|
Is it really evil to eat sentient creatures? I mean, I can see how it would be evil to kill people just to consume them, especially if you're willy nilly about who you kill, but if someone's already dead then isn't it just a case of waste not, want not? It'd be almost like embracing that whole freegan ideal of not wasting food. It's not evil that we loot the bodies of those who unfortunately expire while trying to kill us, so I think the same should go for bodies.
What got me thinking about this was the witch major hex 'cook people'. I was thinking it would be fun to chop up enemies post-hoc and then hand them out as gingerbread men. It's not even like my witch would likely kill the person in the first place, but there are bodies left lying around it'd be a crime to let them just decompose and go to waste.
I understand that that petitioning for cannibalism to be morally ambiguous is probably not going to get me far, but I think it would have been a fun character to make.
|
|
It's a moral standard. end of story. there are some tribes that still view consuming parts of their enemy, fellow warriors, etc. as a viable way to take that person's 'power' and add it to their own. You'll never convince these people that doing so is 'wrong', because they believe just as strongly in its good as you do in its 'bad'.
Now, that's not to say that there isn't a very good reason not to eat human flesh. Unlike other animals, we are directly consuming something that can be infected and afflicted with everything that affects/afflicts you. We're not just talking parasites anymore, but diseases aplenty. I'm sure a situation could arise the same as mad cow disease, where if you discorporate the animal and spread its sickness through a generally accepted method, you can create a phenomenally widspread infection.
Considering how poorly humans eat, not to mention the chemicals they willingly take into their body, I'm pretty convinced there's an aesthetic reason to dissuade us from eating each other. Humans probably taste like the worst game animal you could name. Not to mention the likelyhood of getting more fat with your cut than meat. like a completely white strip of bacon.
As far as RP goes, ask you're game table how they feel about it and go nuts. The possibility of encountering a people who eat adventurers is much higher, why not be one of those people? Just don't spring it on them, it's really high creep factor all the way around.
I totally gave everyone in a caravan permission to eat my body if I died and they absolutely needed food.
But only if they had to. I'd prefer to be given a proper, sacred burial...
Y'know, being left on a raised platform to be eaten by birds.
Eating sentient creatures is "evil" in the same way peeing on a corpse or maiming a corpse, having intercourse with it or doing other cruel, disrespectful things to/with it is evil.
So if you are ok with eating dead sentient beings you should be ok with me first having sex with them, cutting them open to see what they had for dinner and then doing nr. 2 into their open mouth. Your only concern then should be if the corpse's teeth are sharp enough to hurt my backside when I sit down to do it.
For me cannibalism is icky enough to see it as evil to limit it.
It is evil. Please don't eat other sentient creatures dead bodies.
Thanks for this ruling, I greatly appreciate it.
If cannibalism is evil, why is blood transcription allowed in PFS play?Good point. It will be removed as an option on the next additional resources update.
What about the sanguine bloodline (wildblooded sorcerer bloodline) and its blood is the life power?
Your magic emulates that of the hungry dead.
The Blood Is the Life (Su): At 1st level, you can gain sustenance from the blood of the recently dead. As a standard action, you can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood. This ability heals you 1d6 hit points and nourishes you as if you’d had a full meal. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Or is it already not legal? I looked it up and did not find anything.
Good point.
I only remember seeing it used vs sentient creatures.
Thats vampirism. Vamprism is wrong, M'kay. I don't want to go seeing no dark skinned, dual scimitar wielding, empathetic vampires in this group M'Kay?Good point.
I only remember seeing it used vs sentient creatures.
I have the feeling I'm not getting what you want to say with this post. Sounds like a reference to some famous drow but as I never read any stories about him I don't get the empathic vampire part.
Perhaps it has something to do with me not being a native speaker that I don't understand your remark completely. Or I'm overthinking it.
|
|
Thats vampirism. Vamprism is wrong, M'kay. I don't want to go seeing no dark skinned, dual scimitar wielding, empathetic vampires in this group M'Kay?Good point.
I only remember seeing it used vs sentient creatures.I have the feeling I'm not getting what you want to say with this post. Sounds like a reference to some famous drow but as I never read any stories about him I don't get the empathic vampire part.
