Is eating intelligent beings evil?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Kobolds eating their prisoners is used as an example in the 3.5 MM of how they're evil and a reason why other races hate them. Personally, I think this trait -- especially as expressed in the "Kobolds Ate My Baby" game -- is an interesting bit that I'd want to use if/when I finally get to play a kobold wizard in a game. (I'm assuming the DM and/or the other players would prevent him from ever being able to sneak off with a baby for dinner.)

But is it really evil to eat intelligent beings? I always assumed that, say, gold dragons ate the enemies they killed (unless they were poisonous, or whatever) and that other intelligent good beings sometimes did the same, as appropriate for their species.

Is eating an intelligent being simply a cultural taboo (for most of us), or is it truly Evil in the default D&D cosmology?

 

[shilsen]

In the default D&D cosmology, I'd say eating other intelligent beings (assuming you're intelligent yourself) counts as evil.

In real life it just counts as crunchy - and lucky! Have you tried to find an intelligent being recently?

 

[Umbran]

I think that, for humanoids at least, it would be fair to say that killing another sentient being for food when other options are available would be considered evil.

This leaves a few fuzzy areas - if the being died in combat, say, or if other food options simply aren't available, then perhaps eating them is merely distasteful.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd say that killing sentiend beings for the sake of eating them is evil. Once they're dead, however, I think it's entirely a cultural thing, not an ailgnment-based one.

My wife played a druid once who came from a mystic-oriented, tribal culture. She believed that when she cast spells, she called on the nearby spirits, and they expended their own strength to work the spells. She would eat her fallen foes as a way of offering their vitality back to the spirits who had spend their own. She didn't hunt people to eat, and she didn't do so just for food; but if she was forced to fight, and kill a foe in the process, it was not only okay for her to consume them, it was a religious duty to the spirits she worshipped.

Her character was neutral good, and I never once felt I had reason to even consider an alignment shift, based on her cultural background.

 

[takyris]

One of my short story sales from last year was based on this question. If you're interested, you can see how I tried to answer it at:

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030217/elders.shtml

The answer more or less wound down to "Respectful killing and eating is fine, if it's part of the natural order. Killing somebody for fun is worse than killing somebody for food."

But then, I'm a vegetarian in real life, so my perspective is a bit skewed right from the get-go.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In KAMB (which seems to be out of print now, given how e-mails to their site go unanswered, etc., alas), the eating of babies is a delicacy for special occasions, sort of like turkeys at Thanksgiving or, more properly, the dragon's tail dish in "Farmer Giles of Ham."

The only reason I thought hungering after babies (as in, the kobold in question has never been high enough status to eat at the chief's table and actually have a slice of plump baby himself) might not be evil is that Frank Baum had a Cowardly Lion knock-off (I know, why knock off his own character in another Oz book?) called the Hungry Tiger who yearned to eat babies, but always kept his urges in check. It was mostly played for comedic effect, and to demonstrate how civilized he was -- look at him, failing to eat babies!

But it sounds like the early consensus is that actually eating babies would be evil. Would hungering after them (think Alf and housecats) be evil, or simply a heroic flaw (for a kobold)?

 

[Sejs]

Eatting them - no. Eatting isn't evil, no matter what it is that you're eatting. Or who it is, in this case.


However, killing someone just to eat them, particularly when there's other non-sentient food available, is getting warmer. Basically it all comes down to motivation.

"We're in this barren wasteland and we're going to starve to death. The only thing available to eat are these dead guys" - not evil.

"Hey fellow kobolds, check it out. This prisoner we've been keeping up and hung herself in her cell. Let's eat her. Waste not, want not after all." - not evil.

"Hello there, unarmed peasant on the road. Even though I have plenty of rations to spare, I'm going to kill and eat you because I think people sure are tasty, particularly when they're scared. Also, because I'm a right bastard who finds it amusing to inflict suffering upon others." - quite evil.

 

[Toras]

Here is a question for you. If a wizard turns a mephit or quasit into chocolate or similar treat, is it evil to eat it? (Has actually come up in game)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Here is a question for you. If a wizard turns a mephit or quasit into chocolate or similar treat, is it evil to eat it? (Has actually come up in game)

Heh, I was actually thinking of a Conjure Babymeat spell, which probably has a similar answer.

 

[caudor]

If you ended up in a Bugbear's stewpot, I'm sure you would consider it to be evil. The Bugbears would consider it to be another pot of stew.

Monkey on a stick. Kobold pat-tay. Slaad legs. This is is fuzzy territory.

Paladin roasting over a fire with an apple in his mouth? Definately evil.