Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice

[JackGiantkiller]

Imret, I'll take those in order, and add a caveat: if the orcs are not evil, these definitions change.
These are all IMO.

1.) Instant kills? Good planning. Dead evil orcs, no threat to village. Good act.

2.)Leaving them for dead? Stupid, but not evil. One of them might stabilize, survive, and come back for revenge. I know I'd do that to my PC's in a heartbeat.

3)Leaving the orcs alive when they are going to be a threat to the village? Stupid. If the orcs are irredeemable (by the RAW they are only usually evil, so this doesn't apply) as in some campaigns, failure to act is not good...but not evil. Neutral stupid is my judgement.

4) Killing the wounded? It's called coup de grace for a reason. Strike of grace. Also called misericorde, or the end of pain. Standard battlefield practice in almost every nation, almost every creed, until modern day. Not evil, unless you are enforcing a modern worldview in your particular campaign, in which case none of my judgements would be valid.

If you don't kill them, you *have* to take them prisoner and try to redeem them if you are a 'holy' person (paladin or cleric of a loving god), everybody else just goes on. Note that I would not have a problem with even a paladin killing each and every one of them unless they actually surrendered and begged for mercy.

Historic knights regularly killed dishonorable opponents out of hand, only granting quarter to honorable foes. Orcs in most campaigns would not qualify. They are just vermin to be exterminated.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

D&D evil has no problem with killing. It may or may not like it, but it will do it without qualms. He doesn't lose his evil status no matter what he does, although he might qualify to become Vile if he's bad enough.

D&D neutral has a problem with killing INNOCENTS (and apparently none with killing the guilty)... but still does it sometimes. A neutral character who kills an innocent person may or may not lose his neutrality. If he does so regretfully, knowing that he's doing wrong but thinking he has no choice, he probably gets to stay neutral. If he does so in the heat of passion and later regrets his action, he probably gets to stay neutral.

D&D good won't kill INNOCENTS (but has no qualms with killing the guilty). A good character who kills an innocent person loses his goodness, which in the case of paladins and certain clerics means he loses class abilities. Even if he regrets it, or does it for the greater good.

ANY D&D character can freely kill non-innocents without any apparent moral quandry.

Good's "respect for life" does not imply that good doesn't kill anybody. Just that good is, well, GOOD to life. Good tries to help people, ease their pain, not kill innocents, etc. It doesn't say anything about lopping the head off every evil so-and-so (or even guilty neutrals) who comes into range.

Nothing in the core alignment system ever implies that killing the guilty (not even the evil, although that's the implication) is morally wrong or even worth thinking twice about. The non-core Book of Exalted Deeds does mention killing even the guilty and evil as being not Exalted, although not all Exalted characters completely refrain from killing - the Vow of Peace is an OPTION even for EXALTED (that is, good beyond paladins, perhaps even beyond good outsiders) characters.

Killing an unwilling (but guilty) person in a human sacrifice is, by the RAW, not Evil (though it's not Exalted, either); killing a willing (but innocent) person in a human sacrifice, by the same rules, is Evil. The willingness or unwillingness of the subject don't matter to D&D, nor, really, do the extenuating circumstances. Just the guilt or innocence. Cannibalism probably doesn't register as an alignment issue. The RAW lizardman paladin's motto is, "Kill to eat, find guilty meat!"

The real question becomes, what defines innocence and guilt in D&D alignment terms?

Is anyone with an Evil alignment "guilty" for these purposes? Anyone who commits certain acts? If so, which acts?

Now, all of this is moot to me; I don't use an alignment system, and the code of ethics and morality in my campaign worlds is based on naturalism and works out quite differently from D&D's alignment. But in D&D, guilt is the central issue where killing is concerned.

 

[Imret]

Well Jack, I gotta say I'm with you on these ones, and I sort of wrote under the assumption that "orcs" without qualifier implies RAW, evil orcs, working with the idea that any roving orcish warband is composed of evil individuals.