Perhaps it has something to do with me not being a native speaker that I don't understand your remark completely. Or I'm overthinking it.
He's combining Twilight and the aforementioned drow.
(In other words, you're overthinking it.)
|
Thats vampirism. Vamprism is wrong, M'kay. I don't want to go seeing no dark skinned, dual scimitar wielding, empathetic vampires in this group M'Kay?Good point.
I only remember seeing it used vs sentient creatures.I have the feeling I'm not getting what you want to say with this post. Sounds like a reference to some famous drow but as I never read any stories about him I don't get the empathic vampire part.
Perhaps it has something to do with me not being a native speaker that I don't understand your remark completely. Or I'm overthinking it.
He's combining Twilight and the aforementioned drow.
(In other words, you're overthinking it.)
And I believe he's also doing the principal from South Park.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really evil to eat sentient creatures?
Irl? Its pretty subjective and to be perfectly honest morality discussions go can go on forever about each and every action, circumstance, blahblahblah and the game really can't judge morality very well and anytime it takes an objective stance about morality its going to poke someone the wrong way. In game? Probably best not to test people.
If cannibalism is evil, why is blood transcription allowed in PFS play?Good point. It will be removed as an option on the next additional resources update.
I hope that's a joke...
|
|
It is evil. Please don't eat other sentient creatures dead bodies.
Is this only dead humanoids? There are at least a few scenarios (I can recall one for certain off the top of my head) with menus that serve you up sentient non-humanoids (my Cheliax character was not very happy with this, but Andoran characters dug in with such gusto despite her protests that it started a local joke meme of Andoran cannibalism).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is evil. Please don't eat other sentient creatures dead bodies.
One of the least evil characters I've ever met believed that eating part of a dead foe was a last act of respect for their strength and a testament to the idea that all beings are of the same spirit.
I understand the need to have a hard line about this for organized play, but there are shades of grey in different tribal beliefs.
This character, for the record, has time and again convinced his allies to not kill their enemies. As I recall, he makes use of the Bludgeoner feat to do nonlethal damage and as far as sentient creatures go, has eaten a basilisk only.
|
What got me thinking about this was the witch major hex 'cook people'. I was thinking it would be fun to chop up enemies post-hoc and then hand them out as gingerbread men.
So you kill enemies and then make blood cookies out of them? Sounds like something a "monster" would do. My "evil alarm" is going off pretty strong right now!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What got me thinking about this was the witch major hex 'cook people'. I was thinking it would be fun to chop up enemies post-hoc and then hand them out as gingerbread men.So you kill enemies and then make blood cookies out of them? Sounds like something a "monster" would do. My "evil alarm" is going off pretty strong right now!
That sounds very similar to sigil wafers... and last time I ate one of those I got a +2 bonus to an attribute for a year.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that circumstances, as always, will provide clarity.
It will become quite obvious if the player is just trying to be squicky or if they are trying to provide good and flavorful roleplay.
An (but not the only) example:
Player is playing a Shoanti (Native American or Native South American analogue) tribesman who believes that consuming an organ from a particularly powerful downed opponent not only allows them to subsume some of the power, but is a show of respect and honor to the enemy. This, in my mind, is not cannibalism (at least not the evil sort.) I'd probably let this go without question.
Player is playing a character that actively, and gorily eats dead bodies and then looks around expecting some sort of reaction. There is no rhyme or reason for it, other than, "I eat dead bodies! Heh Heh!" </beavis & butthead>
Player is playing a character that uses blood transcription to gain more spells and power. If that's the only reason they use the spell, and they don't have a story like the first example that they are using the spell to help them subsume the power of an honorable and powerful enemy, then they really aren't doing it for any other reason than greed. That's evil.
It becomes painfully obvious when its a good roleplay decision, and when the player is just trying to be weird or off the wall, for the sake of reaction and being weird and off the wall. One is a mature way to develop a well-rounded character concept, and the other is immaturity at its best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its evil enough to turn you into a ghoul if you do it.
There's a 'how many licks does it take' joke here somewhere. I actually looked up ghoul and Kabiri(god of ghouls) and neither of them state eating flesh turns you into a ghoul, just that its a legend and rumor. Ghouls are created through a disease called Ghoul Fever, which is an injury based disease. Mechanically, eating the dead won't turn you into a ghoul, though DM fiat plays a part here and there and I didn't look up anything beyond those two sources.
