Human druid with a tiger pet decide they are going to eat the giants corpes we just killed???? EVIL OR NOT?
Thats my thoughts. I was playing a Paladin of Iomadae and informed him it is unnatural for him to be eating the giants flesh...even raw. I throunced him on the head with the flat of my blade till he got the idea.
...which is kind of evil: denying others their sustenance by violent means. ;)
|
Human druid with a tiger pet decide they are going to eat the giants corpes we just killed???? EVIL OR NOT?
Not. Cannibalism is usually Chaotic (since society usually doesn't approve), but rarely Evil (doing it in front of their loved ones just to mess with them might do it) since doing so almost never actually hurts anyone.
EDIT: Which makes it perfectly reasonable for a Paladin to disapprove, but not to actually arrest people for it or anything lie that.
Consumption of sentient creatures by sentient creatures is evil.
And as Imbicatus said, commiting a single evil act doesn't make you evil.
Consumption of sentient creatures by sentient creatures is evil.Why? Who does it hurt?
I can't find it currently, but I think it's part of the base rules setting and been stated that it's evil. Perhaps someone else can find this statement. It may be a left-over from 3.5 or earlier editions.
It may also just be normal human consideration that says such a thing is evil.
|
|
I can't find it currently, but I think it's part of the base setting rules setting and been stated that it's evil. Perhaps someone else can find this statement. It may be a left-over from 3.5 or earlier editions.
Nothing says this in Pathfinder. :)
It may also just be normal human consideration that says such a thing is evil.
Again, why?
No, really, killing people to eat them is obviously Evil, because murder is wrong...but why is eating a dead body Evil?
I can't find it currently, but I think it's part of the base setting rules setting and been stated that it's evil. Perhaps someone else can find this statement. It may be a left-over from 3.5 or earlier editions.Nothing says this in Pathfinder. :)
It may also just be normal human consideration that says such a thing is evil.Again, why?
No, really, killing people to eat them is obviously Evil, because murder is wrong...but why is eating a dead body Evil?
I'm not really going to argue about why it is or isn't evil. I just think it's the sort of thing that people generally find so repulsive that it is generally considered evil.
Morality is based on the general consensus of a society/culture.
Consumption of sentient creatures by sentient creatures is evil.
And as Imbicatus said, commiting a single evil act doesn't make you evil.
Thus the flat of the blade and not the sharp end
Incorrect.
It's only evil if you gain some kind of benefit from it.
It's fine, but "creepy and weird" if someone drinks blood or eats flesh.
It's evil if someone gains a mechanical benefit (a la the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat), even if they do so by accident.
So you're good as long as you just do it for fun.
Remember, Lizardfolk are generally Neutral (like any other race), and they're cannibals.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really going to argue about why it is or isn't evil. I just think it's the sort of thing that people generally find so repulsive that it is generally considered evil.
That's...really not a good attitude. Race-mixing was considered that repulsive once upon a time.
Morality is based on the general consensus of a society/culture.
Not in Pathfinder. Also, not in real life if you follow a consistent set of moral/ethical principles in a logical fashion. Which many do.
Incorrect.
It's only evil if you gain some kind of benefit from it.
It's fine, but "creepy and weird" if someone drinks blood or eats flesh.
It's evil if someone gains a mechanical benefit (a la the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat), even if they do so by accident.
So you're good as long as you just do it for fun.
Where's that stated?
Remember, Lizardfolk are generally Neutral (like any other race), and they're cannibals.
this is true, and a fair point.
Where's that stated?Incorrect.
It's only evil if you gain some kind of benefit from it.
It's fine, but "creepy and weird" if someone drinks blood or eats flesh.
It's evil if someone gains a mechanical benefit (a la the Dhampir Blood Drinker Feat), even if they do so by accident.
So you're good as long as you just do it for fun.
If Rolf has to kill someone in order to defend himself, we accept that.
If Rolf is attacked and has to resort to biting his attacker in order to escape or avoid being killed, we accept that.
If Rolf bites his attacker and decides to swallow the attacker's blood, that's just creepy and inappropriate.
If Rolf swallow's the attacker's blood and his eyes light up with joy and he gets stronger for doing so, that's evil.I doesn't matter if Rolf is a human, dhampir, half-orc, or gnome; gaining power from drinking a person's blood is creepy and evil.
Note also that he's talking about UNWILLING intelligent creatures.
Dead creatures are always willing. =)
|
|
Thread.
Huh. Missed that one.
Note also that he's talking about UNWILLING intelligent creatures.
Dead creatures are always willing. =)
...but also not sure it's relevant. You say this like it's a joke, but it's not.
That thread's pretty explicitly talking about feeding on unwilling living creatures while they still live...which seems like a reasonable thing to consider Evil to me, as that's definitely hurting the creature in question in a way it can be argued it isn't possible to justify.
