it always, perhaps placing his hand to his chest (where it's claws hang on a string around his neck) when he prays or seeks to center his thoughts.However, not bringing the bear to a place it can not sustain itself or paying for a teleport would be the preferred (more good) action.
I think relative intelligence plays a large role, eating an AC that is nearly as intelligent/aware as a human being would be less appropriate to eat. You don't eat sentient creatures, generally.
A single evil act CAN change your alignment, not that I think this is one of them, some things are just that bad. I don't think that turning evil makes you instantly diabolical however, if you do something that earns you a nice and warm place near the devil's stove you are evil, instant regret and atonement (not the spell) might alleviate most circumstances though. This is all My Opinion ofcourse.
|
|
I think relative intelligence plays a large role, eating an AC that is nearly as intelligent/aware as a human being would be less appropriate to eat. You don't eat sentient creatures, generally.
True, but you can't make an intelligent creature (such as an awakened animal or a giant eagle) into an Animal Companion, so that's pretty much a wash anyway.
Eating your *familiar* on the other hand, without dismissing it first, could be pretty twisted. (I mean, it's as easy as dismissing the darn thing and turning back into an Int 2 animal. The only reason *not* to do that first is because one *wants* to kill and eat something intelligent, and that's pretty darn evil!)
And we won't even get into what alignment you are if you slice your taunton open so that you can crawl into it's belly to keep warm...
Chewie's just glad he skipped going on that patrol, s'all I'm sayin.'
You can have an animal companion with an int of 3, making it sentient.
|
Depends on the context.
However, the druid character turns up a lot in fantasy novels. Imagine Fitz and Nighteyes from Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy or the bond that the Stark children have with their dire wolves in the Game of Thrones series. The animal companion is a stronger bond than a mere pet.
The point is that the animal companion is a direct manefestation of the Druid's bond with nature. It is not a walking McDonalds. I would see the eating of an animal companion as a direct breach of the druid's code and would withdraw his powers until an atonement spell is cast.
YMMV of course but that's how I see it.
My animal companion is half-troll, so I just carve steaks out for both of us. He doesn't mind.
Never cut too big a portion and always chew thoroughly.
I would venture to say that most druids are played as if their animal companion is a friend, a kindred spirit of a feral sort sent by a deity. Most druids would abhor the idea of eating something they have an empathic link with.
Imagine your superior officer turns and tells the other members of your group to kill you and strip the meat from your bones. You'd be upset. An animal with an Int of 2 may not pick up on, but the first wound it suffered would be a red flag; instincts would kick in.
If you play a circle of life, dog-eat-dog-world kind of druid, you might do this in a certain situation, as prescribed above in other posts.
However, if the animal is granted by a deity, I don't see why that same deity wouldn't provide aid in some other manner if they're just going to have to provide you with another companion in 24 hours. Much easier to just spring a bush full of berries into being than to locate a compatible animal spirit nearby and direct it to you, I would think. Seems silly that this would be an issue.
May I ask what the exact circumstances are? Level, terrain, any other factors included (stripped of equipment? low stats? low magic campaign?).
Your animal COMPANION is your character's FRIEND.
"Fish are friends, not food!"
In the campaign I'm in as a player I'm a cavalier with a spider mount. If it came down to it, I'd let my spider mount eat me before I ate it. Realistic? No, certainly not. I don't know what I'd do in real life if I got hungry enough. But real life, this ain't, and I say the cavalier would sacrifice himself to keep Charlotte alive.
Oh wait, was this an alignment question? Nevermind, sorry I responded. Read the section in the rulebook on alignments, particularly this bit:
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls."
Edit: The situation the OP described is exactly why our party always takes their favorite minstrels with them. This has the dual benefit of being a safety net against starvation and it is rapidly depopulating the world of bards.
Just make sure you keep a peace of him, so you can resurrect him later again :)
But yeah, it depends on why. If you're starving, then your AC might actually be willing to sacrifice itself for you (especially if it got Int 3). However it would be the last resort and not "Oh man, I haven't eaten anything since breakfast. I'M STARVING!"
Otherwise, that is just killing it for fun, well I'm not sure it would be evil, but it would most certainly upset your nature patron, and result in you not getting a new AC till you atoned for your sin or something.
