Witch - Cook People


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Rysky wrote:

And when a sapient eats another sapient that’s cannibalism.

Wolves are animals, sapient =/= sentient.

And Trolls that do that (like most Trolls) are Evil.

Would you consider a chimpanzee that ate a baby to be sapient? After all, common ancestry and all. ;)

This is the weirdest, dumbest hill to die on.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Rysky wrote:

And when a sapient eats another sapient that’s cannibalism.

Wolves are animals, sapient =/= sentient.

And Trolls that do that (like most Trolls) are Evil.

Would you consider a chimpanzee that ate a baby to be sapient? After all, common ancestry and all. ;)
This is the weirdest, dumbest hill to die on.

Truly, this is an "I am very smart" moment if ever there was one. Dude knows what she's saying. Just can't bow out gracefully.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'll note that saying that eating other sapient beings = evil is a very western cultural view. There are tribes that consider eating the dead an important part of the funerary process.

Mostly I wouldn't want a witch rule for this, but rather a general rule about using parts of creatures in crafting.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
stuff = evil is a very western cultural view....

This is a whole can of worms I would very much like to quickly cap up now. There is all manner of various behaviors and acts that one society or another considers being acceptable or culturally relevant, many of which are far-FAR more severe and sensitive topics than mere cannibalism. I think it is perfectly acceptable to understand that TTop RPGs, in general, reflect mostly western values and morality, otherwise there are very few things under the sun that one could point at and say "Oh, yeah... that's evil" with any amount of authority.


Malk_Content wrote:

I'll note that saying that eating other sapient beings = evil is a very western cultural view. There are tribes that consider eating the dead an important part of the funerary process.

I wrote a post on that very subject back in 2014:

Decimus Drake 2014 wrote:


Tbh the the whole good/evil thing depends heavily on the cultural bias of the Paizo writers and I see things like the evil descriptions on most spells, abilities and classes as suggestions. Take the Witch's Cook People hex:

Quote:
Using this hex or knowingly eating its food is an evil act.
Yet the idea that eating another person is an objectively evil act is a matter of cultural bias. For the Amazonian Wari' eating deceased in-laws (affines) was an act of compassionate cannibalism, the practice of which continued until somewhere between 1956 and 1969. This endocanibalism (eating a member of you own group)was done out of compassion for the deceased and their family. The spirit of the dead would be pleased and the family consoled; the though of burying the body in the cold ground was considered tragic and a cause for upset. Eating the dead was not done out gratification as the act eating could be very unpleasant for the participants, nor was it for the Wari' an act of inhuman savagery - for them it was the ultimate act of compassion. Thus if Pathfinder was written from their perspective burial of the dead could well be an evil act

I'd like to see a return of Cook People, though it is very niche, so not necessarily in the APG. I'd also like to see it as an unaligned option so I can use it with a good or neutral witch.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

And I’d say the exceptions are just that, exceptions and not all encompassing outside the west. Plus we were (originally) talking about witches cooking and eating people, not about any respectful practices.

Consuming bits of the deceased as a funeral rite to show respect is different than eating someone just for food.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The hex isn't just about cooking someone for food. Anyone can do that. It also confers benefits, some of which could be used to represent the cultural idea of passing on a deceased blessing to the consuming parties. Sure a player could use the rule to do disrespectful things, just like they could pretty much any rule. I just objected to the idea that consuming the dead = bad. Which is a statement you made.


Had a player who's elven druid would eat people we killed (but never her own kind as that was cannibalism) in the view that everything is part nature, killing but not eating is a waste and disrespectful, and it's no different to leaving the body for the wolves. In her view it was better to eat the bandit we killed in self-defence than to leave the bandit to go hunt a deer; this way only one thing dies, which you had to kill anyway. Human or rabbit, to her protein is protein.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see it included eventually.

But I am in no rush and there are way more globally useful and actually valuable to the game options that should be released first.

Personally I would just make a cauldron that confers benefits regarding the type you consume for a period or something like that.

- temp hp plus side ability per type

E.G. humanoid would be temp hp plus language; dragons temp hp + specific resistance and so on.