Really, for the PC's at the time, there's no difference between 2 and 3; just a bunch of orcs lying on the field, badly wounded, and the PC's leave. I agree neither are evil, but 3 is just the orcs being luckier than most.

In regards to 4, though, the idea of taking bands of orcs and whatnot prisoner, then trying to redeem them, is probably not what a lot of PC's (or players) would think of as enjoyable gaming. It's "heroic adventuring", not "criminal psychology". I see your point in terms of the moral stance on the issue, it just makes for a less than great experience, IMO.

"Carry on ahead, brave companions! I must remain here and speak with these orcs we have subdued, as my god will forsake me if most of my time isn't spent rehabilitating psychopaths."

Bo-ring. But that is, again, my opinion. After all, it falls to the paladin/cleric himself to attempt the redemption, since it's a pretty slim chance the local authorities will agree to jail a half-dozen orcs until they repent of their evil ways...they'll smile, thank you for your noble service, and execute them as soon as you ride over the hill. Though I suppose, if that's the sort of thing the gods demand, the 'holy' person's church might do..."Learning To See With Both Eyes Again: A 12-step program for orcs"?

And on the topic of historical quarter/strike of grace, sadly, I think this thread has suggested time and time again that everything we used to is evil. (/humor)

But either way, thanks for your perspective on it, and I largely agree. I'm curious what the "all killing, regardless of circumstances, is evil" camp has to suggest, though.

 

[Imret]

Now, all of this is moot to me; I don't use an alignment system, and the code of ethics and morality in my campaign worlds is based on naturalism and works out quite differently from D&D's alignment.

Interesting points all over, but this part struck me. Any chance I could get a look at this, either as another thread or email? I'm not happy with RAW alignment at all, but I would like something of a compass to work from; mostly for the aforementioned "face full of blasphemy".

fedaykin at kmfms dot com if email is better for you.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Cannibalism probably doesn't register as an alignment issue. The RAW lizardman paladin's motto is, "Kill to eat, find guilty meat!"

That line rocks. And, in fact, the rest of your argument has weight. I still say Raven didn't ask about D&D>

 

[Raven Crowking]

We have a fundamental disconnect here. Some posters believe that killing is inherently evil. Some do not. The D&D rules do indeed state that killing is evil, but they also state that a paladin loses his status at the first evil act...so no paladins get past their first battle. In addition, while Raven Crowking may have intended his question to be about whether cannibalism and human sacrifice are evil in D&D, what he actually asked was if anyone could argue that they are not evil. Specifically, he referred to moral relativism, which implies that he meant * in the real world* since D&D alignment is objective.

In the real world, I do not believe that violence, or indeed, killing, are inherently evil. There are circumstances which justify their use. Many of you do not accept this...and you have every right not to. We each make our own moral choices.

I submit that we, the dissenters, have successfully argued for the possibility of non-evil, (possibly good) human sacrifice, and non-evil (even I hesitate to say good) cannibalism, and that the only thing preventing acceptance of our position is the aforementioned fundamental disconnect. Which is actually cool.

This thread harkens back to the "Is slavery evil?" thread. What I was trying to pull out of my hat was the most obvious thing I could think of off the top of my head -- the thing that, in fact, fewest people would argue about.

Enlightening, to say the least.

You are, of course, right about the way that I worded the question. To be honest, I thought it was largely rhetorical when I typed it.

Within D&D, though, the alignment system claims that good creatures protect the dignity of others, or words to that effect, and some might consider cannibalism as an affront to said dignity. Still, unless we're discussing a system where eating the dead somehow harms them (affects the afterlife?), then I feel that the "cannibalism is neutral" position has to hold. I certainly didn't go into the thread with that opinion.

As far as the human sacrifice goes, though, I haven't read anything yet which is even remotely compelling. Basically put, good beings have qualms about killing. Neutral beings will not kill the innocent. Evil beings do not care.

