He ate George! [Warning, Vile]

[WizarDru]

Well, as the examples of real world cannibalism don't have evil aspects, I don't see a problem here either. What's evil about honouring a worthy foe whom you defeated in the last war by eating his heart? Or what's evil about eating the brain of your deceased teacher/father or whatever in order to let their thoughts and spirit liver forever?

These are no evil reasons, because in both examples, the man-eater is paying respect to the person eaten. Plus, it has nothing to do with nutrition but is done solely for spiritual reasons.

The holy communion is a good example how to rationalize cannibalism even further.

I'll give you the second example, if it's a societal norm and accepted practice for the teacher/father to be consumed...and that said consumee knew it would happen and approved. The first example, though, to me is STEALING the essence of your foe, in hopes of gaining his power. He can justify it as honoring the vanquished...but it's a control thing. How does it honor the dead, exactly? No one ever requested their foe to consume their heart, shoudl they fall in battle, did they? The victor is mutilating the corpse and possibly preventing his access to a clean afterlife by preventing his whole body from departing, which may even be his intention. In this case, it might not be evil, if you're preventing an evil spirit from rising.

Ultimately, I could see a limited case made for it being a religious/cultural subtext, but ultimately it would either have to be proven to be legitimately useful to be not evil, IMHO. If you could actually show that it provides a real benefit, and not a perceived one, then I might agree. Otherwise, it's an evil practice perpetuated by myth and enacted by otherwise non-evil people. At the very least, there are very real health-risks involved in eating another person's internal organs, the brain most especially...there are several diseases that come just from eating brains, particularly.

And, of course, there's the skeeve factor. Yuck.

 

[Turjan]

I'll give you the second example, if it's a societal norm and accepted practice for the teacher/father to be consumed...and that said consumee knew it would happen and approved. The first example, though, to me is STEALING the essence of your foe, in hopes of gaining his power. He can justify it as honoring the vanquished...but it's a control thing. How does it honor the dead, exactly? No one ever requested their foe to consume their heart, shoudl they fall in battle, did they? The victor is mutilating the corpse and possibly preventing his access to a clean afterlife by preventing his whole body from departing, which may even be his intention.

How does it honour the foe? Going to war was a question of honour. This goes well even with a Christian faith, think of the Paladin. Only worthy foes were subjected to cannibalism. This shows that the act in itself has nothing to do with "preventing someone's access to a clean afterlife", whatever this might be; your words sound like a Old Egyptian concept to me and are completely out of social context. Even in Christianity the removal of body parts doesn't do anything bad for your afterlife: think of all those saints' relics. Those dead foes that weren't thought to be worthy, weren't eaten. If your concept were true, they cannibals would only honour the weaklings.

Ultimately, I could see a limited case made for it being a religious/cultural subtext, but ultimately it would either have to be proven to be legitimately useful to be not evil, IMHO. If you could actually show that it provides a real benefit, and not a perceived one, then I might agree. Otherwise, it's an evil practice perpetuated by myth and enacted by otherwise non-evil people. At the very least, there are very real health-risks involved in eating another person's internal organs, the brain most especially...there are several diseases that come just from eating brains, particularly.
And, of course, there's the skeeve factor. Yuck.

What is a "real" benefit in contrast to a "perceived" one? All religion has to do with perceived benefits; except when it comes to D&D. The thing with the diseases is right, but this hasn't to do anything with the good vs. evil debate; it's just a scientific matter. Plus you ignored the matter of the holy communion, a cannibalistic ritual as the centre of a world religion, and this one is obviously accepted as non-evil. Though the ritual is only symbolic in case of Christian beliefs, it clearly shows the social acceptance of a cannibalistic mindset.

 

[Tonguez]

Though the ritual is only symbolic in case of Christian beliefs, it clearly shows the social acceptance of a cannibalistic mindset.

Actually according to catholic dogma this is NOT a symbolic ritual, it is beleived that during communion the bread and wine really are transformed into the body and blood of the Saviour...

 

[Turjan]

@Tonguez: I know, but as it's a religeous theme, I try to stay on the safe side in order to keep the thread viable . And I have to admit: It still tastes like bread and wine .

 

[skymage]

there is only one reason that i can think of that hasn't already been said.

a society might view the dead as just that dead not vessels of souls or holy containers that require proper rituals before burial therefore they treat it no different from an animal's body using it for food clothing tools or whatever else they can.

