Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lonestar 09-30-05, 03:39 PM	One of my players is a LG Dragonkin Paladin of Bahamut. He's a awesome guy and good roleplayer however, he wants to do something I think would seriously violate his alignment. He wants to use badguys as food. Literally. He thinks it would not be evil for him to use slain enemies such as bandits and whatnot as rations. I think this would be grounds for him to lose his alignment. We're both reasonable people, so I come to ask you, what do you think? Do you agree this would be evil? His justification is that they are evil, and thus they do not either deserve a proper burial and that he thinks it would not matter if he was to consume their corpses since they do not deserve such respect. Also, he wants to know if using someone still living as food is would be considered evil. His justification for this is that he has a bite attack. If he can use it in battle and swallow what he bites off, what is the problem doing it to an evil character under different circumstances?
Illion the Red 09-30-05, 03:45 PM	One of my players is a LG Dragonkin Paladin of Bahamut. He's a awesome guy and good roleplayer however, he wants to do something I think would seriously violate his alignment. He wants to use badguys as food. Literally. He thinks it would not be evil for him to use slain enemies such as bandits and whatnot as rations. I think this would be grounds for him to lose his alignment. We're both reasonable people, so I come to ask you, what do you think? Do you agree this would be evil? His justification is that they are evil, and thus they do not either deserve a proper burial and that he thinks it would not matter if he was to consume their corpses since they do not deserve such respect. Also, he wants to know if using someone still living as food is would be considered evil. His justification for this is that he has a bite attack. If he can use it in battle and swallow what he bites off, what is the problem doing it to an evil character under different circumstances? "Two" questions right back at you: 1. Is cannibalism evil? Is consuming the flesh of another sentient being cannibalism? Evil? 2. If you, the real life you, bite someone in the course of a fight, is that cannibalism? What if you knock the person out and start tearing chunks of flesh out with your teeth?
bomaz 09-30-05, 03:47 PM	double post
bomaz 09-30-05, 03:50 PM	defensless evil people: evil to kill and eat dead evil people: hm chaotic act I think at the least, but I might allow it if one is a race that could eat humans normaly
ShadowDragon8685 09-30-05, 03:54 PM	See: Bahamut. Al: LG. See: Cannabalism. Act Alignment: CE.
windscar18 09-30-05, 03:59 PM	Cannabilism is not necessarily an evil act. Someone takes the oppurtunity when they need to and there's nothing wrong with that. However, that would definately not be a lawful act and it would definately be Chaotic... In all cases, if he was being selective about it, I would question about him truly being good, but I wouldn't take that against him. However, I would probably warn him that it might turn him Chaotic. With normal characters, I could care less as I could accept that as an alignment exception. (People aren't consistant with their alignment entirely) However, he's a PALADIN. Hence, why, I would view that as a violation of code of conduct.
jokem 09-30-05, 04:02 PM	See: Bahamut. Al: LG. See: Cannabalism. Act Alignment: CE. So if a Wolf eats another wolf that is CE? Also keep in mind Cannabalism is eating one's own race, and it might be argued a Dragonkin is not human. Depends upon what Bahamut thinks of it. I think Bahamut would frown on that activity as uncivilized. The Paladin needs a 'sign', I think.
revnk 09-30-05, 04:03 PM	Wow. I'd have to go with my gut and say that this is one of those situations where "if you have to ask if it's okay, it isn't." I'm not trying to be smart. I think it's that the phrasing of the "living food" question reminds me of those wasps that plant their eggs in living spiders and the larvae eat their way out--and I know it's not technically "evil" but those things creep the living hell out of me. I think if he makes a bite attack and swallows it's okay, but if he's hauling around a pile of corpses (or grinding them up into patties or whatever) it's kinda evilish. Also: just because they're evil doesn't mean they don't deserve burial. It depends on the paladin's code--it might be a part of his ethos that he treats people better than they deserve (a classic sign of "goodness"). I can see all the justifications that are coming to say why this whole thing isn't evil, and I will confess right here and now that I don't have a coherent, consistent, logical, rational explanation of why it gives me the willies. It simply doesn't pass my "ewwww test", so I personally would commend the player for his cleverness before apologetically saying, "...but I really can't allow that, man." But, hey, it's your call. I'm just posting to say that if it kinda grosses you out, that seems like a fair enough reason to say "no."