Specifically, "Good implies...respect for life" and "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." If you are good, and you can avoid killing, you will avoid killing. Killing is not your first solution, and it is never the best solution.

Neutral may not have qualms with killing the guilty, but good certainly does. Good, simply put, does not kill without qualms.

Which means that, at best, killing is a neutral act, and then only when necessary. The minute you say, "My killing was a just and good act," you have proceeded to "kill[ing] without qualms if doing so is convenient" -- and that is part of the definition of evil in D&D.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I don't blame you for not knowing....but let's assume that we're using the SRD alignment system here, and I'll try to answer your questions the way I would in a real game.

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?

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life....“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient being.​

I am assuming that (1) the human village can reasonably be assumed to fall under the definition of "innocent life" and (2) that the good characters have strong reason to believe that the orcs in this campaign world cannot reasonably be dissuaded from their attack.

Point (1) would certainly apply in my campaign world. Point (2) would not necessarily apply.

But, given those assumptions, the good characters could reasonably fight to protect themselves and the village. Protecting the village is good, killing is evil, and the net gain here is neutral. The PCs have done good, but they have had to take actions they might well regret (that respect for life makes them feel killing the orcs was not the best possible solution) in order to do so.

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?

Yes. It violates both "respect for life" and "respect for the dignity of sentient beings."

If the group exists in a campaign world where orcs represent a monolithic evil (like, say, demons do in most games), then the PCs should take the time to end their suffering. To do less violates the "dignity of sentient beings". Doing so would commute the action from evil to neutral. At least the characters will have done what they could to maintain the good ethos.

If the orcs are not monolithically evil, then the group cannot leave them to bleed to death. To do so violates "respect for life". The group should at the very least stabalize them and get one to the point where he can tend the others. The "evil" orcs might even learn from the example that the characters set. At the least, the characters will have done what they could to maintain the good ethos.

(I have had PCs IMC do this, making future allies...though they did not know this at the time.)

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?

The PCs are only responsible for their actions. They are not responsible for the actions of the orcs.

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?

Cut & Paste:

If the group exists in a campaign world where orcs represent a monolithic evil (like, say, demons do in most games), then the PCs should take the time to end their suffering. To do less violates the "dignity of sentient beings". Doing so would commute the action from evil to neutral. At least the characters will have done what they could to maintain the good ethos.

Now, if the PCs killed the orcs because they didn't want to take the time out of adventuring to deal with the wounded, the answer would be: "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

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

In the SRD, good respects life, and evil kills. If you go around killing without regret, you're not good aligned. Killing is part of the definition of evil, but the circumstances of most D&D worlds include the allowance that sometimes killing is necessary, and that, in some cases, at best, killing is a neutral act.

Most D&D adventures are chock full of special circumstances in which killing is a neutral act.

One of the problems that occur in the case of, say, paladin PCs is the "oops, surprise, this wasn't a special circumstance" trick that some DMs like to throw out. If the DMs in question made certain that the PCs understood that killing isn't Solution Numero Uno for good characters, this wouldn't happen so often.

Also, DMs might want to remember that XP for defeating opponents does not necessarily imply killing those same opponents.


RC

 

[Imret]

Well, RC, that certainly answers my questions. I admit that while I read all the previous posts, there was simply -so much text- I couldn't make myself process it all at once, not just from you...these threads always lead to very long points. Personally, I think that's a great thing, and I've read some very well-considered viewpoints on a variety of subjects over time. These four examples, covering about the major points I was curious about, gave me some nice and simple answers. I understand your position on RAW alignment quite clearly, though one thing stands out.

The "evil" orcs might even learn from the example that the characters set.
(snip)
(I have had PCs IMC do this, making future allies...though they did not know this at the time.)