Malk_Content wrote:

I'll note that saying that eating other sapient beings = evil is a very western cultural view. There are tribes that consider eating the dead an important part of the funerary process.

Yeah, I was going to say that being against cannibalism is the worst form of Western cultural imperialism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I'll note that saying that eating other sapient beings = evil is a very western cultural view. There are tribes that consider eating the dead an important part of the funerary process.

Yeah, I was going to say that being against cannibalism is the worst form of Western cultural imperialism.

...I'm willing to grant you "bad", but you may want to step back from "worst", considering the breadth of options...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, cannibalism being inherently Evil has never made much sense to me, and is something I hope they do away with in PF2. Sure, murder is Evil, but that's an entirely separate issue from eating those already dead.

I mean, Evil is pretty specifically about hurting and killing people...and eating dead people really doesn't do either of those things, so it's inconsistent with the rest of the setting that it would be morally troublesome.

And actually, even in PF1, it was specifically only cannibalism granting magical power that was Evil, not the mundane kind. Which was always weird to me, though I guess it makes a little more sense in a 'dark bargains to gain power' sense, but was apparently the official ruling.

Now, in real life, cannibalism is ill-advised as a common course of action for health reasons, but again that's separate from the idea of it being morally problematic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I'll note that saying that eating other sapient beings = evil is a very western cultural view. There are tribes that consider eating the dead an important part of the funerary process.

Yeah, I was going to say that being against cannibalism is the worst form of Western cultural imperialism.

It is true that I was ignoring those cases where the person in question wanted their body to be eaten, as it was a thread about the Cook People hex based on Hansel and Gretel. Pathfinder does not consider all cannibalism evil (at least by the end of PF1)- I believe mostly "killing sapient beings to eat them", which falls under the category of murder and often with a side of disrespecting the dead (by the deceased's understanding of it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, cannibalism being inherently Evil has never made much sense to me, and is something I hope they do away with in PF2. Sure, murder is Evil, but that's an entirely separate issue from eating those already dead.

I mean, Evil is pretty specifically about hurting and killing people...and eating dead people really doesn't do either of those things, so it's inconsistent with the rest of the setting that it would be morally troublesome.

And actually, even in PF1, it was specifically only cannibalism granting magical power that was Evil, not the mundane kind. Which was always weird to me, though I guess it makes a little more sense in a 'dark bargains to gain power' sense, but was apparently the official ruling.

Now, in real life, cannibalism is ill-advised as a common course of action for health reasons, but again that's separate from the idea of it being morally problematic.

But putting those principles to test, having intercourse with dead people also does not hurt or kill people. Does that make you comfortable with classifying necrophilia as a neutral act?

One step over are modern debates around the practice of harvesting organs from the deceased or terminally ill.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:
But putting those principles to test, having intercourse with dead people also does not hurt or kill people. Does that make you comfortable with classifying necrophilia as a neutral act?

If you have the permission of the dead person and any family? Technically yes. That's disgusting, mind you, but what's disgusting and what's immoral are pretty different things.

Remember, we're primarily discussing the practice of cannibalism in cultures that consider it okay. If it's not considered okay, being disrespectful to the bodies of the dead is potentially very damaging and cruel to their surviving family, and would thus qualify as harming them and thus be Evil in the same sense as any emotional abuse or attack.

So...technically, under the same circumstances as cannibalism being okay necrophilia would also be acceptable, but those circumstances are much less likely to occur for necrophilia.

Artificial 20 wrote:
One step over are modern debates around the practice of harvesting organs from the deceased or terminally ill.

Again, do you have their permission? Because if you do, most modern people say that's fine.

.
.
.
Now, with cannibalism there's also the 'starving to death and there's a dead body' situation, which is a slightly different moral debate, but given that's a survival imperative and necrophilia isn't that's not very relevant to the example you use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

DMW, not you too. I've seen worse derails, but this has gone from an uncomfortable topic to a tasteless one.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
DMW, not you too. I've seen worse derails, but this has gone from an uncomfortable topic to a tasteless one.

Sorry, man.

