Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What is cannibalism in D&D?
1,402 views
Skip to first unread message
Tetsubo
Feb 21, 2015, 9:16:03 PM2/21/15
to
I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Spalls Hurgenson
Feb 22, 2015, 9:34:22 AM2/22/15
to
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:16:13 -0500, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
>fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
>cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
>with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
>For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
>dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
Cannibalism is the eating of your own species. A halfling tucking into
a bit of Harfoot bacon is cannibalism; an elf sucking the marrow out
of a sylvan elf's bones is cannibalism.
An orc chewing the gristle of an overcooked gnome is not cannibalism,
it is predation.
The intelligence of the victim is inconsequential (certainly it hasn't
bothered humans, who have been known to sup on dogs, pigs, parrots,
dolphins, apes and more).
Now, in my campaign it can be a bit more difficult to determine when a
species is being cannibalistic. Gnomes, and halflings, for instance,
are all subgroupings of the dwarf species (and they can breed
successfully with one another). Goblins, orcs, trolls, ogres giants,
etc. are all descendants of a doppleganger-like species that was bred
as a highly-mutable slave races. Individual of a particular species
can't breed directly with another, but they occassionally give birth
to "half-breeds" that can. Elves, fairies, quicklings, etc. are all
different bodies for the same primal magics of the Faery family and
they all recognize one another as close kin despite the difference in
their outward appearance. So if a gnome ate a dwarf, he's probably
being a cannibal, but if a halfling ate an elf, he would not.
wrote:
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
>fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
>cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
>with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
>For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
>dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
a bit of Harfoot bacon is cannibalism; an elf sucking the marrow out
of a sylvan elf's bones is cannibalism.
An orc chewing the gristle of an overcooked gnome is not cannibalism,
it is predation.
The intelligence of the victim is inconsequential (certainly it hasn't
bothered humans, who have been known to sup on dogs, pigs, parrots,
dolphins, apes and more).
Now, in my campaign it can be a bit more difficult to determine when a
species is being cannibalistic. Gnomes, and halflings, for instance,
are all subgroupings of the dwarf species (and they can breed
successfully with one another). Goblins, orcs, trolls, ogres giants,
etc. are all descendants of a doppleganger-like species that was bred
as a highly-mutable slave races. Individual of a particular species
can't breed directly with another, but they occassionally give birth
to "half-breeds" that can. Elves, fairies, quicklings, etc. are all
different bodies for the same primal magics of the Faery family and
they all recognize one another as close kin despite the difference in
their outward appearance. So if a gnome ate a dwarf, he's probably
being a cannibal, but if a halfling ate an elf, he would not.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Feb 22, 2015, 4:01:47 PM2/22/15
to
In article <mcbe3q$28g$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net (Tetsubo)
wrote:
> For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher.
Yep, that's my view.
As a player my characters (especially those who were rangers or druids)
normally would only hunt (and eat the flesh of) an animal of 1 INT or
less, as those of 2 or higher INT are actually sufficiently smart to have
personalities or be companions.
As a DM, I'd note if a character ate the flesh of intelligent creatures
and if it became a regular habit that would normally be at odds with
their character's ethos (e.g. a paladin, ranger, or druid) I'd work that
into the game - the character would get reproachful looks from animal
companions, or auguries, the occasional spell or ability might misfire
etc.
It's not just Paladins that have to keep their noses clean, after all...
Cheers
JOanna
wrote:
> For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher.
As a player my characters (especially those who were rangers or druids)
normally would only hunt (and eat the flesh of) an animal of 1 INT or
less, as those of 2 or higher INT are actually sufficiently smart to have
personalities or be companions.
As a DM, I'd note if a character ate the flesh of intelligent creatures
and if it became a regular habit that would normally be at odds with
their character's ethos (e.g. a paladin, ranger, or druid) I'd work that
into the game - the character would get reproachful looks from animal
companions, or auguries, the occasional spell or ability might misfire
etc.
It's not just Paladins that have to keep their noses clean, after all...
Cheers
JOanna
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Feb 22, 2015, 4:01:47 PM2/22/15
to
In article <vfpjealk2s9gsudp4...@4ax.com>,
Where does one draw that moral line? I would be as revolted by someone
eating the flesh of a monkey or an ape as I would any other cannibal.
Eating an intelligent humanoid is wrong IMV.
