Think about it. Here on Earthsville, there's really nothing wrong with eating trees, or plucking plants from the ground and consuming them. Many argue that it's ethically superior to eating meat. And while I'm not trying to bring in that kind of debate to this thread, you can at least see that side of the argument.
Not really the case in Golarion, where that ear of corn just might be a Treant's best friend or something. Is eating plants in this world as questionable as eating meat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue the same reasoning exists on "our" earth. Who's to say plants have any less right to life than animals?
That said I would imagine, again much like on "our" earth, it's a matter of personal outlook whether or not it is questionable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Follow up question, is it murder to eat chocolate if I create a race of chocolate golems?
I've seen this argument before... but for Pokemon.
Is that a salad they're eating, or is it really a Bellsprout? Was that steak from a Miltank? Is metal torn off the bodies of slain Steelix?
Creepy.
One of my players played an Earth First! type dwarven cleric who was in a Galtan gulag for ecoterrorism and leading a one-dwarf protest against mountaintop levelling.
He started out being a worshipper of the spirits, but somehow that got warped into him being a worshipper of spirits, and he was often quite drunk, but, no, he never said anything about vegetarianism being murder.
Think about it. Here on Earthsville, there's really nothing wrong with eating trees, or plucking plants from the ground and consuming them. Many argue that it's ethically superior to eating meat. And while I'm not trying to bring in that kind of debate to this thread, you can at least see that side of the argument.
Not really the case in Golarion, where that ear of corn just might be a Treant's best friend or something. Is eating plants in this world as questionable as eating meat?
Not that eating meat is questionable, but no, unless the plant is actually sentient and sapient (aka a plant creature, not a plant object).
|
I believe that here on Earth (and the same applies in Golarion) that some things were put here by the gods to be devoured by others. Does a wolf feel remorse because it devours a sheep? If a cow serves as my meal, I do not feel regret for the cow. That was it's purpose. And when I am, in turn, devoured by the worms and insects, I expect that they will feel no remorse for me.
The same applies to plants, I should think. Unless they have a proven self-awareness, then I would not consider it a moral crime to eat them. I have played a druid who was a strict vegetarian, and I have also played a druid who enjoyed hunting in wolf form.
That said, could you have a character who did consider it morally wrong? Sure. But is it universally so? I wouldn't think so.
|
Not that eating meat is questionable ...
Well, let's not simply state that as fact. A great many people actually *DO* feel that eating meat is questionable ...
To the original poster, is there a reason for the post? Did this actually come up in play or is this a 'what alignment is Batman?' kind of question?
The odds of anything worthwhile coming out of this thread are rather slim, I fear, before it descends into bickering and then gets closed :(
|
I dunno. I suppose before eating something, just make sure a.) it doesn't belong to some fey or something, and b.) it isn't animate. Once that's out of the way you can pretty much eat whatever you want in terms of ethics, since it becomes a matter of personal opinion. As for the other two, option a is suicide, and option b would technically be murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically the definition of murder in most dictionaries is between humans, so unless vegetarianism somehow becomes a large collection of crows, it is not technically murder.
However, I take it that the question is not technical. So let's look at the intent if we can.
I believe people understand murder to mean the taking of life (not the true definition, but there it is). If you look at it this way, killing a plant is murder.
I doubt this is the intent of the question. That was too easy.
So what ARE you asking? Most people are horrified at the delivered pain to other creatures. This is both an empathic and sympathetic response. In fact, to not feel this response is sociopathic. As creatures of reason and remorse, we have made it a social understanding (ethics) to expunge this behavior.
This is all a part of our mammalian conditioning. Sympathy is an evolved response to keep the race going. We feel personal pain when we ignore the pain of others, and will resolve to correct it for the betterment of ourselves and thus the species.
What counters this is when this response is in contradiction to other natural responses, such as hunger. We feel much greater empathic responses to human pain than to the pain of a cow, but that doesn't mean the trauma is imperceptible. So why do we kill our bovine companions? Well, for their meaty bits! Our carnivorous instincts are present as well, and evolutionary responses will always lean towards the one that favors the species survival the greatest.
So I would think that any society of creatures that are not quite human must resolve this issue similarly. If there is an empathic or sympathetic response, it will be weighed against other criteria such as hunger or fear of reprisal. If one side wins with a wide enough margin, it will most likely conclude to be a social norm and ethically sound.
Addendum:
Now, with that in mind I tried to issue the same logic to Golarian specifically. I think that SOME plants would be frowned upon for consumption, but not all of them and not by all species.
It will probably be most related to how intelligent the creature is, and my opinion of Golarian would be that any creatures with above animal intelligence would be considered murder by most races.