This, combined with the remainder of your answers, seems odd. You're very strict on the definition of good; even killing orcs, the archetype of rampaging "men from the hills" coming to steal your house, rape your cattle, and burn down your wife, is not a good act no matter the positive outcome and begins the slippery slope to getting Smited by a paladin one day.

But chaotic evil orcs, with no regard for laws, their word, the dignity of sentients, life, other people's property, or ceasefires, recant the only world view they, their parents, or their ancestors for a hundred generations have ever known because a band of "weak, foolish humans" tended their injuries and let them live? It seems that, if Chaotic Evil is to be "enforced" as strongly as Good, they should stalk the PC's trail for days until they're weakened by some other threat, then murder them and take their things. Because that's what evil does. Evil is very happy you healed it, but they're sure not gonna do the same for you.

Which means I have but one question left for you...

Do you get a lot of people wanting to play good characters in your campaigns? I find most members of my gaming group...and we've had dozens of entirely diceless, just-roleplaying sessions over our gaming history, so you don't consider us hack-and-slashers...want to lay into orcs when we find them. We don't want a morality lesson, we don't want to debate the virtues of subsistance raiding vs. organized agriculture and democratic rule. We want to bust out the lightning bolts and make some former orcs. That's why there are orcs - "violent thugs between you and the villain".

BTW, it's probably a fair RAW assumption that an orcish warband, upon encountering an adventuring party, will probably attack first, from ambush, at night, preferably while the PC's are asleep. Because they're ORCS.

If any of this sounds hostile, it's not meant to be. I just don't see how this all works together.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ANY D&D character can freely kill non-innocents without any apparent moral quandry.

My reading of it is more like this, if I may paraphrase you:

D&D evil has no problem with killing. It may or may not like it, but it will do it without qualms. He doesn't lose his evil status no matter what he does, although he might qualify to become Vile if he's bad enough.

D&D neutral has a problem with killing INNOCENTS (and apparently none with killing the guilty)... but still does it sometimes. A neutral character who kills an innocent person may or may not lose his neutrality. If he does so regretfully, knowing that he's doing wrong but thinking he has no choice, he gets to stay neutral. If he does so in the heat of passion and later regrets his action, he probably gets to stay neutral.

D&D good won't kill INNOCENTS (but have qualms with killing the guilty). A good character who kills an innocent person loses his goodness, which in the case of paladins and certain clerics means he loses class abilities. Even if he regrets it, or does it for the greater good. A good character who kills a guilty person may or may not lose his goodness. If he does so regretfully, knowing that he's doing wrong but thinking he has no choice, he gets to stay good. If he does so in the heat of passion and later regrets his action, he probably gets to stay good. (NOTE = Most D&D adventures include only these last two types of killing; "I had to do it to save the X" is the oldest excuse in the rulebook.)


Of course, the aforementioned killing applies to sentient beings only. It is probably always okay to kill creatures with the [Evil] subtype, and always evil to kill creatures of the [Good] subtype. If orcs in your campaign world behave as though they have the [Evil] subtype, then I imagine you can have a reasonable argument that the aforementioned rules do not apply to orcs.

Returning the dead to a peaceful slumber is not evil, either. If undead are in torment, it is good. If the undead are not in torment, it is neutral. Respect for life is not compromised where no life exists. One may make similar arguments for constructs. In campaigns were "slain" elementals and outsiders are simply banished back to their plane of origin, similar rules apply.

In Tolkein, the "Free Races" were Dwarves, Men, Elves, Ents, and Hobbits. If you were not one of these, you didn't qualify as a "person" in a very real sense and you were fair game. Orcs simply could never be redeemed. Gollum, however, being of Hobbit-kind, could not simply be offed.

"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"

"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."

"I am sorry," said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum."

"You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in.

"No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. "I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many -- yours not least."

One of the best things (IMHO) that Jackson did with his version of Fellowship of the Ring was make certain that we saw both that Gandalf pitied Frodo, and that Gandalf felt sorrow for the choices that he himself had made, which placed the Burden around Frodo's neck.