By your strict definition, a human could eat the flesh of an elf or a
dwarf without compunction. I submit that there's a broader moral concept.
The definition of the word is of course narrow because of its etymology:
Definition of cannibal in English:
noun
1A person who eats the flesh of other human beings: [as modifier]:
cannibal tribes
More example sentences
1.1An animal that feeds on flesh of its own species.
Origin
mid 16th century: from Spanish Canibales (plural), variant (recorded by
Columbus) of Caribes, the name of a West Indian people reputed to eat
humans (see Carib).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cannibal
Cheers
JOanna
Where does one draw that moral line? I would be as revolted by someone
eating the flesh of a monkey or an ape as I would any other cannibal.
Eating an intelligent humanoid is wrong IMV.
By your strict definition, a human could eat the flesh of an elf or a
dwarf without compunction. I submit that there's a broader moral concept.
The definition of the word is of course narrow because of its etymology:
Definition of cannibal in English:
noun
1A person who eats the flesh of other human beings: [as modifier]:
cannibal tribes
More example sentences
1.1An animal that feeds on flesh of its own species.
Origin
mid 16th century: from Spanish Canibales (plural), variant (recorded by
Columbus) of Caribes, the name of a West Indian people reputed to eat
humans (see Carib).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cannibal
Cheers
JOanna
Tetsubo
Feb 22, 2015, 4:16:02 PM2/22/15
to
propaganda. It's a whole lot easier to justify conquering and
exterminating an entire culture if they were 'cannibals'.
Spalls Hurgenson
Feb 23, 2015, 9:10:46 AM2/23/15
to
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
jrowlan...@cix.co.uk (Joanna Rowland Stuart) wrote:
>In article <vfpjealk2s9gsudp4...@4ax.com>,
>spallsh...@gmail.com (Spalls Hurgenson) wrote:
>
>> Cannibalism is the eating of your own species.
>Where does one draw that moral line? I would be as revolted by someone
>eating the flesh of a monkey or an ape as I would any other cannibal.
>Eating an intelligent humanoid is wrong IMV.
It might be /wrong/ but it wouldn't be cannibalism.
jrowlan...@cix.co.uk (Joanna Rowland Stuart) wrote:
>In article <vfpjealk2s9gsudp4...@4ax.com>,
>spallsh...@gmail.com (Spalls Hurgenson) wrote:
>
>> Cannibalism is the eating of your own species.
>Where does one draw that moral line? I would be as revolted by someone
>eating the flesh of a monkey or an ape as I would any other cannibal.
>Eating an intelligent humanoid is wrong IMV.
(Personally, I don't have that much of a problem with cannibalism;
it's just meat. It's more of an issue to me on how the cannibal /got/
that meat, whether by murdering somebody who just wasn't ready to go
into the pot, or stealing the body from a family that had different
views on what to do with the deceased).
>By your strict definition, a human could eat the flesh of an elf or a
>dwarf without compunction. I submit that there's a broader moral concept.
it being cannibalism. If he's like us, he'd probably be somewhat upset
that the "drumstick" he is gnawing on was Horatio, his good friend,
once full of hopes of and dreams.
The original question was not "assuming a world with multiple
sentients, when is it okay for one to eat another" but when is it
cannibalism (although we are straying dangerously close to Laynes Law
here).
Again, to reference my own campaign world:
The earth-dwelling folk or dwarfkin (gnomes, halflings and dwarves)
shouldn't eat each other, but could take a nibble from the rest of the
sentients without it being cannibalism. That doesn't mean they /do/,
but they could without it counting as cannibalism (well, maybe some of
the gnomes, they're shifty folk :). If the gods in the universe place
a curse on a creature that eats the flesh of its own, that curse would
not apply if a Dwarf chomps on a Humie. However, the laws and customs
of the Dwarves are probably sufficient to keep a well-bred Dwarf from
doing so anyway.
Tetsubo
Feb 23, 2015, 9:42:20 AM2/23/15
to
"But in a high fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what
constitutes cannibalism?" I think that was *exactly* what I was asking.
That we have to change the definition of cannibalism in a world with
multiple sapient species. We only have the one that is legally
recognized. So a narrow definition is all that is required. But in D&D?
I think a very broad definition is called for. Or we need a new term.
'Predation' does not cut it in my book.