Races that are less intelligent, less plentiful and therefore in more need of food would have lower standards (I'm looking at you Goblinoids).
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Yup, a person. Every definition I could find related to humans only. I read this one as well before posting.
Apparently animals do not get the same rights in most countries. You can not murder an animal as far as most definitions are concerned.
As somebody who truly adores animals, I would hope for change to be considered, but until then... murder is for people.
Given that its debated whether or not the mass killing of sentient humanoid creatures is generally acceptanle because they are small and green, and other members of their race did something bad, I find the idea of eating plants being murder rather suspect. Unfortunately Golarion's morale center is constsntly ravaged by roving bands of pyschotic murder hobos (adventuring parties), so I dont see the PETP movement gaining alot of ground.
Isn't the whole thing rooted in suffering and intelligence? A pig feels pain and has intelligence (limited as that might be).
A real world plant does not feel pain and does not have intelligence. If a fantasy world plant can feel pain and/or has intelligence, then we could reasonably start to apply the concept of "plant rights" for them.
Most criminal courts don't equate animal life equal to human life, because a human is considered vastly more significant than an animal. It's basically a bias for human supremacy and that we're more special than other forms of life. If or when we discover aliens, we may or may not make adjustments on that prejudice.
P.S. I love bacon. You will only get me to stop eating bacon when I'm dead.
P.S. I love bacon. You will only get me to stop eating bacon when I'm dead.
What if... you cast awaken on the pig. Is it murder then?
P.S. Everyone loves bacon. Its not a choice.
Kidding aside, DnD is hard to play without committing murder sometimes. Lots of orcs in dungeons and whatnot, and what's DnD without a dragon or two?
What if... you cast awaken on the pig. Is it murder then?
Step 1: Wait for duration to end or dispel the spell.
Step 2: Eat bacon.
On a philosophical note, I'd say it was the "spell" that was sentient... not the pig.
Can't dispel it. Duration instantaneous.
And living spells are actually a thing in dnd. You can bring to live a hero's feast... that brings up more questions really.
Regardless, we aren't giving up our bacon!
What if... you cast awaken on the pig. Is it murder then?Step 1: Wait for duration to end or dispel the spell.
Step 2: Eat bacon.
On a philosophical note, I'd say it was the "spell" that was sentient... not the pig.
Awaken is instantaneous. I'm pretty sure it can't be dispelled either. I will however, happily join you in thanking our new-found sentient meal for it's sacrifice.
edit: Ninja'd by MrSin!
Agreed. I'm eating sentient bacon then.
Thank goodness this dilemma doesn't exist in the real world!
|
A real world plant does not feel pain and does not have intelligence. If a fantasy world plant can feel pain and/or has intelligence, then we could reasonably start to apply the concept of "plant rights" for them.
P.S. I love bacon. You will only get me to stop eating bacon when I'm dead.
Many scientists have begun questioning this very perception, that plants do not feel pain.
Trees being eaten by bugs often release pheromones into the air that other trees detect and use as a warning to produce chemicals that ward off insects.
Venus Fly Traps have memory, and certainly can feel. It takes two of the "hairs" on a Venus fly trap being stimulated within a specific amount of time before the the flower closes on the bug. This means, the Fly Trap has to "feel" its "hair" being touched and remember the first one and when it was so that it can react to the second.
There's a lot more interesting thoughts on this in this Scientific American Article entitled "Do Plants Think?"
Many scientists have begun questioning this very perception, that plants do not feel pain.
Not an attack against you, but I hate that phrase. What's many scientists? Two? Ten? Fifty? Many scientists believe Bigfoot is real, and there's a lot of books on the subject, but that does not mean Bigfoot is real.
On the topic though: Plants respond to electricity, but they do NOT have a central nervous system and they do NOT have delta fibers. Therefore plants do NOT feel pain. IMHO, Chamovitz offers fun conjecture, but there's a mountain of evidence against him.
It's probably easier proving Bigfoot is real.
In DnD you can just ask the plants!
I plan to interrogate them with Thousand Island!
In DnD you can just ask the plants!
And hear their screams of pain and terror as your rip them from the ground and consume their still living... flesh?
They will eat fruit and seeds but not even plants can be killed.
Isn't that like plant abortion?
Hey... wait a minute. If I cast Awakening on rotting dead wood... does that mean I've committed plant necromancy!?
***EDIT***
If plants are sentient, then it gives "Baby Bean Sprouts" new meaning. You monsters...
