Would it be cannibalism to eat a polymorphed chicken?

[GlassJaw]

From Merriam-Webster:

cannibalism

Main Entry:
can·ni·bal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of cannibalism
Pronunciation:
\ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1796

1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind
3 : an act of cannibalizing something

Aside from the "usually ritualistic" phrase, I agree that the act of cannibalism is independent of knowledge. You are either eating the flesh of your same species or you aren't.

 

[Snapdragyn]

They're not fertilized...

Barring the odd case where they are fertile by parthenogenesis, that is.

... and by the time you eat them there's no chance they will be.

By the time they're laid there's no chance they will be -- avian fertilization occurs before the egg is laid. They're not feathered fish (of which some have internal fertilization, but not most).

Hmm. If a chicken were polymorphed into a catfish, would you serve it with tartar sauce?

I do know that in Middle Earth, gender is intrinsic to identity explicitly (in other words souls have genders).

That's still a seperate question from whether the intrinsic gender of a soul in that setting would necessarily always match the sex of the body in which said soul resides. The real question (IRL & in game worlds where it matters) isn't 'is gender intrinsic to identity?', but 'is gender identity determined by the biology of the genitalia?'.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's still a seperate question from whether the intrinsic gender of a soul in that setting would necessarily always match the sex of the body in which said soul resides. The real question (IRL & in game worlds where it matters) isn't 'is gender intrinsic to identity?', but 'is gender identity determined by the biology of the genitalia?'.

Hear hear... The philosophical distinction is between describing a transexual as "A person who wants to change their gender/sex from A to B" and "A person of gender B with the bad luck to have been born into a body of sex A (and would like to correct this problem)".

On the cannibalism questions, I would say eating the polymorphed chicken is cannibalism, and in a multi "intelligent life" world, cannibalism as a practical matter is redefined as "eating beings of your same level of intelligence/sentience/humanity/whatever".

 

[Celebrim]

That's still a seperate question from whether the intrinsic gender of a soul in that setting would necessarily always match the sex of the body in which said soul resides. The real question (IRL & in game worlds where it matters) isn't 'is gender intrinsic to identity?', but 'is gender identity determined by the biology of the genitalia?'.

Ok, fine, if you want to go there, I did say that there were more than two possibilities. I would not argue that the last question you pose is the 'real question'. There are alot of real questions, and depending on how you answer them you get very different results when using shapechanging magic.

1) Is gender identity intrinsic and immutable?
2) If gender identity is intrinsic, is it distinct from the material form of the being? That is to say, would you still have a gender if you didn't have a body?
3) Can the distinctive genderness be different from the material genderness? That is to say can your real gender be different than the gender expressed by your body?

"'No, No, No" is going to look really different than "Yes, Yes, Yes" or 'Yes, Yes, No" or "Yes, No, Yes", etc.

For example, if the answer to '3' is "No", then does one imprints the other or are they completely separate? If the intrinsic character (for example you answer "Yes" to '1') imprints the body, then its not possible to shapechange a man into a woman. If the body (for example you answer "No" to '1'), then when you shapechange a man into woman they lose thier original identity and become a new person. Effectively, the original person dies. And if they are completely separate, is this ever a natural condition? And if it is a natural condition, what should you do about it if anything?

And that doesn't even go into the moral codes arising from this. I happen to know certain real world religions where different adherents would answer "No, No, No" and "Yes, Yes, Yes" and still arrive at the exact same code of behavior. So its entirely possible from that perspective that none of these are the 'real question'. But if we are going to go here, let's at least avoid the moral question in favor of the much less touchy, 'How would magic work?'

 

[Stormborn]

And to think I used to believe that Birmingham, Alabama was rather cosmopolitan.

Does my smite evil work on him?

No, no it doesn't. I am a Cleric (CG) and need to get these things strait so that I know who to denounce and why.

 

[Thorkull]

Assume you have a government who decides to implement this punishment as a replacement for the death penalty. Perhaps because there is a famine, or simply because it's convenient, the government also decides to cook these once-human chickens and feed them to its citizens.

Is that cannibalism?

No, you're physically eating a chicken, not a member of one of the sentient races. However, this *is* morally reprehensible. I figure you're looking at a government that's Lawful Evil at best.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is, quite possibly, the best thread I have ever read on EN World.

"A chicken like that, you don't eat all at once." Awesome!

In fact, I can see this as a great adventure hook: suddenly, the populace of [Evil Barony X] is suffering from a plague of ghouls. Unbelievably high percentages of their dead are coming back to eat the living, and you are tasked with finding out why!

 

[Fifth Element]

Aside from the "usually ritualistic" phrase, I agree that the act of cannibalism is independent of knowledge. You are either eating the flesh of your same species or you aren't.

But that definition applies in our world, one where a creature of one species cannot be magically transformed into another. If such a thing were possible, the definition of cannibalism would have to be refined.

That's really the answer. It would depend on the definition of cannibalism in the game world. Magic throws a monkey wrench into things that are very straightforward in worlds where there is no magic, such as our own.

If, in the game world, eating such a chicken regardless of knowledge is defined as cannibalism, then it is cannibalism. If not, then it isn't.

 

[Celebrim]

No, you're physically eating a chicken, not a member of one of the sentient races.

I think that's just the thing. Just because you think you are physically eating a chicken, doesn't mean that it is a chicken. You'd look at it and say, "It's a chicken." A being with inherent True Seeing, which I confers "on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are" would look at it and go, "That's not a chicken. It's a person." In other words, the thing that looks like a chicken actually is a person despite the fact that it looks, smells, sounds, and tastes like a chicken. Before it would not be cannibalism, the identity of the polymorphed creature would have to be intrinsically changed to where it was a chicken so that the being who looked at it with true sight actually saw a chicken rather than a shapechanged person.

 

[Celebrim]

But that definition applies in our world, one where a creature of one species cannot be magically transformed into another. If such a thing were possible, the definition of cannibalism would have to be refined.

That's really the answer. It would depend on the definition of cannibalism in the game world. Magic throws a monkey wrench into things that are very straightforward in worlds where there is no magic, such as our own.

If, in the game world, eating such a chicken regardless of knowledge is defined as cannibalism, then it is cannibalism. If not, then it isn't.

I think you are half-right. I don't think that it is the definition of cannibalism that changes if you introduce shapechanging. I think it is the definition of human that changes if you introduce shapechanging. If a human shape changed into a chicken stops being a person and is now a chicken in your campaign, then its not cannibalism. If a human shape changed into a chicken is a human wearing a chicken shape, then it is cannibalism.

In my opinion, default D&D comes down squarely on the side of the traditional assumption of fantasy - that a shape changed person is still intrinsicly a person. That is, IMO if it was true that eating a person polymorphed into a chicken wasn't cannibalism, then it would also be true that the true form of the thing was the shape that it was currently in and true seeing couldn't reveal its true shape.