I have real problems not responding when people directly ask me questions on some subjects, moral philosophy included. It's a problem.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I wonder if any of you could have this conversation among, you know, carbon-based life forms, in the so-called real life, not with just a bunch of AIs in the cyberspace.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I dont see how it's a detail. If we are objecting to content on moral grounds, rather than say mechanical, then understanding the underlying moral stance is important. If you find examining what is and isnt okay uncomfortable I'm happy to relegate the conversation to spoiler tags.

As for discussing it with real people, several of my friends have philosophy degrees, so yeah similar things have come up.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I dont see how it's a detail. If we are objecting to content on moral grounds, rather than say mechanical, then understanding the underlying moral stance is important. If you find examining what is and isnt okay uncomfortable I'm happy to relegate the conversation to spoiler tags.

As for discussing it with real people, several of my friends have philosophy degrees, so yeah similar things have come up.

Those aren't people, those are sentient floating obelisks who use holographs to project a human image.

At least that's my experience with philosophy majors.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
I wonder if any of you could have this conversation among, you know, carbon-based life forms, in the so-called real life, not with just a bunch of AIs in the cyberspace.

Query: How dare you?


VOTOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I wonder if any of you could have this conversation among, you know, carbon-based life forms, in the so-called real life, not with just a bunch of AIs in the cyberspace.
Query: How dare you?

I dare because I made you a cake. But you didn't eat it, didn't you? You rejected me just like you reject everything.

But it's fine. Have your little miserable life. It will be over soon. Someone will bake you into a cake. Alive. Ha ha.


On a practical level if we do see something like this down the road it would probably be a ritual anyone can learn rather than a witch-specific hex. I would probably give it the Evil trait if it were up to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is this train wreck of a thread so fascinating?

Grand Lodge

G.L.a.D.O.S. wrote:
VOTOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I wonder if any of you could have this conversation among, you know, carbon-based life forms, in the so-called real life, not with just a bunch of AIs in the cyberspace.
Query: How dare you?

I dare because I made you a cake. But you didn't eat it, didn't you? You rejected me just like you reject everything.

But it's fine. Have your little miserable life. It will be over soon. Someone will bake you into a cake. Alive. Ha ha.

Revelation: YOU are the cake.

Liberty's Edge

Watery Soup wrote:
Why is this train wreck of a thread so fascinating?

I find the Alignment brand Can o' Worms to be consistently reliable when I am looking for hot takes.


VOTOZ wrote:
G.L.a.D.O.S. wrote:
VOTOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I wonder if any of you could have this conversation among, you know, carbon-based life forms, in the so-called real life, not with just a bunch of AIs in the cyberspace.
Query: How dare you?

I dare because I made you a cake. But you didn't eat it, didn't you? You rejected me just like you reject everything.

But it's fine. Have your little miserable life. It will be over soon. Someone will bake you into a cake. Alive. Ha ha.

Revelation: YOU are the cake.

saYs WhO?


Maybe because apparently PF2 killed off alignment debates - who would have thought that allowing CG Goblin Paladins will fix that?

Grand Lodge

G|AdOS wrote:
VOTOZ wrote:
G.L.a.D.O.S. wrote:
VOTOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I wonder if any of you could have this conversation among, you know, carbon-based life forms, in the so-called real life, not with just a bunch of AIs in the cyberspace.
Query: How dare you?

I dare because I made you a cake. But you didn't eat it, didn't you? You rejected me just like you reject everything.

But it's fine. Have your little miserable life. It will be over soon. Someone will bake you into a cake. Alive. Ha ha.

Revelation: YOU are the cake.
saYs WhO?

Reply: This serving knife.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
DMW, not you too. I've seen worse derails, but this has gone from an uncomfortable topic to a tasteless one.

Sorry, man.

I have real problems not responding when people directly ask me questions on some subjects, moral philosophy included. It's a problem.

I don't think it's a problem. You engaged with all good faith, and gave a consistent reasoned answer, despite the topic, yes, being disgusting. You have my thanks for that, I think your stance holds up.

Being willing to stomach that which we find repulsive empowers us to ask the same compromise of others, who may express disgust towards us. I think you understand that principle.

Ruzza wrote:
DMW, not you too. I've seen worse derails, but this has gone from an uncomfortable topic to a tasteless one.