I will happily declare plants to be capable of feeling pain and thought as long as I can keep eating the animals.
|
|
Think about it. Here on Earthsville, there's really nothing wrong with eating trees, or plucking plants from the ground and consuming them. Many argue that it's ethically superior to eating meat. And while I'm not trying to bring in that kind of debate to this thread, you can at least see that side of the argument.
Not really the case in Golarion, where that ear of corn just might be a Treant's best friend or something. Is eating plants in this world as questionable as eating meat?
To answer the OP's question, I don't think its a matter the morality of eating something animal vegetable or mineral, but if the animal vegetable or mineral is sentient.
If it is sentient then it is an evil act to consume it. I of course am speaking in generalities.
On a world like Narnia, you would have to worry about Talking beasts.
On Middle earth there are Treants
On Golaron Ents.......
So no over all I don't think there would be any prohibition against eating meat, (unless your character is a vegetarian) or prohibition against eating vegetables ( if you are a carnivore, or if you simply don't like vegetables)......
I hope this helps,
Follow up question, is it murder to eat chocolate if I create a race of chocolate golems?
I understand that the best way to kill a gingerbread golem is using a mithril breadknife.
In DnD you can just ask the plants!
You know, I've never really understood how that was supposed to work.
Plants have no sensory organs. They can't observe their surroundings. They have no brains that would contain their memories. I can only imagine that the most you would get if you cast Speak With Plants would be a monotonous 'photoSYNNNNNthesis ... photoSYNNNNNNNNNthesis ...'
In DnD you can just ask the plants!You know, I've never really understood how that was supposed to work.
Plants have no sensory organs. They can't observe their surroundings. They have no brains that would contain their memories. I can only imagine that the most you would get if you cast Speak With Plants would be a monotonous 'photoSYNNNNNthesis ... photoSYNNNNNNNNNthesis ...'
It goes like this
You: "Hello Mr. Salad, is eating you murder?"
Salad: "..."
You: "Oh... Salads are already dead."
Or you know... magic. The actual text says they have limited understanding of their surroundings. Its probably not far fetched that your correct in that they really don't care... Kind of like how some GM's play Chipmonks as hyper ADD things that couldn't help you do anything ever because well... 1 intelligence chipmonk. Of course the spell text also mentions that some plants are cunning and some are stupid, so I guess somehow plants are supposed to be cunning or stupid? I don't know how you tell!?
Besides, the ability to respond to your environment is 1 of the 5 classic requirements to be declared living (even if only on a cellular level).
I don't think anyone is questioning if a normal plant can be aware of the environment (in the sense of finding sunlight and rooting for water)... it's more leaning of questioning if a normal plant can possess comprehension.
Even with a spell like Awakening, the plant should have memories and personality starting at the point the spell was completed. So even if a plant was there for years, it shouldn't remember anything of those years... it was just a regular plant. It's earliest memories should begin from the moment of gained sentience.
Of course, all this moot, because... well... magic...
So Speak With Plants isn't the plant talking: it's the magic talking.
So Speak With Plants isn't the plant talking: it's the magic talking.
Yeah ... the only way I could make that spell make any sense was to just make it a retrocognition effect that had to center itself on a plant.
Maybe it should list "a plant" as a focus for the spell.
Probably more like targeting a plant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Speak with Animals lets you speak with extremely stupid animals, like chickens, and hold rational conversations with them, and likewise Stone Tell lets you talk with rocks. But rather than assume you're just talking to the magic with it doing a combination of anthropomorphized artificial intelligence mixed with psychometric reading from the perspective of the tree, chicken, or rock, I just assume that we're living in a fairytale world where all of these things are somewhat intelligent and able to converse with those who've learned their language, whether via spell or some other means of communication.
Basically what we're talking here is animism.
Now as for the implications of this? Well, if a druid casts Stone Tell on a coprolite, it can say, "Oh, long ago I was a beautiful fern. I loved the sun. Then a dinosaur ate me and pooped me out. Later I was fossilized, now becoming the rock you're talking with. What? Oh, yes. Recently I've been part of the wall of the demon shrine. Not long. Only fifty years. Last week? Oh, yes, they sacrificed virgins."
This may be the magical version of TMI, but it happens. And animism is no worse from a lack-of-privacy standpoint than living in a universe where omniscient gods can and will watch you in the shower.
Now, as for eating the flesh of sentient creatures, if you take an animistic view, everything is sentient, so the only things you should probably eat are those things that want to be eaten like fruit since that's how they propagate their seeds. Mind you, you can still have a conversation with an apple, but it's not likely to mind the idea of being eaten so long as its seeds get planted.
You can feed a whole village by killing just one calf. To feed it with beans you have to kill thousands if not millions.
Eating meat is less evil than eating greens.
But how many beans did that calf murder to get large enough to feed the village?