Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7847862" data-attributes="member: 177">When it is plot relevant, sure.  If they seek them out, sure.  I am not generally pointing them out just because, though.Food is primarily used as an indicator for culture.  So, generally, yes.It is culture dependent, but, broadly - if you have cities, you have agriculture and domesticated livestock.  Going out hunting is not efficient enough to be a viable source for protein for large, settled cultures.Also, giant creatures (rocs, dragons, purble worms, etc - larger than, say an elephant) has meat that's just too tough for humanoids to eat.See above.  The dragon's too tough to eat anyway.  No good-aligned person knowingly eats the flesh of sentient creatures without having significant levels of moral distress.The moral lines are likely against eating sentient creatures, even if they were evil in life.But, let's also talk health and aesthetics.  Aesthetics: Wild caught game is not nice and sweet and tender.  We romanticize, but there's a reason why those who catch wild game hang it out to age for a while before cooking.  Them's protein, but them's not really good eats.  Wild game is generally tough and more gamey than a Monopoly Convention, because the animal has to actually work for a living, and you're typically getting older specimens.  So - it is stews and soups, not tender roasts.Also, broadly speaking... carnivores taste bad to human palates, and herbivores are not rarely aggressive enough to be something adventurers have to kill.Health: you realize that wild animals that are not given what we'd call health care, even today, have massive loads of parasites, right?  That giant toad has been living in fetid muck.  And gods only knows where the wild boar the goblin was riding has been wallowing!  Yeah, but... sentients man.  You don't eat things you can carry on a conversation with.</blockquote>

Verification