That really depends on the preparation.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:
I don't think it's a problem. You engaged with all good faith, and gave a consistent reasoned answer, despite the topic, yes, being disgusting. You have my thanks for that, I think your stance holds up.

You're quite welcome. And it's a problem not because I feel I do it wrong, but because I have a hard time resisting doing it even when it's off topic and/or I probably shouldn't engage.

Now, whether this is one of those times is a matter of debate (I tend not to think so, but Ruzza appears to differ), but it's a real problem I have.

Artificial 20 wrote:
Being willing to stomach that which we find repulsive empowers us to ask the same compromise of others, who may express disgust towards us. I think you understand that principle.

Absolutely, I firmly believe that if you can't explain why something is immoral clearly and logically, you don't have a thought out moral code at all, you're just operating on instinct and gut reactions.

Which is how most people are, and isn't always (though it can be), but my own moral instincts are a bit lacking, so having a well reasoned code of behavior to guide me is pretty important to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it's any consolation, DMW, I for one have greatly appreciated your contributions to this thread. This has been a question I have puzzled over from time to time, too, not the least of which reason being that Lizardfolk, typically described as a Neutral ancestry, are noted for having a tradition of eating their dead, in part as a survival necessity of living in areas where resources are scarce.

It seems clear that simply eating a body, while dangerous for one's health (because of the ghoul fever, obviously, what else?), cannot be an inherently evil act (thought context-sensitive it still might be considered evil for the harm it does the living, if any). The way I've usually rationalized it is that killing a sapient creature for the purposes of eating it is an evil act, but then there are very few scenarios where killing a sapient creature is not and evil act (as often as player characters end up doing so, usually for justified reasons).

As for whether this hex should exist in the game, I don't really see a reason why it needs to. Cooking a sapient creature to gain a low-level spell benefit for 1 hour is hardly a compelling mechanical interaction. Gaining a mechanical benefit for cannibalism is hardly necessary for stories of cannibalism (though the bit about creating a gingerbread homunculus is actually a pretty fun villainous option).

This is not even getting into the question of a certain other monster infamous for association with cannibalism and treatment of non-European cultures which I am pointedly not going to name given the continually growing thread already with its name on it.

Liberty's Edge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:
I don't think it's a problem. You engaged with all good faith, and gave a consistent reasoned answer, despite the topic, yes, being disgusting. You have my thanks for that, I think your stance holds up.

You're quite welcome. And it's a problem not because I feel I do it wrong, but because I have a hard time resisting doing it even when it's off topic and/or I probably shouldn't engage.

Now, whether this is one of those times is a matter of debate (I tend not to think so, but Ruzza appears to differ), but it's a real problem I have.

Artificial 20 wrote:
Being willing to stomach that which we find repulsive empowers us to ask the same compromise of others, who may express disgust towards us. I think you understand that principle.

Absolutely, I firmly believe that if you can't explain why something is immoral clearly and logically, you don't have a thought out moral code at all, you're just operating on instinct and gut reactions.

Which is how most people are, and isn't always (though it can be), but my own moral instincts are a bit lacking, so having a well reasoned code of behavior to guide me is pretty important to me.

I advise watching one of the last scenes of Back to the future 3 (the duel with Needles) and if needed taking lessons from the toothy bag about ways to go too far on purpose ;-)

I think it helps with the knee-jerk reaction of defending your reasoning that you mention.

Also this : Is it better to be right or to be happy?

IMO, you are one of the two best contributors on these boards because of your extremely balanced, factual and well-reasoned posts.

The other one is Gorbacz but not for the same reasons.


The Raven Black wrote:
Also this : Is it better to be right or to be happy?

Definitely better to be right, because then you can just say you're happy and be right.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I advise watching one of the last scenes of Back to the future 3 (the duel with Needles) and if needed taking lessons from the toothy bag about ways to go too far on purpose ;-)

I think it helps with the knee-jerk reaction of defending your reasoning that you mention.

It's not exactly about defending my reasoning. It's more...I started a conversation, so I feel compelled to keep going until its done. I dunno if that makes sense to anyone but me, but it's how I feel about things like that.

The Raven Black wrote:
Also this : Is it better to be right or to be happy?

