Sejs said:
Moral relativistic quandries are why God gave us Detect Evil.
Both examples you mentioned arn't just evil because of their diet. Hell, in theory a human could be a cannibal and still be good, as long as the eating was for survival purposes alone.
Actually, the above presuposes that survival outweighs other ethical concerns....and that is a presuposition which is shaky at best. Yes, I agree without reservation that a character can commit evil acts without himself being evil. In the case of eating the talking bunny, the act might be necessary but it would trouble a neutral being (read the alignment descriptions if you doubt me). A paladin would be in a bit more trouble.
The idea that my life is of greater value than your life is, simply put, not a good idea. Depending upon how it expresses itself, it might be neutral (you are trying to kill me, and I kill you in self defense) or evil (I kill you for fun).
In Narnia, there is a flat prohibition against eating talking animals. See
The Silver Chair for more on this. In Gregory Maguire's Oz books (
Wicked and
Son of a Witch) there is a prohibition against eating Animals (the capitalization indicating that they are awakened)...albeit that the Wizard instituted a pogrom against Animals talking, making it a lot easier to look the other way....
My campaign has animal gods (Beast Lords) who spontaneously awaken animals, and make humanoid animals as well. These sometimes breed true; sometimes do not. A family of Awakened Dogs might have a couple of normal dogs in their midst. Where things get grey is with the non-awakened relatives. Is it really okay to eat the mother of an Awakened Pig?
RC