>
> Again, to reference my own campaign world:
>
> The earth-dwelling folk or dwarfkin (gnomes, halflings and dwarves)
> shouldn't eat each other, but could take a nibble from the rest of the
> sentients without it being cannibalism. That doesn't mean they /do/,
> but they could without it counting as cannibalism (well, maybe some of
> the gnomes, they're shifty folk :). If the gods in the universe place
> a curse on a creature that eats the flesh of its own, that curse would
> not apply if a Dwarf chomps on a Humie. However, the laws and customs
> of the Dwarves are probably sufficient to keep a well-bred Dwarf from
> doing so anyway.
Apparently the gods are racists. How nice. If a dwarf eats a human in
> Again, to reference my own campaign world:
>
> The earth-dwelling folk or dwarfkin (gnomes, halflings and dwarves)
> shouldn't eat each other, but could take a nibble from the rest of the
> sentients without it being cannibalism. That doesn't mean they /do/,
> but they could without it counting as cannibalism (well, maybe some of
> the gnomes, they're shifty folk :). If the gods in the universe place
> a curse on a creature that eats the flesh of its own, that curse would
> not apply if a Dwarf chomps on a Humie. However, the laws and customs
> of the Dwarves are probably sufficient to keep a well-bred Dwarf from
> doing so anyway.
the frozen wastes of the North, he's still going to turn into a Wendigo.
Justisaur
Feb 23, 2015, 1:05:25 PM2/23/15
to
On Saturday, February 21, 2015 at 6:16:03 PM UTC-8, Tetsubo wrote:
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
> fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
> cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
> with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
> For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
> dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
There's cannibalism - which is eating your own species - even that can be difficult to define in D&D. Hippogriffs are half-horse, half-eagle, and they eat horses. Dragons have been known to produce offspring with a large variety of other creatures, including humans. Humans as well - both orcs and elves are able to produce offspring with humans. By 1e D&D halflings are or were able to cross with both elves (tallfellows) and dwarves (stouts). All of those could therefore be considered the same species.
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
> fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
> cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
> with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
> For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
> dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
There should be another word for eating of other sentients which would apply. Sentivore?
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Feb 23, 2015, 1:08:38 PM2/23/15
to
In article <mcfe71$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net (Tetsubo)
wrote:
> "But in a high fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings,
> what constitutes cannibalism?" I think that was *exactly* what I
> was asking.
Exactly.
> If a dwarf eats a human in
> the frozen wastes of the North, he's still going to turn into a
> Wendigo.
LOL - nice one.
Cheers
JOanna
wrote:
> "But in a high fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings,
> what constitutes cannibalism?" I think that was *exactly* what I
> was asking.
> If a dwarf eats a human in
> the frozen wastes of the North, he's still going to turn into a
> Wendigo.
Cheers
JOanna
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Feb 23, 2015, 1:16:08 PM2/23/15
to
In article <f5ef9f31-9889-4fa8...@googlegroups.com>,
Cheers
JOanna
just...@gmail.com (Justisaur) wrote:
> There should be another word for eating of other sentients which
> would apply. Sentivore?
I like it
> There should be another word for eating of other sentients which
> would apply. Sentivore?
Cheers
JOanna
Tetsubo
Feb 23, 2015, 4:47:40 PM2/23/15
to
are sentient. I am sapient. My cats are aware. I am self-aware. If we
want to use a term like this, 'sapivore' might be more accurate. Do we
have any linguists about?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 23, 2015, 6:48:53 PM2/23/15
to
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mcg74h$c0c$1...@dont-email.me:
Traveller loves the term "sophont," apparently coined by Poul
Anderson's wife in 1966.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:mcg74h$c0c$1...@dont-email.me:
Anderson's wife in 1966.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Spalls Hurgenson
Feb 24, 2015, 9:29:40 AM2/24/15
to
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:42:19 -0500, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On 2/23/2015 9:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> jrowlan...@cix.co.uk (Joanna Rowland Stuart) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <vfpjealk2s9gsudp4...@4ax.com>,
>>> spallsh...@gmail.com (Spalls Hurgenson) wrote:
> "But in a high fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what
>constitutes cannibalism?" I think that was *exactly* what I was asking.
>That we have to change the definition of cannibalism in a world with
>multiple sapient species. We only have the one that is legally
>recognized. So a narrow definition is all that is required. But in D&D?
