Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice

[JackGiantkiller]

Thanks!



Yeah, you but you can't reduce that down to a slogan, a 30-second commercial, or a two-minute call to talk radio show.



By the way, did you see the article I referenced about research into the anterior insula of the brain and moral decision making? It's interesting stuff that deals with the viceral sense of morality that people have:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/latimes050204.htm

Reading it now. thanks.

 

[painandgreed]

IMC: Actions cause the generation of either negative or positive energy, which we take for good or evil. Some actions generate both of these although the ratio between them can differ greatly depending on how and why it is being done. Intelligent creatures also generate these types of energies in the emotions they feel and thoughts they think. Typically, kindness and compation and other similar feelings generate good, while things like hatred and envy generate evil. Death always creates some negative energy when it happens for whatever reason. Philosophies between idealologies differ on what rations of the two energies generated by different actions are acceptable. Thus a paladin may kill an evil monster for the good of the surrounding people while regretting he has to take such an action. While his act as killing does create some negative energy, this may be inconsequential compared to the negative energy that is no longer generated by the creature itself. His compassion for those that the monster was hurting outweighs the negative energy he cretes by killing the creature. Imprisoning the creature would have been preferable and not have created the negative energy. An evil or neutral person who kills a similar monster may reduce the amount of net evil in the world but the act itself would not be good because it was done for self serving or evil actions.

Anyway, on to our examples...

Cannibalism generates some negative energy in whatever form. The eating of the flesh of intelligent creatures, even animal intelligent contains some generation of negative energy. So would the pain, suffering and death of starvation. It can generally be assumed that cannibalism to survive would technically not be a net evil act. Killing for the meat might be. Some philosophies or metaphysical rules may prohibit such acts so while some good creatures may be able to preform some forms of cannibalism, others may not. Thus, the eatting of the flesh of another intelligent creature may even be a net good act if done out of compassion and it actually aids the dead creature even though the eating of the flesh does generate some negative energy.

Human sacrifice - I'll define such as the dedication of a human life to a metaphysical power through the act of death, or something along those lines. This is almost always an evil act simply because good metaphysical powers do not desire nor accept such offerings. Even when sacrificing animals to a good power, typically, teh creature s to be killed anyway and the meat eaten by those makign the sacrifice. The offering, not the death, is a way of showing dedication and giving thanks to such a power. Some people may be creamated or otherwise offered to certain powers after the fact of their death in an effort to speed them on their way, but good powers don't usually require a death (the generation of negative energy) in their honor, thus doing so voluntarilly is rarely a good act.

Self sacrifice is soemthing competly different and would generally depend on why they're doing it. Self sacrifice out of compassion for others would be a good act while self sacrifice to cause harm to others would be evil. Again, due to differing metaphysical rules beyond the scope of what is explained here, such self sacrifice may be allowed to some good creatures while forbidden to others in some or all forms.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

I cannot refute your assertion that no good metaphysical power would accept human sacrifice without referencing real world religion in such a way as to get me stoned. Besides...you did say in your campaign, so it works however you want it to, there.

 

[painandgreed]

I cannot refute your assertion that no good metaphysical power would accept human sacrifice without referencing real world religion in such a way as to get me stoned. Besides...you did say in your campaign, so it works however you want it to, there.

Yes. I do not mix my D&D metaphysics with those of Real Life or those of any other game system.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I belive cannibalisim is not an evil act - unless the person(s) that are cannibals prefer to hunt and kill their enemies before eating them (Hannibal Lecter?).

 

[Imret]

Having read all the posts in all the recent alignment threads, I have but two, tiny, only-semi-on-topic statements.

1) If I wasn't already doing away with the D&D alignment system as written, I sure would be now. Attempting to apply it in any sense beyond "who gets the face full of blasphemy?" is enough to make your head spin. Or, more simply: any rule which requires more than 10,000 words to explain - and it's still a point of contention amongst players - is probably not useful in play.

2) Considering how strict some of these definitions of an "evil act" are, paladins deserve a lot more abilities than they get.

That is all. Resume poop-throwing!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Killing; the simple act of taking another being's life, without getting into any details about what/where/when/why/who/how, is not evil. The base action of taking a life is neutral.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.​

Believing that killing is a neutral act is itself part of the D&D definition of evil. Having qualms about killing implies that you believe killing is evil, and should not be done if avoidable.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Exactly. Performing a sacrifice with the consent of the sacrificee is at worst neutral.

No. Performing a sacrifice with the consent to the sacrificee is at best neutral, and can never be a good act.

In the D&D definition of evil,

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.​

As I said in the previous post, believing that killing is a neutral act is itself part of the D&D definition of evil. Having qualms about killing implies that you believe killing is evil, and should not be done if avoidable.

There were a lot of qualifiers to make killing even a willing sacrifice neutral in my post. I certainly do not agree with you.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven,

I stand corrected. You are quite right. Killing is always evil in D&D -- I re-read the rules. But why do you suppose it is that 75% of feats, 50% of spells and over half of the text in the PHB is about ways your character can do evil? Isn't most level advancement in most classes (paladins included) simply about getting more proficient at committing evil acts?

<snip>

Are we not in danger of running games whose rules encourage people to behave in ways that they themselves define as evil?

I'm not sure you're 100% serious here, Fusangite, but you are correct. Dr. Awkward (and others) would probably claim that there is no danger here because, despite how the rules define evil, real-world morality is more slippery.

Of course, D&D is filled with things that must be fought in order to prevent them from doing worse evil. But, if the PCs kill the NPCs when they are defeated -- if they strike without need -- then, certainly, they are doing evil. Heck, if Bilbo had struck without need, then what would have happened to Middle Earth?

If you read most story hours, I think you will find that most D&D PCs are not people you'd like to invite over to your house.


RC

 

[Imret]

Of course, D&D is filled with things that must be fought in order to prevent them from doing worse evil. But, if the PCs kill the NPCs when they are defeated -- if they strike without need -- then, certainly, they are doing evil.

I'm just hoping for clarification here, as I'm not sure where part of this is going. Let me double-check.

1) While trekking through the wilderness, the party encounters an orcish warband on its way to sack a human village. Combat ensues, and each and every orc among them is reduced from positive hit points to -10 in one final blow, so that the strike is unquestionably fatal. Is this evil?

2) Same as above, but the majority of the orcs are knocked into negatives, but not killed outright. The party, uninterested in the fate of cruel, greedy, rapacious orcs, rides on without another thought. The orcs, untended, bleed to death in the woods. Is this evil?

3) See above examples for the basis. This time, however, several orcs recover eventually, return to their cave, and plot another raid on the village. Did the PC's perform evil (by omission) by permitting them to slaughter innocents at a future date?

4) Same party, same orcs, same battlefield littered with dying orcs. Not wanting any to recover, limp home, and heal to raid again, a couple PC's take the time to knife those still breathing before continuing on ahead. Is this evil?

As I said, I'm just curious as to how your views on this stand.