But...the dead can't feel pain or fear. Their souls are elsewhere, it's just a hunk of meat. Very different situation.
That thread's pretty explicitly talking about feeding on unwilling living creatures while they still live
You sure?
Human druid with a tiger pet decide they are going to eat the giants corpses we just killed???? EVIL OR NOT?
Well it'the Giants in Rise of the Runelords. The human druid had not up to that point taken an interest in eating any sientiant being alive or dead. He was warned by the Paladin, on several passes it is not a natural thing and the human indicated was not of his custome to consume said dead giant. It was more of a manners issue in my eyes but the Paladin would deem it a vial act by my thinking. Tiger on the other hand, that would be instinct.
|
|
Well it'the Giants in Rise of the Runelords. The human druid had not up to that point taken an interest in eating any sientiant being alive or dead. He was warned by the Paladin, on several passes it is not a natural thing and the human indicated was not of his custome to consume said dead giant. It was more of a manners issue in my eyes but the Paladin would deem it a vial act by my thinking. Tiger on the other hand, that would be instinct.
Like I said, it's almost always a Chaotic act, and Paladin disapproval seems entirely reasonable to me. I just don't think it's Evil per se.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, well as in that thread, I'd like to point out that the things you can do to unwilling intelligent creatures that are NOT evil includes, but is not limited to:
-Burning them to death
-Hitting them with acid
-Electrocuting them to death
-Permanently blinding or deafening them
-Permanently disfiguring them (Disfiguring Touch, Bestow Curse)
-Magically Suffocating them
-Draining their life force (Vampiric Touch)
-Evaporating all the moisture from a creature's body, causing their skin to crumble to dust (Horrid Wilting)
-Biting, clawing, tentacling, etc. them to death.
-Various painful and somewhat impractical weapon deaths.
-"Suppressing their life force" and potentially killing them (Enervation)
And yet, the thing that's EVIL is biting someone (which isn't evil), and then swallowing their blood to gain some temporary HP.
I'm not really going to argue about why it is or isn't evil. I just think it's the sort of thing that people generally find so repulsive that it is generally considered evil.That's...really not a good attitude. Race-mixing was considered that repulsive once upon a time.
Morality is based on the general consensus of a society/culture.Not in Pathfinder. Also, not in real life if you follow a consistent set of moral/ethical principles in a logical fashion. Which many do.
Not a good attitude? I just don't feel like arguing about fictional cannibalism. Morality is defined by society and cultures in real life. The interesting thing is that it means that it's not universal and from group to group it can vary. What is abhorrent to one may be the norm for others. Of course, some things may be consistent between most cultures and may be considered "universal values". Of course, over time these too may change. I'm not justifying any particular cultures belief, but that is how it functions.
Fortunately in Pathfinder mortals do not determine morality, it is either defined by the gods or a consistent inherent function of the universe (it's really not clear, I believe in previous editions it was the gods who determined good vs evil and law vs chaos). Regardless, whether it is gods or inherent function it does not depend on culture. Rather is depends solely on what your GM says as he plays the role of the gods and universe. As players you may influence him, but ultimately he or she is the authority on morality in their game.
I do think your statement about following a "consistent set or morals and principals" is a bit tautological since were talking about how you set morality and where it is derived from. I believe most people would argue that whatever their belief is that it is derived from a logical position (though whether this is true or not is another issue).
Tl;dr - Ask your GM whether cannibalism is evil. Whatever answer he gives is the correct answer. In my games it's certainly evil.
|
|
Not a good attitude? I just don't feel like arguing about fictional cannibalism.
I was referring to the idea that Repulsive = Evil/Wrong. That's an absolutely terrible (though common) moral framework. Not liking something or finding it disgusting doesn't make it morally wrong. Just as liking something or finding it appealing doesn't make it morally right.
Morality is defined by society and cultures in real life. The interesting thing is that it means that it's not universal and from group to group it can vary. What is abhorrent to one may be the norm for others. Of course, some things may be consistent between most cultures and may be considered "universal values". Of course, over time these too may change. I'm not justifying any particular cultures belief, but that is how it functions.
In the real world, on a practical level? To some extent, yeah. But that doesn't mean that some of those cultures aren't wrong. Torture, rape, mass unwilling human sacrifice, various forms of child abuse, all have been considered acceptable by some cultures at some time. That doesn't mean they were. Some moral principles are and should be universal, and some behaviors are simply wrong. Basically, those that cause harm to people without good reason.
Fortunately in Pathfinder mortals do not determine morality, it is either defined by the gods or a consistent inherent function of the universe (it's really not clear, I believe in previous editions it was the gods who determined good vs evil and law vs chaos). Regardless, whether it is gods or inherent function it does not depend on culture. Rather is depends solely on what your GM says as he plays the role of the gods and universe. As players you may influence him, but ultimately he or she is the authority on morality in their game.