>I think a very broad definition is called for. Or we need a new term.
>'Predation' does not cut it in my book.
<shrug> As you will. Personally, I'll stick with using the word as it
is defined.
Especially since we humans already have little issue eating creatures
that probably meet the INT=3+ classification (dogs, dolphins, possibly
pigs, parrots and crows) and don't consider that to be cannibalism.
Murder of a (possible) sentient and consumption of the remains, sure,
and those are bad enough. Just not cannibalism.
Perhaps rather than redefining an existing term, you create a new one
particular to your campaign world.
>> Again, to reference my own campaign world:
lines that it is not the EATING of the remains that disturbs (or
excites, depending on their disposition) the Powers in my campaign as
much as the wanton creation of said remains. It's the act of murder,
not the munching, that counts in the overall scheme of things. Meat is
eat, after all.
Though if I were to do something along those lines, there would
probably be different curses depending on whether you ate the flesh of
family, the flesh of your people (species) or the flesh of other
sentients.
wrote:
>On 2/23/2015 9:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> jrowlan...@cix.co.uk (Joanna Rowland Stuart) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <vfpjealk2s9gsudp4...@4ax.com>,
>>> spallsh...@gmail.com (Spalls Hurgenson) wrote:
> "But in a high fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what
>constitutes cannibalism?" I think that was *exactly* what I was asking.
>That we have to change the definition of cannibalism in a world with
>multiple sapient species. We only have the one that is legally
>recognized. So a narrow definition is all that is required. But in D&D?
>I think a very broad definition is called for. Or we need a new term.
>'Predation' does not cut it in my book.
is defined.
Especially since we humans already have little issue eating creatures
that probably meet the INT=3+ classification (dogs, dolphins, possibly
pigs, parrots and crows) and don't consider that to be cannibalism.
Murder of a (possible) sentient and consumption of the remains, sure,
and those are bad enough. Just not cannibalism.
Perhaps rather than redefining an existing term, you create a new one
particular to your campaign world.
>> Again, to reference my own campaign world:
> Apparently the gods are racists. How nice. If a dwarf eats a human in
>the frozen wastes of the North, he's still going to turn into a Wendigo.
To be fair, I never gave it much thought. I've always run it along the
>the frozen wastes of the North, he's still going to turn into a Wendigo.
lines that it is not the EATING of the remains that disturbs (or
excites, depending on their disposition) the Powers in my campaign as
much as the wanton creation of said remains. It's the act of murder,
not the munching, that counts in the overall scheme of things. Meat is
eat, after all.
Though if I were to do something along those lines, there would
probably be different curses depending on whether you ate the flesh of
family, the flesh of your people (species) or the flesh of other
sentients.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 24, 2015, 7:00:56 PM2/24/15
to
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Loren Pechtel
Feb 25, 2015, 12:07:36 AM2/25/15
to
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
>fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
>cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
>with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
>For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
>dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
I think it depends on the nature of the creature doing the eating.
>fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
>cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
>with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
>For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
>dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
There are intelligent creatures that normally prey on other species,
including intelligent ones. For such creatures I would define
cannibalism as eating their own species.
Beyond that I would be inclined to define it as the eating of anything
Int 3 or higher.
Loren Pechtel
Feb 25, 2015, 12:07:37 AM2/25/15
to
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:10:42 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(Personally, I don't have that much of a problem with cannibalism;
>it's just meat. It's more of an issue to me on how the cannibal /got/
>that meat, whether by murdering somebody who just wasn't ready to go
>into the pot, or stealing the body from a family that had different
>views on what to do with the deceased).
Yeah, the real issue is how it's acquired. It's just it's usually
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(Personally, I don't have that much of a problem with cannibalism;
>it's just meat. It's more of an issue to me on how the cannibal /got/
>that meat, whether by murdering somebody who just wasn't ready to go
>into the pot, or stealing the body from a family that had different
>views on what to do with the deceased).
acquired by evil means.
Gorg David Huff
Feb 25, 2015, 12:39:01 PM2/25/15
to
The thing that strikes me here is the notion that in all of D&D there
is going to be, one, definition of cannibalism. No variation. Not
between worlds, nations, cultures or tribes.
It's not like that in the real world we run the spectrum from absolute
vegetarians based on the belief that any animal has a soul to it's
only cannibalism if it's a close relative.
