D&D General Fantasy cannibalism, a theoretical philosophy discussion

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

I once had a player whose character ate his fallen enemies in order to steal their power ("You are what you eat") in order to to kill more evil creatures. That was CE played well, in my opinion.

 

[prabe]

I once had a player whose character ate his fallen enemies in order to steal their power ("You are what you eat") in order to to kill more evil creatures. That was CE played well, in my opinion.

It is indeed appropriate to alignment. Since I've been running at tables at gaming stores, with people who don't know each other, I have so far chosen to ask people not to play evil characters. Since my amanuensis (who happens to be my wife) refuses to play in an evil campaign, I'm likely to continue to keep doing so.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

The character that I am playing has no compunction against eating people, but eats only those that he respects, as a way to honor them and ensure their safe passage into the afterlife.

Resurrection is an abomination and and affront to the natural order, undertaken only by the depraved and evil. Suggestions that such an act be performed on a trusted and beloved ally will be met with resistance, to say the very least.

 

[Oofta]

It is indeed appropriate to alignment. Since I've been running at tables at gaming stores, with people who don't know each other, I have so far chosen to ask people not to play evil characters. Since my amanuensis (who happens to be my wife) refuses to play in an evil campaign, I'm likely to continue to keep doing so.

Same here. My wife refuses to play evil characters, and honestly I don't really see the point. Just not my cup of tea.

So my home game is non-evil with a strong "you will be playing heroes" vibe. I let people know that ahead of time though.

A lot of times I will dangle something questionable such as aligning with someone evil for a good cause. But even in cases where they have to make a choice between two "good" options I try to leave the door open to solving them both. Because they're heroes and it's a game.

 

[prabe]

A lot of times I will dangle something questionable such as aligning with someone evil for a good cause. But even in cases where they have to make a choice between two "good" options I try to leave the door open to solving them both. Because they're heroes and it's a game.

While I'm not dedicated to not allowing them to do, later, the good they have chosen not to do now, I'm inclined to make the choice stick. YMMV, obviously.

 

[Bawylie]

It’s a thoroughly evil act.

Proper faith and devotion, proper burial rituals for the recently deceased, forgoing the quick and easy path in a time of tribulation, should be noted and rewarded by any good deity.

IOW if you’re going to focus heavily on inherent morality in your game, with deities being actual in-game entities, then acts of ultimate evil should have severe consequences while acts of ultimate good should have substantial benefits. Not in a cosmic cookie or moral dessert sense, per se, but also not necessarily exclusive of that same dessert.

For instance, say one of these fellow-travelers perished and the survivors buried them in the tradition of the deceased’s faith (their own faiths being different, even). It wouldn’t be out of line for the deceased’s spirit to petition their deity for succor - and maybe some mana rains down from above or whatever. Or some other boon appropriate to that deity’s sphere of influence. Whereas, had those survivors eaten the deceased’s remains, perhaps their restless soul might’ve risen in vengeance and attacked the survivors.

Personally, I prefer objective morality systems for younger players with clear good and bad guys. For older players I like systems of moral particularism and stickier situations, if I use any morality play at all.

 

[Reynard]

It’s a thoroughly evil act.

Proper faith and devotion, proper burial rituals for the recently deceased, forgoing the quick and easy path in a time of tribulation, should be noted and rewarded by any good deity.

What if the proper rituals include cannibalism? What if the culture exists in a terrible wasteland beneath the iron heel of an evil dark lord and the tradition developed that eating the members of the community was necessary to both sustain the community and make sure the deceased did not end up serving the dark lord as undead?

 

[Oofta]

I think one of the issues I have with "moral dilemmas" is that too often they're just cheap parlor tricks. The moral dilemma equivalent of slasher movie jump scares being frightening.

As a DM I can set up any number of lose-lose situations. Sacrifice 100 babies or the world ends or similar. Blech. Trolley car dilemmas are interesting as thought experiments and philosophical debates and as insights into how we make moral decisions. It's just not something I enjoy while gaming.

Too often these dilemmas not the result of actions taken or not taken by PCs, there was no way for the PCs to avoid the situation, often it's just the illusion of choice. A literal choice between a demon and a devil. That's not a choice, that's a big middle finger to anyone who wants to play a PC who won't commit evil acts.

 

[Tonguez]

It never come up in standard DnD such the premise of no magic no resources is the antithesis of fub for Adventurers

However in some of my settings Barbarians are by default from Cultures that practice Cannibal and so would have no problem with eating someone for survival of the group.

As to ressurection again Culture plays a part - is the culture one where long pig requires debasing the victim and the ressurected flesh would just be a ‘Slave, Enemy or Food?” or is it one where the eating of the dead considered an honour to the fallen and used as as a Funeral rite? (In both those cases Ressurection would likely be answered with a No - either because its a waste of resource tjust to raise a slave OR because the funeral rites have been honoured so why would they be dishounoured by having them reversed?

of course Ressurection IMC is also a difficult ritual that requires a physical descent into the Realm of the Dead, but thats another issue...

 

[Bawylie]

What if the proper rituals include cannibalism? What if the culture exists in a terrible wasteland beneath the iron heel of an evil dark lord and the tradition developed that eating the members of the community was necessary to both sustain the community and make sure the deceased did not end up serving the dark lord as undead?

Then it isn’t thoroughly evil. And the rest of my post applies.