 

[Voadam]

For the story purposes of a game, humanoids saying "they taste good, its what we always eat." is just fine. Why does the witch want to fatten up hansel and gretel? To eat them. Why does she want to eat them? Because it will grant her supernatural powers, life extension from their unused years? Perhaps, but it is also probably just because that is what predator monsters do, eat people. It makes them more like beasts than men and establishes their danger to good people. For humanoids like orcs, ogres and hags, this can be enough of a game reason.

Why do they need to justify their actions any more than their predatory nature already does?

 

[Nail]

It was certainly an idea worthy of Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs.

Here's the meat of it:

Grim Feast (Su)
The dire stalker may feast upon the heart of a favored enemy ...

Even more good crunchy bits in "Half-Orcs" too....or should they be called "chewy" bits.... A very good d20 supplement, and a thought-provoking read. Orcs everywhere are smiling......


FWIW, the orcs as a race, and Barbarian as a class, probably have the best chance/justification of being canibals.

And although moral reletivism is a great trick once in a while to pull on the players, it can quickly get old... (and rotten, depending on how well you've salted and dried it....)

 

[WizarDru]

whatever this might be; your words sound like a Old Egyptian concept to me and are completely out of social context. Even in Christianity the removal of body parts doesn't do anything bad for your afterlife: think of all those saints' relics. Those dead foes that weren't thought to be worthy, weren't eaten. If your concept were true, they cannibals would only honour the weaklings.


What is a "real" benefit in contrast to a "perceived" one? All religion has to do with perceived benefits; except when it comes to D&D. The thing with the diseases is right, but this hasn't to do anything with the good vs. evil debate; it's just a scientific matter. Plus you ignored the matter of the holy communion, a cannibalistic ritual as the centre of a world religion, and this one is obviously accepted as non-evil. Though the ritual is only symbolic in case of Christian beliefs, it clearly shows the social acceptance of a cannibalistic mindset.

Of course when it comes to D&D...what are we playing here, tiddlywinks? I ignored holy communion because I think it's a dangerous topic to get into, as it's too easy to offend someone. I would also post (being an ex-Catholic) that many catholics don't even fully grasp that symbolism or dogma, and just consider it a ritual like any other.

I didn't say Cannibals would only eat weaklings, just that eating your enemy was evil. You're assuming that the person being eaten was willing, or at least accepted that they'd be eaten if they fell. I'm not making that assumption, especially as the orignal poster wanted to know about this with respect to a druid. You're trying to eat your cake and have it, too. You can't use Polynesians to support your argument, and then ignore Egyptians when they don't.

Could a case be made for ethical cannibalism? I suppose so. But as often as not, it's an evil act. I could posit that a society that believes that children should be thrown off a cliff over the ocean, and those that aren't dashed on the rocks are blessed, and those who aren't deserved to die....and I'd consider that evil, too. I understand moral relativism...but are certain acts that I simply don't consider as being good, under any circumstances. If a good person commits an evil act, it's still an evil act. If it's committed for good reasons, it's an evil act.

My point about disease was this: if you're a cleric in a D&D world, your diety is a very real, tangible force. He gives you magic power, he performs powerful miracles, talks to his followers and so on. In such a world, unless there is real, tangible effect to eating someone else's body parts (other than risk of death or madness) than it's an even more evil act because now you have a potentially good person hurting themselves, on top of commiting an evil act.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

I dunno about the why's of it, but I know a little about the how. One of the primary reasons cannibalism is usually observed for only religious reasons is because of how unhealthy it is. Subsisting on a strict diet of human is impossible without getting some kind of sickness and probably dieing. Because you are eating human any disease the meal had is likely to infect you as well. This is why Pork must be eaten well-done, pigs are genetically similar to humans and also tend to carry over disease. Cattle, conversely, is different enough to be eaten rare.

Eating the strong, healthy enemy-sure. Eating the old and infirm- uh-uh. Not only are they tough like beef jerky but your likely to get sick. In a primitive society, getting sick every time you eat your elders would likely convince people that it's bad karma.

Anyone else miss the manbeef.com website? I heard the FDA shut them down?

 

[reason]

Cannibalism in Spirits of Rock and Sky

In my currently revamping setting, Spirits of Rock and Sky, *everyone* is a cannibal under all reasonably definitions of the term. Not only that, but everything that doesn't get eaten is used as raw materials for building and crafting.

It all makes perfect sense in context for the society; the body is viewed as a possession of the spirit. Just as other possessions are divided at death for use by the living, so is the body.

You might want to look at a description of the Ritual of Passing in Chapter 2: Enierd. It touches on cannibalism as utility and respectful remembrance. Cannibalism is touched on in other places too, but not dwelled on.

Link for Spirits of Rock and Sky:

http://www.twilightminds.com/sorasfull.html

Reason