An Alignment Thread! "Spends Move Action to draw Popcorn Bag!"
In a world of magic where you have other options I say yes, it's evil.
Create Water is a 0 level spell any druid can cast all day long giving you an infinite supply of drinking water.
Purify food & water is also a zero level spell, and even if you didn't have anything to purify you could still survive a long time without food if you have water.
At the age of 74 and already slight of build, Mahatma Gandhi survived 21 days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water.
Anti-magic is just as real as magic in the game and the adventurers aren't sitting around fasting they are out adventurin and burning calories like crazy.
Its not unfeasible in the slightest that PC's could find there way to being completely magicless. Magicless, foodless, and nothing to find via Survival is stretching it but the guy said it came up so I'm giving him the assumption that create food wasn't available. (nor was survival).
If the PC is starving and magic isn't available to cure it and there is /nothing/ to hunt/find/forage and they are *starving* literally, can they chop up fluffy to survive withing a ping of evil?
Yes. Just the same as they could someone's horse, or familiar, or whatever.
Animals killing animals to eat them is what happens. Its called nature.
It doesn't mean the PC won't hate it, cry over their companion, agonize over the decision, have it haunt them forever.. but it doesn't mean they will lose their powers and become a commoner either. (unless thats the RP the PC chooses, of course).
-S
it takes weeks to starve to death IRL. the rules in the book for starvation come to pretty much the same conclusion. How is anyone being kept in an anti-magic zone that long?
Its not unfeasible in the slightest that PC's could find there way to being completely magicless. Magicless, foodless, and nothing to find via Survival is stretching it but the guy said it came up so I'm giving him the assumption that create food wasn't available. (nor was survival).
Assuming there was no magic available, the characters would die of thirst long before they'd need to eat an animal companion.
adventurers aren't sitting around fasting they are out adventurin and burning calories like crazy.
As far as adventuring would go, I'd say the characters' priorities are a bit off if plundering treasure is more important than survival. And what kind of adventuring are they doing where they couldn't eat a monster before eating their own Animal companion?
Honestly, this is just one of those silly questions that comes up off the top of your head without any real thought, and is ultimately never going to come up in game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong question: "Is killing your Animal Companions for food evil."
Evil, schmevil.
Right question: "Will consuming my Animal Companion for food, even in a life or death survival situation, lead me to develop personality warping survivor's guilt, clinical depression and possibly still yet another serious psychiatric illness?
Answer: Very probably, yes.
In the circumstances, you would rather it was just "evil"; however, you don't get off that easy on this one, I'm afraid.
it's only evil if after the killing and eating of the Animal Companion, you show no remorse, or possibly if you want seconds.
The OP said the issue actually came up. I'm taking him at its word.
And there is a large difference between hunting treasure and sitting around. You can very easily be actively attacked and you don't have the luxury of saying "Please don't attack us, we haven't had anything to eat in awhile and are trying to preserve our energy".
Again giving the OP the benefit of the doubt- all else being equal (i.e. assuming they don't have access to magic or some other means to acquire food) would it be good/evil to chow down on Lamby the Sheep Animal Companion? No- not as a matter of *survival*.
As for eating your foes. All depends on what they are I suppose. Could be poisonous or just inedible. Golems, oozes, undead, not to mention just plain ole traps. :)
-S
it's only evil if after the killing and eating of the Animal Companion, you show no remorse, or possibly if you want seconds.
What about dessert? Is it tacky to ask for a doggie bag?
oozes...
Jell-O.
Harmor, how on earth do you have so many questions about such varied aspects of the game? How many games do you have going on?!
Imagine playing with him or better, wait for it, GMing a game he's in!
Harmor needs a shirt that reads +20 Shirt of Rules Lawyering not +20 Shirt of Smiting.
|
|
What about dessert? Is it tacky to ask for a doggie bag?
If you're from the sort of culture that doesn't waste what they kill, it might be thought disrespectful and wasteful *not* to make the most of the situation and preserve any meat not immediately eaten for later.
But calling it a 'doggie bag,' if the animal companion was a wolf or riding dog, would indeed be tacky. :)
Druids are also the dudes who used to celebrate the changing of the seasons by burning a bunch of condemned prisoners to death, so, best to show the proper appreciation when asking for seconds.