Try this as a possible situation on one game world:
Orc Tribe A believes only members of orc tribe A are people other orc
tribes and especially, humans, elves dwarves, and so on aren't members
of the tribe so they ain't people.
Orc Tribe B believe that all orcs are people but not Humans elves
so on.
Orc Tribe C believes that Orcs and Elves are people. Since Orc are an
"improved" version of Elves. However not humans, Dwarves so on.
Orc Tribe D believes "hominids" are people but not lizardmen,
dragons, Wargs so on.
Orc Tribe E believes member of their tribe and their wargs are
people but not other orc tribes.
And that's just the orcs in one corner of one continent on one world
in one universe in the D&D multiverse.
We haven't even touched on soilent green eaten with relish by the
lawful citizens of Lawful kingdom.
Gorg
is going to be, one, definition of cannibalism. No variation. Not
between worlds, nations, cultures or tribes.
It's not like that in the real world we run the spectrum from absolute
vegetarians based on the belief that any animal has a soul to it's
only cannibalism if it's a close relative.
Try this as a possible situation on one game world:
Orc Tribe A believes only members of orc tribe A are people other orc
tribes and especially, humans, elves dwarves, and so on aren't members
of the tribe so they ain't people.
Orc Tribe B believe that all orcs are people but not Humans elves
so on.
Orc Tribe C believes that Orcs and Elves are people. Since Orc are an
"improved" version of Elves. However not humans, Dwarves so on.
Orc Tribe D believes "hominids" are people but not lizardmen,
dragons, Wargs so on.
Orc Tribe E believes member of their tribe and their wargs are
people but not other orc tribes.
And that's just the orcs in one corner of one continent on one world
in one universe in the D&D multiverse.
We haven't even touched on soilent green eaten with relish by the
lawful citizens of Lawful kingdom.
Gorg
Tetsubo
Feb 25, 2015, 4:48:15 PM2/25/15
to
On 2/25/2015 12:39 PM, Gorg David Huff wrote:
> The thing that strikes me here is the notion that in all of D&D there
> is going to be, one, definition of cannibalism. No variation. Not
> between worlds, nations, cultures or tribes.
I was really addressing the players. What do we the players think
> The thing that strikes me here is the notion that in all of D&D there
> is going to be, one, definition of cannibalism. No variation. Not
> between worlds, nations, cultures or tribes.
cannibalism means in D&D? Or what does the GM think cannibalism is in
their world I suppose. What will get the characters in trouble?
Spalls Hurgenson
Feb 26, 2015, 9:41:21 AM2/26/15
to
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:48:16 -0500, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On 2/25/2015 12:39 PM, Gorg David Huff wrote:
>> The thing that strikes me here is the notion that in all of D&D there
>> is going to be, one, definition of cannibalism. No variation. Not
>> between worlds, nations, cultures or tribes.
>
> I was really addressing the players. What do we the players think
>cannibalism means in D&D? Or what does the GM think cannibalism is in
>their world I suppose. What will get the characters in trouble?
As DM and player, I stand by the idea that only eating the flesh of my
species would count as cannibalism.
But eating the flesh of any other sentient would still probably get a
character in trouble. It's not cannibalism but it probably isn't
smiled upon by the Gods and Laws of the land.
Having said that, almost every monster in the D&D universe seems to be
capable of rational thought, and even the "dumb beasts" of the land
seem to be able to communicate ideas pretty well with the assistance
of magic. Hell, even some plants get into the act. It's probably very
hard for an ordinary person NOT to end up eating something that could
be considered sapient. So either people have become careful in what
they eat (I imagine a diet that consists almost entirely of slime
pudding and other INT=0 critters) or the culture evolved so it's just
not such a bad thing to eat something that can talk back.
And given that "dragon steaks" seem to be a fairly common menu item at
the higher-priced taverns, I'm guessing it's the latter ;-)
wrote:
>On 2/25/2015 12:39 PM, Gorg David Huff wrote:
>> The thing that strikes me here is the notion that in all of D&D there
>> is going to be, one, definition of cannibalism. No variation. Not
>> between worlds, nations, cultures or tribes.
>
> I was really addressing the players. What do we the players think
>cannibalism means in D&D? Or what does the GM think cannibalism is in
>their world I suppose. What will get the characters in trouble?
species would count as cannibalism.
