D&D General Fantasy cannibalism, a theoretical philosophy discussion

[prabe]

My general answer to why not? Heroes don't eat people. I'm not interested in making it more complicated than that. At least in my normal campaign, which defaults to, at worst, CG larceny. I try to strive for heroics mostly.

Indeed. "Eats sentient beings by choice" is exclusively a feature of evil beings.

 

[Oofta]

Fair enough. It would probably never come up in my campaign because being raised from the dead is not that simple.

Even if it were, eating the dead has long been seen as unacceptable. Mythology is rife with ghouls, wendigo and other monsters resulting from eating the dead. It's also just something that would never come up as a PC challenge because to me it's a no-win situation. I don't put my players through those as a personal preference.

Just to add to my response a bit. In previous living campaigns there were mods where you literally had to choose between a devil and a demon. In other cases, you had to agree to do something morally questionable, borderline evil. If you didn't the mod was over in 15 minutes, no XP, no gold or any other rewards. We (my wife and I, several friends we played with on a regular basis) hated it.

I don't do that to my players. It's a game, I want them to have the option to be heroes. Will there be dilemas of how to overcome obstacles or tough choices to make? Of course. It will never be a choice between a demon and a devil. I will never put PCs into a situation where the only option is an evil act. One of the options? The easiest, least risky option? Sure. The only option? Never.

 

[prabe]

I don't do that to my players. It's a game, I want them to have the option to be heroes. Will there be dilemas of how to overcome obstacles or tough choices to make? Of course. It will never be a choice between a demon and a devil. I will never put PCs into a situation where the only option is an evil act. One of the options? The easiest, least risky option? Sure. The only option? Never.

My own preference is to put the PCs in a position where they have to choose between goods, not evils. I might be willing to tempt them with a shortcut that led them to evil, but it hasn't come up yet.

 

[Fenris-77]

My own preference is to put the PCs in a position where they have to choose between goods, not evils. I might be willing to tempt them with a shortcut that led them to evil, but it hasn't come up yet.

Choosing between two evils is a very useful trick in Horror campaigns where forcing choices with upsetting consequences is part of the vibe, but that's about the only place I'd use it.

 

[prabe]

Choosing between two evils is a very useful trick in Horror campaigns where forcing choices with upsetting consequences is part of the vibe, but that's about the only place I'd use it.

Yeah, the whole desperate times and desperate measures thing.

 

[GMMichael]

Eventually, one of you succumbs to starvation, and the rest of you, in desperation, eat them.
Subsequently, you are rescued.

So here's the question: how great is your duty of care? How responsible are you to restore them?

I think some of you may have glossed over this: no heroes killed any other heroes here. One of them starved out, which probably means there was no meat left on his bones anyway. (See the movie, Seven, for a good starvation reference/visual.)

The heroes can choose to be "heroes" and not eat Mr. Boney, but I guess the implication here is that they'd have died if they didn't? So sure, take the noble route and don't eat him. The next to die will provide, give or take, twice as much temptation to eat the skinny dead. Next: a pile of dead, emaciated, but still heroic heroes.

I really can't decide what the duty-of-resurrection-care is here, because 1) 2500 gold could be a fortune or a drop-in-the-bucket, and 2) what makes sense anymore, when resurrecting someone is a financial decision?

I don't do that to my players. It's a game, I want them to have the option to be heroes. Will there be dilemas of how to overcome obstacles or tough choices to make? Of course. It will never be a choice between a demon and a devil. I will never put PCs into a situation where the only option is an evil act. One of the options? The easiest, least risky option? Sure. The only option? Never.

So, I'd recommend against the Book of Vile Darkness for you then. Unless, that is, you've just the slightest amount of curiosity about the dark side. Mwa ha ha...

Indeed. "Eats sentient beings by choice" is exclusively a feature of evil beings.

A corpse isn't a sentient being. Zero intelligence, trust me.

 

[Reynard]

I am under no obligation. I did not kill him.

If he was under the charge of a ship’s captain it might be different. I don’t know. Maritime law in a magical setting is not my forte.

The question of the morality and responsibility surrounding resurrection is an interesting one. If one has access to resurrection magic, should one be morally obliged to use it to undo unjust or accidental deaths? Does the answer change based on the cost (if any) of casting the spell? If so, how much? What level of injustice demands the diamond dust or whatever?

 

[DMP]

We are playing TOA at the moment and have been ramping up the lack of rations, forage, and water. We have a druid in the group and the party mulled over the idea of letting the druid change into something tasty and cutting a bit off .................I let them sweat this out for a bit then pointed the Druid in the direction of the Goodberry spell.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Just to add to my response a bit. In previous living campaigns there were mods where you literally had to choose between a devil and a demon. In other cases, you had to agree to do something morally questionable, borderline evil. If you didn't the mod was over in 15 minutes, no XP, no gold or any other rewards. We (my wife and I, several friends we played with on a regular basis) hated it.

I don't do that to my players. It's a game, I want them to have the option to be heroes. Will there be dilemas of how to overcome obstacles or tough choices to make? Of course. It will never be a choice between a demon and a devil. I will never put PCs into a situation where the only option is an evil act. One of the options? The easiest, least risky option? Sure. The only option? Never.

I love making settings with disputes between good and good. It's incredibly sticky and slippery. Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good vs. Neutral (Nature) is my favorite type of conflict.

 

[prabe]

So, I'd recommend against the Book of Vile Darkness for you then. Unless, that is, you've just the slightest amount of curiosity about the dark side. Mwa ha ha...


A corpse isn't a sentient being. Zero intelligence, trust me.

I have run in a previous edition, with a Book of Vile Darkness in play, but also a Book of Exalted Deeds. One without the other seems ... unbalanced--not mechanically, more aesthetically/philosophically.

I will grant, though, that the corpse is no longer intelligent (barring magic or other wierdness). OTOH, killing sentient beings to eat them is distinctly monstrous.

The standard of care here depends on too many things for there to be one definitive answer for everyone, I suspect.