If there is a problem with the way most PCs go about killing in D&D, it is probably because there is so little empathy with the NPCs in many campaigns. Sure, we know who Cordo the Smith is, but we are not often told how the BBEG fell into evil ways, nor are we often allowed to redeem the BBEG. PCs kill as the first, best solution because the DM presents a world that is entirely stacked against good as it appears in the SRD.

"Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose."

Under the circumstances of many games, PCs may consciously choose to be good, but being "Good" as per the rules might not be something they can do if they want to succeed in the game world.

Real world mileage may, of course, vary.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

This, combined with the remainder of your answers, seems odd. You're very strict on the definition of good; even killing orcs, the archetype of rampaging "men from the hills" coming to steal your house, rape your cattle, and burn down your wife, is not a good act no matter the positive outcome and begins the slippery slope to getting Smited by a paladin one day.

But chaotic evil orcs, with no regard for laws, their word, the dignity of sentients, life, other people's property, or ceasefires, recant the only world view they, their parents, or their ancestors for a hundred generations have ever known because a band of "weak, foolish humans" tended their injuries and let them live? It seems that, if Chaotic Evil is to be "enforced" as strongly as Good, they should stalk the PC's trail for days until they're weakened by some other threat, then murder them and take their things. Because that's what evil does. Evil is very happy you healed it, but they're sure not gonna do the same for you.

Have you ever watched Star Trek? One of the neat things that you see in Star Trek again and again is how the Federation, by following the Prime Directive, manages to win allies who were originally hostile.

Now, when I look at the SRD, I see that orcs are "often Chaotic Evil." Not "always," just "often". To me, this means that orcs "in the wild" are likely to be CE, but that it is a cultural thing, rather than a conscious choice. "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose." By showing orcs a better way, you empower orcs to choose to be good, or at least neutral.

Of course, in order to make any of this satisfying at all, the DM has to do a lot of extra work. In my game, for instance, the orcs were once an honorable people, until they became corrupted by Infernal Powers and their agents. For the most part, when you encounter orcs, you don't have to worry about the morality of the situation...they are attacking you. Sometimes, though, when the parties are of roughly equal strength, or the orcs are weaker, the orcs would rather talk. I have even had PCs and orcs work together against a common foe. I have even had one PC who was an orc.

The Prime Directive does not mean that you don't need a phaser. It just means that "Phasers on stun" comes more often than "Phasers on kill."

Now, mind you, my main group consists of mostly high school age boys, 14 to 17 years of age, so I occasionally throw them a mindless horde of monsters to bash away at. In general, though, my players have a "Ho hum" attitude toward these encounters, and prefer by a very wide margin those encounters they can talk to.

Which means I have but one question left for you...

Do you get a lot of people wanting to play good characters in your campaigns? I find most members of my gaming group...and we've had dozens of entirely diceless, just-roleplaying sessions over our gaming history, so you don't consider us hack-and-slashers...want to lay into orcs when we find them. We don't want a morality lesson, we don't want to debate the virtues of subsistance raiding vs. organized agriculture and democratic rule. We want to bust out the lightning bolts and make some former orcs. That's why there are orcs - "violent thugs between you and the villain".[/I]


Mostly good and neutral, yes. One of my current group members is a paladin.

BTW, it's probably a fair RAW assumption that an orcish warband, upon encountering an adventuring party, will probably attack first, from ambush, at night, preferably while the PC's are asleep. Because they're ORCS.

If any of this sounds hostile, it's not meant to be. I just don't see how this all works together.

Don't worry; it doesn't sound hostile.

And, you're right, orcs and goblins and Things That Go Bump In the Night tend to attack you, so you're perfectly safe in your alignment when you defend yourself. Unless, of course, you profess to be Good, but are really a bloodthirsty killer reveling in the gore.


RC