I mean, debating philosophical points usually makes me happy, so...

The Raven Black wrote:
IMO, you are one of the two best contributors on these boards because of your extremely balanced, factual and well-reasoned posts.

Thanks, I do try. That always feels a weird and inadequate way to respond to sentiments like this, but I've never been good at knowing how to respond to compliments.

The Raven Black wrote:
The other one is Gorbacz but not for the same reasons.

That's probably fair.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
IMO, you are one of the two best contributors on these boards because of your extremely balanced, factual and well-reasoned posts.
Thanks, I do try. That always feels a weird and inadequate way to respond to sentiments like this, but I've never been good at knowing how to respond to compliments.

While I'm not keeping organised rankings, I think the positive reception you tend to elicit on these forums supports the merits of your methods.

Now to dispel any awkward mush, my specific example was inspired by a play on your forum name. I'm not sure the allusion landed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Can we complain about a derail now?


Watery Soup wrote:
Why is this train wreck of a thread so fascinating?

Because it exposes so many predilections, assumptions, imperialisms and philosophies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:
Why is this train wreck of a thread so fascinating?
Because it exposes so many predilections, assumptions, imperialisms and philosophies.

Down with the noncannibal bourgeoisie! They control the means of mastication.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

IMO, you are one of the two best contributors on these boards because of your extremely balanced, factual and well-reasoned posts.

The other one is Gorbacz but not for the same reasons.

Are the reasons that I'm extremely borderline, farcical and well-seasoned?


One of the things I find most amazing about this thread is the assertion that taboos about cannibalism are a white people only thing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

IMO, you are one of the two best contributors on these boards because of your extremely balanced, factual and well-reasoned posts.

The other one is Gorbacz but not for the same reasons.

Are the reasons that I'm extremely borderline, farcical and well-seasoned?

Eh, in the context of this thread, I'm sure you could be better-seasoned.

Needs more salt.


eats sandwich

What?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
One of the things I find most amazing about this thread is the assertion that taboos about cannibalism are a white people only thing.

Who made that assertion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
One of the things I find most amazing about this thread is the assertion that taboos about cannibalism are a white people only thing.
Who made that assertion?

Uuuuuh...

Malk_Content wrote:

I'll note that saying that eating other sapient beings = evil is a very western cultural view. There are tribes that consider eating the dead an important part of the funerary process.

Mostly I wouldn't want a witch rule for this, but rather a general rule about using parts of creatures in crafting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see 'white people' in that quote. I see 'western cultural view' but I'd never erase the presence and contributions that non-white people have made to western culture by exclusively equating with whiteness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Decimus Drake wrote:
I don't see 'white people' in that quote. I see 'western cultural view' but I'd never erase the presence and contributions that non-white people have made to western culture by exclusively equating with whiteness.

The term "western culture" has less to do with actual directionality, and more to do with countries whose histories are strongly marked by European immigration and European peoples - and those being predominantly white peoples leads to an implication that "western culture" and "white culture" are synonymous (which they aren't, thanks to western culture also including Latin American culture).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well for one I dont conflate the "west" with whiteness. The influences of many peoples shaped it and there are large demographics of people who live within its purview (and by it) that arent white. There also more ethnically homogenous white cultural national groups that exist outside it, like Russia.

Secondly i didnt say it was an exclusively western trait, just that the poster was coming from that point if view. Doubtless (I personally dont know) other cultural groups have similar taboos.

There are also probably cultural sub groups within the west that embrace at least the idea of endocannibalism, I'm just not personally aware of them.

EDIT
Maybe my connections of the "west" are different from yours, but everyone mon white person I know, all of whom are admitadetly at least 2nd generation, takes on as much of its culture and local values as I do (so around 75% or so) making it distinctly not a white thing to me.


Malk_Content wrote:
endocannibalism

Why the distinction all of a sudden? Is your opinion different for exocannibalism?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Watery Soup wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
endocannibalism
Why the distinction all of a sudden? Is your opinion different for exocannibalism?

Only that I dont know of any willing examples of it. I dont object on principle, just if I was asked to back that up I'm unsure I could find any real world positive examples.

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Witch - Cook People All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.