It's pretty clearly an inherent function of the universe. And yeah, the GM's the final word on it...but there's still the debate on how the GM should rule, and which of such rulings are reasonable. Which makes such debates as this valid and potentially reasonable.
I do think your statement about following a "consistent set or morals and principals" is a bit tautological since were talking about how you set morality and where it is derived from. I believe most people would argue that whatever their belief is that it is derived from a logical position (though whether this is true or not is another issue).
Except they don't. A very large number of people just go with what 'feels right' without ever thinking through what they actually believe is right and all the implications of that viewpoint. That's the kind of people who follow the basic moral strictures of their cultural background without actually considering whether those strictures are actually good and right. They are very common, and their codes of behavior often wildly inconsistent when actually examined.
And what I actually said was "follow a consistent set of moral/ethical principles in a logical fashion" that last bit is important. It involves actually thinking through your beliefs about right and wrong and following those thoughts to their logical conclusion. That makes a huge difference from merely having a code of behavior you believe is consistent.
Tl;dr - Ask your GM whether cannibalism is evil. Whatever answer he gives is the correct answer.
This is fair, though. The GM is the final authority on this stuff.
In my games it's certainly evil.
And again I ask you: Why?
|
|
Most times it falls under evil because it's desecrating a body and that's why the taboo only applies to sentients. As a corner case (it applied in a game I was playing in) this also applies to familiars, and companion animals that get boosted intelligence (at least according to the GM).
This is a potentially legitimate reason (and the only one). Is it then Evil to cremate a body if it belongs to a culture that always buries their dead? Or vice versa? Or to simply leave the bodies where they lie to be mauled by animals? Or to not eat the body of a member of a culture that requires this as a gesture of respect?
Personally, I'd argue that body desecration, generally, is more Neutral than it is Evil, though properly disposing of the dead by their own customs (or your own if you don't know theirs) is probably Good.
I don't really have time to reply to your entire post now, but I will answer your last question.
It is my opinion that there is inherent "sacredness" to a sentient creature's body. Mutilation of it, including butchering it for consumption (or merely consumption) violates that even if the person is already dead. To knowingly and willingly violate such is evil, in the same way that killing a person is evil. For me it's an issue of sanctity of life and the body. Again, this is just my personal opinion. You're essentially defiling a corpse. While the creature isn't alive to be offended, it is something that would certainly be against their will. And that violation of will (even in death) is evil.
I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't want to argue about this, but I have acquiesced to your desire of "why". Hopefully this is sufficient for you.
I don't really have time to reply to your entire post now, but I will answer your last question.
It is my opinion that there is inherent "sacredness" to a sentient creature's body. Mutilation of it, including butchering it for consumption (or merely consumption) violates that even if the person is already dead. To knowingly and willingly violate such is evil, in the same way that killing a person is evil. For me it's an issue of sanctity of life and the body. Again, this is just my personal opinion. You're essentially defiling a corpse. While the creature isn't alive to be offended, it is something that would certainly be against their will. And that violation of will (even in death) is evil.
I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't want to argue about this, but I have acquiesced to your desire of "why". Hopefully this is sufficient for you.
I would note that in a world where resurrection is a distinct possiblity, the argument that you are doing no harm isn't necessarily valid either; rather, it reinforces the sanctity of a sentient's corpse. It is one thing to kill an enemy. It is another to kill an enemy and attempt to make sure they can't be resurrected. But it is yet a third to kill an enemy, then eat him, fully aware that magic exists that could bring him back with horrific results. That is beyond merely 'unpleasant'.
The selfishness inherent in not recognizing this is sufficient for the paladin to attempt a remonstration, even if on the balance the entire chain of actions isn't irredeemably evil.
The closest thing rules wise I've seen regarding eating people as being evil is the Cook People hex that Witches get.
Still the best thing to do is ask your DM as someone else noted above. They're the one running the game.
Which fits the "it's only evil if you benefit from it" precedent set down by SKR.
While I may think it's a silly rule, they are very consistent with it.
I would note that in a world where resurrection is a distinct possiblity, the argument that you are doing no harm isn't necessarily valid either; rather, it reinforces the sanctity of a sentient's corpse. It is one thing to kill an enemy. It is another to kill an enemy and attempt to make sure they can't be resurrected.
Not really. It's rather pointless to kill someone and then run off and let him be resurrected. It defeats the entire purpose of killing them in the first place.
But it is yet a third to kill an enemy, then eat him, fully aware that magic exists that could bring him back with horrific results.
"Horrific results"?
What "horrific results"?
There are exactly two options for Raise Dead type spells in regards to how intact a corpse is.
1.) It has no effect.
2.) It works fine.
There is no "3.) Horrific results ensue".