But eating the flesh of any other sentient would still probably get a
character in trouble. It's not cannibalism but it probably isn't
smiled upon by the Gods and Laws of the land.
Having said that, almost every monster in the D&D universe seems to be
capable of rational thought, and even the "dumb beasts" of the land
seem to be able to communicate ideas pretty well with the assistance
of magic. Hell, even some plants get into the act. It's probably very
hard for an ordinary person NOT to end up eating something that could
be considered sapient. So either people have become careful in what
they eat (I imagine a diet that consists almost entirely of slime
pudding and other INT=0 critters) or the culture evolved so it's just
not such a bad thing to eat something that can talk back.
And given that "dragon steaks" seem to be a fairly common menu item at
the higher-priced taverns, I'm guessing it's the latter ;-)
Gordon Burditt
Feb 27, 2015, 2:31:23 PM2/27/15
to
>>(Personally, I don't have that much of a problem with cannibalism;
>>it's just meat. It's more of an issue to me on how the cannibal /got/
>>that meat, whether by murdering somebody who just wasn't ready to go
>>into the pot, or stealing the body from a family that had different
>>views on what to do with the deceased).
>
> Yeah, the real issue is how it's acquired. It's just it's usually
> acquired by evil means.
Is it *MURDER* if you kill a member of another sentient species?
>>it's just meat. It's more of an issue to me on how the cannibal /got/
>>that meat, whether by murdering somebody who just wasn't ready to go
>>into the pot, or stealing the body from a family that had different
>>views on what to do with the deceased).
>
> Yeah, the real issue is how it's acquired. It's just it's usually
> acquired by evil means.
Is it OK to kill a member of another sentient species for sport?
Or is that wrong? Or is it wasting food?
In 2015 in the USA, it seems to be OK for me to kill MY cattle,
(especially for food) but it is not OK for you to kill MY cattle.
On the other hand, me killing my cats or dogs is frowned upon. In
other countries using dogs for food is perfectly normal. And nobody
really worries much that their actions might kill (wild) cockroaches,
rats, etc. on my property. That might also apply to wolves, coyotes,
bobcats, etc. in an urban environment.
It's usually the murder part that gets you in trouble. I think
people are more understanding of cannibalism if it's a situation
of people stranded in a lifeboat eating people who had already died
of natural causes (e.g. starvation, thirst, drowning) to save their
own lives and there's enough evidence around that this was the case.
Tetsubo
Feb 27, 2015, 3:45:00 PM2/27/15
to
care a whole lot more if you kill a sapient being. Mostly because humans
are sapient beings. That the killer might be inclined to eat their
victim really comes in a distant second place for me. It's the killing
part that I am concerned about.
tussock
Mar 8, 2015, 10:09:15 PM3/8/15
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
> fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
> cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
> with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
> For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
> dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
In the real world, taboos against eating people were likely
> I'm not sure if we've talked about this before or not. But in a high
> fantasy setting with hundreds of sapient beings, what constitutes
> cannibalism? Strictly your own species? Things similar to you? Anything
> with an Int score of 3 or higher? How do *you* define it in your game?
> For me, it's anything with an Int score of 3 or higher. So having a
> dragon steak is the same as an orc munching an elf.
reinforced by the experience of eating man-flesh in times of need. Each
population consuming the dead would exponentially accumulate prion
diseases.
Similarly, there's ancient taboos against eating most animal's
brains, but not sheep brains, as we /can/ get most brain-prion diseases
but we /can't/ get the sheep brain-prion disease (scrapie).
There's clearly experience at work /there/. It's probably the same
deal with eating people, only there's a lot more diseases can carry
through from eating dead people.
For D&D purposes, whatever magical shit happens from eating the dead
(becoming ghouls or ghasts, turning the dead into ghosts, whatever else),
that would determine taboos well enough.
As for what you shouldn't eat in polite company, what might upset the
odd player of the game, a simple rule is if you could have a nice
conversation with it over dinner, it's not dinner, and anyone who says
otherwise is a *monster*.
So don't eat badgers in Gnome country, and don't invite Druids to
dinner at all (bloody fruitarians, everyone knows they eat rabbit).