If you're going to insist on utilitarian morality in an objective morality universe, then consider the risk you pose to other people if your dining habbits turn you into a ghoul.
Utilitarianism > Objective arbitrary decisions imo. That's why I stated earlier objective morality pokes people the wrong way and could lead to an argument, but its best not to test people.
It is evil. Please don't eat other sentient creatures dead bodies.
Well that sucks. Now we can't eat cows. To vegetarianism! Unless their awakened I guess. Or one of those intelligent plants(which is actually a wide variety... Harder and harder to eat without turning evil these days!)
|
|
There's a 'how many licks does it take' joke here somewhere. I actually looked up ghoul and Kabiri(god of ghouls) and neither of them state eating flesh turns you into a ghoul, just that its a legend and rumor.
Which, being a fantasy game, has more bearing on your reality than than the periodic table or the laws of physics.
This is how the ghouls in
Which, being a fantasy game, has more bearing on your reality than than the periodic table or the laws of physics.
I'm going to start up a rumor that I am the ultimate power and Aroden's first son come to save everyone from the dark tides. Does I come true?
How is a cow sentient?
How isn't it? Are you telling me a cow doesn't think or feel or respond or feel suffering? or maybe I'm just a crazy hippie.
|
|
Which, being a fantasy game, has more bearing on your reality than than the periodic table or the laws of physics.I'm going to start up a rumor that I am the ultimate power and Aroden's first son come to save everyone from the dark tides. Does I come true?
How is a cow sentient?How isn't it? Are you telling me a cow doesn't think or feel or respond or feel suffering? or maybe I'm just a crazy hippie.
Are you confused about what the definition of sentient is?
Are you confused about what the definition of sentient is?
I think you are? Sentient means your capable of feeling, perceiving, and responding to that emotionally. Cows are most certainly sentient. The game actually doesn't have a definition for sentient in its glossary, but if you want to narrow down the definition awaken can be used on sentient creatures but bring them up to 'human-like' sentience(3+ intelligence, where you start speaking and some other things come up). The cows have the 1-2 animal intelligence where they do happen to care about being eaten and all that, but probably aren't likely to start a society.
In my earlier comment, I was joking about how cows are most certainly sentient, and do care about being eaten, and that if we use hyperbole and extend that logic of 'no eating sentients'(without narrowing it down) we do happen to include plants. Even some dirt and rocks are sentient in DND, but we don't eat those(or... well, I don't. Earth Elemental doesn't make my mouth water, eh.)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, did a little word-digging. I guess technically "sentient" does mean no more than to be able to perceive, but is commonly (and mistakenly) swapped for something more like "sapient". Which is probably what Mike meant, and what most readers would likely understand from the statement.
But as the owner of the Grammar Nazi alias, I have to concede your point about "sentient"'s actual meaning. Well met, MrSin. :)
|
|
Which, being a fantasy game, has more bearing on your reality than than the periodic table or the laws of physics.I'm going to start up a rumor that I am the ultimate power and Aroden's first son come to save everyone from the dark tides. Does I come true?
If it comes true as often as the ghoul thing has I'll start listening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, did a little word-digging. I guess technically "sentient" does mean no more than to be able to perceive, but is commonly (and mistakenly) swapped for something more like "sapient". Which is probably what Mike meant, and what most readers would likely understand from the statement.
But as the owner of the Grammar Nazi alias, I have to concede your point about "sentient"'s actual meaning. Well met, MrSin. :)
Not necessarily:
I think the definition of being able to feel, perceive and respond emotionally or any of the various other definitions of sentient or sentience is typically referring to human beings (at least in western philosophy). Otherwise there wouldn't be the distinction between western and eastern philosophy and whether animals have sentience or not.
Even Star Trek referred to all intelligent races as Sentient Beings. They explored this concept with both Data and the evolution of the girl that Neelix loved who turned into an energy being.
All iterations of DnD that I am aware (including Pathfinder), refer to only intelligent beings as sentient, while animals and other creatures of animal intelligence or non-intelligence are referred to as non-sentient.
