D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Faolyn]

Motivation can mitigate it a bit, but it doesn't change the act itself. If you could shoot a baby in the head right after its born, saving millions of lives, would that be a good act? No. It would still be an evil murder, but with really good intentions. Shooting babies isn't under any circumstance a good act. It's the same with consuming sentient beings. It doesn't matter if it's to ensure strength remains with your people and to honor your ancestors, it's still going to be evil.

OK, why?

Is it evil if the person wants to be eaten (because that will mean they are honored)? Is it evil if you're starving? How sentient does something have to be before it counts as sentient?

 

[Maxperson]

Right. And perhaps cultures who practice people eating do not consider it desecration? No one is actually harmed except feelings of those who find it yucky.

This is an argument that cannibalism is okay. Cannibalism is never okay.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, why?

Because they are human, or in D&D another intelligent race.

Is it evil if the person wants to be eaten (because that will mean they are honored)?

Why would it change just because someone thinks it's okay? There are murderers who do not understand that murder is wrong. To them it's perfectly fine and natural. Is it no longer evil just because they think it's fine?

Is it evil if you're starving?

Sure. I mean, if starvation excuses evil, then it's perfectly okay to murder an innocent child and eat it if you are starving.

How sentient does something have to be before it counts as sentient?

@Crimson Longinus is correct, the proper word is sapient. Though that only applies definitionally to humans, for the purposes of D&D it would extend to elves, dwarves, demons, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is an argument that cannibalism is okay. Cannibalism is never okay.

Why? I certainly find it yucky, and I do not encourage it. And given how strong the taboo is in our culture, I would certainly except anyone who has grown in this culture and has cannibalistic desires to have some serious issues. But at the same time I wouldn't label tribal cultures which practiced cannibalism as automatically evil. They had different cultural context. And I certainly wouldn't label made up creatures who are not even humans as evil based just on that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why would it change just because someone thinks it's okay? There are murderers who do not understand that murder is wrong. To them it's perfectly fine and natural. Is it no longer evil just because they think it's fine?

The difference is that with murder we can actually clearly point out what the harm is: a person is being killed against their will.

 

[Faolyn]

Because they are human, or in D&D another intelligent race.

That's not actually an answer, though. Is it evil if an animal eats a human?

Why would it change just because someone thinks it's okay? There are murderers who do not understand that murder is wrong. To them it's perfectly fine and natural. Is it no longer evil just because they think it's fine?

Murder harms someone. Who is harmed if you eat a corpse?

Do you believe that all adventurers are evil because they go around killing monsters and stealing their belongings?

 

[Maxperson]

The difference is that with murder we can actually clearly point out what the harm is: a person is being killed against their will.

Not once they are dead. As you said, as soon as they are dead they are just a body and a body can't be harmed. Murder is just another example of a cultural or religious taboo. If it's okay to excuse cannibalism for that reason, then it's also okay to excuse murder. Past cultures sacrificed babies to their gods. Culturally and religiously that was a perfectly fine thing to do.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you believe that all adventurers are evil because they go around killing monsters and stealing their belongings?

This is situational. I can't remember the last time a group I was DMing for or played in murder hoboed. There are lots of way for what that sentence describes to be evil or not evil.

 

[Faolyn]

This is situational. I can't remember the last time a group I was DMing for or played in murder hoboed. There are lots of way for what that sentence describes to be evil or not evil.

Doesn't have to be a murder hobo. You kill a creature that's intelligent, is that evil? You fight the Big Bad and kill it's guards, who are just there to do a job, is that evil? You kill bandits or cultists or slavers instead of capturing them and handing them off to the sheriff, is that evil?

And if that isn't evil, then why is is it evil to eat the corpse you (or someone else) made?

And again, how do you determine if a creature is sapient? Ogres are Int 5, but have a language. Ettercaps and displacer beasts are smarter (Int 7 and Int 6, respectively) but can neither speak nor understand any languages. Assassin bugs are Int 4 but can understand (but not speak) Druidic; campestri are Int 4 but can understand (and mimic, but not speak) Common; chimeras are Int 3 but can understand (but not speak) Draconic. Are these creatures sapient? Is it evil to kill one instead of capturing it?

The real answer is, cannibalism is also situational. It's not a blanket evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't have to be a murder hobo. You kill a creature that's intelligent, is that evil?

Depends.

You fight the Big Bad and kill it's guards, who are just there to do a job, is that evil?

Depends. There's not enough there to go on.

You kill bandits or cultists or slavers instead of capturing them and handing them off to the sheriff, is that evil?

Depends. Again, there's not enough there to go on.

And if that isn't evil, then why is is it evil to eat the corpse you (or someone else) made?

Unlike killing(which is never good), cannibalism isn't something that is sometimes not evil.

And again, how do you determine if a creature is sapient? Ogres are Int 5, but have a language. Ettercaps and displacer beasts are smarter (Int 7 and Int 6, respectively) but can neither speak nor understand any languages. Assassin bugs are Int 4 but can understand (but not speak) Druidic; campestri are Int 4 but can understand (and mimic, but not speak) Common; chimeras are Int 3 but can understand (but not speak) Draconic. Are these creatures sapient? Is it evil to kill one instead of capturing it?

That's up to the DM. For my game, I'd say that if it has its own language it's sapient. If it can understand language and has a culture, it's sapient. If it can understand a language, but is otherwise an animal, it's not sapient. It's just like my dogs, only they can understand more of a language than my dogs can.