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Mar 9, 2015, 7:55:47 AM3/9/15
to
might askew animal flesh but most would simply see it as part of the
cycle of life.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Mar 9, 2015, 8:01:55 AM3/9/15
to
In article <mdivar$a3u$1...@dont-email.me>, sc...@clear.net.nz (tussock)
wrote:
> don't invite Druids to
> dinner at all (bloody fruitarians, everyone knows they eat rabbit).
Well I suspect a druid would eat an Int 1 or less creature, especially if
the druid is a member of the Circle of the Moon and spends a fair bit of
time in beast form.
Certainly they'd eat fish.
Int 1 creatures can't hold a conversation - but Int 2 can.
Cheers
JOanna
wrote:
> don't invite Druids to
> dinner at all (bloody fruitarians, everyone knows they eat rabbit).
the druid is a member of the Circle of the Moon and spends a fair bit of
time in beast form.
Certainly they'd eat fish.
Int 1 creatures can't hold a conversation - but Int 2 can.
Cheers
JOanna
Anonymous Jack
Mar 9, 2015, 11:54:57 AM3/9/15
to
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:55:47 AM UTC-4, Tetsubo wrote:
> I've never considered Druids to be anything other than omnivores. ... most would simply see it as part of the cycle of life.
Herbivores agree with you
http://io9.com/field-cameras-catch-deer-eating-birds-wait-why-do-deer-1689440870
> I've never considered Druids to be anything other than omnivores. ... most would simply see it as part of the cycle of life.
Herbivores agree with you
http://io9.com/field-cameras-catch-deer-eating-birds-wait-why-do-deer-1689440870
Tetsubo
Mar 9, 2015, 3:30:31 PM3/9/15
to
tussock
Mar 10, 2015, 5:30:54 AM3/10/15
to
Tetsubo wrote:
chance; all the omnivores and carnivores at least. If you're going to
argue druids follow the ways of nature, they should just eat people too,
should they happen to die in the woods. Which, when there's Druids, a lot
of people die in the woods, really.
That's a more interesting take than them being fruitarians, matches
the Centaurs and Bears a bit better. Yeh, I can use that.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> As for what you shouldn't eat in polite company, what might upset
>> the odd player of the game, a simple rule is if you could have a nice
>> conversation with it over dinner, it's not dinner, and anyone who says
>> otherwise is a *monster*.
>> So don't eat badgers in Gnome country, and don't invite Druids to
>> dinner at all (bloody fruitarians, everyone knows they eat rabbit).
>>
> I've never considered Druids to be anything other than omnivores.
> Some might askew animal flesh but most would simply see it as part of
> the cycle of life.
Lots of natural critters would eat dead people if they got the
>> As for what you shouldn't eat in polite company, what might upset
>> the odd player of the game, a simple rule is if you could have a nice
>> conversation with it over dinner, it's not dinner, and anyone who says
>> otherwise is a *monster*.
>> So don't eat badgers in Gnome country, and don't invite Druids to
>> dinner at all (bloody fruitarians, everyone knows they eat rabbit).
>>
> I've never considered Druids to be anything other than omnivores.
> Some might askew animal flesh but most would simply see it as part of
> the cycle of life.
chance; all the omnivores and carnivores at least. If you're going to
argue druids follow the ways of nature, they should just eat people too,
should they happen to die in the woods. Which, when there's Druids, a lot
of people die in the woods, really.
That's a more interesting take than them being fruitarians, matches
the Centaurs and Bears a bit better. Yeh, I can use that.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Mar 10, 2015, 7:57:59 AM3/10/15
to
indifferent with them using sapient beings as food.
Justisaur
Mar 10, 2015, 11:33:19 AM3/10/15
to
No reason for them to be frutarians, unless they've magic to make that easy cause the berry bushes to produce fruit instantly or something.
- Justisaur
hamis...@gmail.com
Mar 11, 2015, 7:39:56 PM3/11/15
to
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 2:33:19 AM UTC+11, Justisaur wrote:
> No, because you still don't eat your own species. Also because druids aren't scavengers... though I suppose they might turn into one.
>
> No reason for them to be frutarians, unless they've magic to make that easy cause the berry bushes to produce fruit instantly or something.
goodberry is a push that way ...
> No, because you still don't eat your own species. Also because druids aren't scavengers... though I suppose they might turn into one.
>
> No reason for them to be frutarians, unless they've magic to make that easy cause the berry bushes to produce fruit instantly or something.
0 new messages