D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Maxperson]

Do you want to be Cursed by the Gods? This is how you get Cursed by the Gods!

I'm pretty sure that the intestinal issues that follow the eating of a demon would feel that way.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. Considering eating sapients 'evil' is very human centric view. (Though I'd argue that as cetaceans posses near human-level intelligence, humans basically do this in the real world.) In my setting gnolls are not demon spawn, they're a species of naturally occurring cynocephalics. But if they come to conflict with humans (which they will, because humans are jerks) they will eat any killed humans. They do not have a taboo against such, and this doesn't make them evil. Some other sentient species behave in the same way.

In my game they are also not demon spawn and eat other sentient races, but are evil for doing so, because whether or not you view it as evil, it's still an evil act. Their lack of taboo doesn't change their alignment, it just makes them like most evil people....................ignorant of their evil status.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my game they are also not demon spawn and eat other sentient races, but are evil for doing so, because whether or not you view it as evil, it's still an evil act. Their lack of taboo doesn't change their alignment, it just makes them like most evil people....................ignorant of their evil status.

Well, I don't use alignment. Some humans in the setting certainly consider the gnolls evil for this, but gnolls will just be: "That's just like your opinion, man! We consider wasting perfectly good food to be immoral!"

And I really don't understand why having some objective definition of who's right would in any way or form improve the game.

 

[Faolyn]

Yep. Considering eating sapients 'evil' is very human centric view. (Though I'd argue that as cetaceans posses near human-level intelligence, humans basically do this in the real world.) In my setting gnolls are not demon spawn, they're a species of naturally occurring cynocephalics. But if they come to conflict with humans (which they will, because humans are jerks) they will eat any killed humans. They do not have a taboo against such, and this doesn't make them evil. Some other sentient species behave in the same way.

Some of it, of course, depends on the motivations of the creature doing the eating. "Because it's meat," isn't particularly evil. "Because other creatures are only meat" is fairly evil. "To ensure their essence and strength remains among our people and to honor our ancestors" isn't evil. "To devour their soul and steal their strength for myself" is fairly evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I don't use alignment. Some humans in the setting certainly consider the gnolls evil for this, but gnolls will just be: "That's just like your opinion, man! We consider wasting perfectly good food to be immoral!"

And I really don't understand why having some objective definition of who's right would in any way or form improve the game.

I don't think either way improves the game. It's just preference.

 

[Maxperson]

Some of it, of course, depends on the motivations of the creature doing the eating. "Because it's meat," isn't particularly evil. "Because other creatures are only meat" is fairly evil. "To ensure their essence and strength remains among our people and to honor our ancestors" isn't evil. "To devour their soul and steal their strength for myself" is fairly evil.

Motivation can mitigate it a bit, but it doesn't change the act itself. If you could shoot a baby in the head right after its born, saving millions of lives, would that be a good act? No. It would still be an evil murder, but with really good intentions. Shooting babies isn't under any circumstance a good act. It's the same with consuming sentient beings. It doesn't matter if it's to ensure strength remains with your people and to honor your ancestors, it's still going to be evil.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Motivation can mitigate it a bit, but it doesn't change the act itself. If you could shoot a baby in the head right after its born, saving millions of lives, would that be a good act? No. It would still be an evil murder, but with really good intentions. Shooting babies isn't under any circumstance a good act. It's the same with consuming sentient beings. It doesn't matter if it's to ensure strength remains with your people and to honor your ancestors, it's still going to be evil.

Whilst one can make some general arguments how harming living beings is bad and shouldn't be done without a very good reason, how one deals with corpses is just cultural and religious thing. It would be weird to impose universal cultural and religious norms on the whole setting. I'm sure some ancient cultures would see our use of organ transplants as heinous necromancy. But the dead are dead, they cannot be harmed.

Also, people keep saying 'sentient' when they presumably mean 'sapient.' If you oppose eating sentient creatures you'd be a vegetarian.

 

[Maxperson]

Whilst one can make some general arguments how harming living beings is bad and shouldn't be done without a very good reason, how one deals with corpses is just cultural and religious thing. It would be weird to impose universal cultural and religious norms on the whole setting. I'm sure some ancient cultures would see our use of organ transplants as heinous necromancy. But the dead are dead, they cannot be harmed.

Desecration is bad in almost every culture(saying almost, because I don't like using absolutes). What qualifies as desecration changes from culture to culture. It's also not about harming the dead, but rather about the act itself.

Also, people keep saying 'sentient' when they presumably mean 'sapient.' If you oppose eating sentient creatures you'd be a vegetarian.

I wonder if it's evil to eat the pears off of a sapient pearwood tree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Desecration is bad in almost every culture(saying almost, because I don't like using absolutes). What qualifies as desecration changes from culture to culture. It's also not about harming the dead, but rather about the act itself.

Right. And perhaps cultures who practice people eating do not consider it desecration? No one is actually harmed except feelings of those who find it yucky.

 

[Voadam]

I wonder if it's evil to eat the pears off of a sapient pearwood tree.