Salla 09-30-05, 04:06 PM	I would say that eating anything of intelligence 3 or higher constitutes an evil act, living or dead. Even if not evil, it is definitely chaotic, as it violates anything resembling a civilized societal norm. Paladins respect all life, not just good or neutral life; he should feel some regret at killing even an evil being, because it means that life has gone beyond redemption. He should feel remorse even if, or perhaps because, what he must do is necessary. The code of the Paladin transcends race; it doesn't matter if your race considers it acceptable to keep slaves, for example, or torture captives; if you're a Paladin, you find it abhorrent. By the same token, it doesn't matter if dragonkin eat intelligent beings; by becoming a Paladin, you put yourself above that. I would also say that, in general, if you bite something as an attack you spit anything that may have gone with your teeth out unless you have the Swallow Whole ability.
Ogmug 09-30-05, 04:08 PM	So if a Wolf eats another wolf that is CE? Also keep in mind Cannabalism is eating one's own race, and it might be argued a Dragonkin is not human. Depends upon what Bahamut thinks of it. I think Bahamut would frown on that activity as uncivilized. The Paladin needs a 'sign', I think. The problem is a wolf is an animal, and as such are not considered sentient (hence the awakening spells, improving them with animal companion/familiar). Animal traits: Alignment, nuetral - animals are not governed by a human sense of morality (mm 3.5, page 268) As such, evil acts do not normally change an animals alignment. Now, if you choose a race that has alignment, you could apply that arguement.
JD 09-30-05, 04:09 PM	The good part is far too arguable, so I'm going to go on the lawful track. It's a pretty safe bet that most societies in D&D, whether they be dwarven, elven, gnomish (gnomic?), human or some huge mixture, have a law somewhere that says "DON'T EAT EACH OTHER (SERIOUSLY)". I'd rule that eating any of the playable races in the PHB would constitute "effective cannibalism", and that courtesy would probably extend to some of the more intelligent monsters. Anything else would be fair game, though with a negative social stigma on some of them. As for his argument about a bite attack, remember that when a paladin kills someone, they are delivering divine justice from his or her god. Tagging a rider on that says "...and getting a free lunch to boot" is not an act befitting a paladin. edit: Actually, I agree with Salla. Eating anything with intelligence 3+ is definitely something that most societies would frown upon.
pwatson1974 09-30-05, 04:15 PM	I'm pretty sure that deliberately descrating a corpse is evil, and most people would consider eating one to be a fair degree of desecration (Maybe a dragon diety would have other views. Dragons are known for eating practically anything. Especially trespassers :evillaugh ). The fact that the question 'is it a Lawful Good act to eat someone while they're still alive' is even being asked by the player is worrying. Consuming the dead may not be evil, although I'm struggling to find circumstances where it won't be, but eating the living most certainly is. Physical torture and pscyhological torture all wrapped up in one neat little package of evil.
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 04:18 PM	Put this into perspective. He's part dragon, yes? A Lawful Good dragon could (and they do) swallow an evil foe whole and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your dragonkin friend isn't human. He isn't orc, he isn't goblin, he's dragonkin, so this is not cannibalism. Well, technically. But cannibalism isn't exactly evil, either. It's gross, in my opinion, and it's known medically to be dangerous. But put that in perspective, as well: Some tribes in this world devour the flesh of their departed as part of rituals designed to keep them with them and to bring closure. Those people are not evil. They are different from us. But they are not evil. Similarly, some peoples throughout history have devoured certain parts of their prey to take on the aspect of that prey. A friend of mine thought people eating the hearts of deer to gain their speed evil, but I quickly corrected him. It's not evil just because it's not what he would do as a Christian. It's just different from what he believes. In the end, one could justify the Lawful nature of the paladin by saying he isn't wasteful. Instead of leaving his vanquished foes as a bloody, chaotic mess on the battlefield, he adds a little salt and vinegar and tidies things up nicely. Now, devouring the still living could be considered cruel. That's probably a Chaotic act. I would steer clear of that. But eating your downed foes is something that, though abhorrent to most of us, could very well be explained by custom, ritual and belief.
Draktaven 09-30-05, 04:19 PM	What exactly is a dragonkin? If its not human or with the human specieses(able to reproduce naturally with), then eating would seem wholly neutral. If the only thing that is similair between a dragonkin and a human is there bodyshap (humanoid), then it would be about as evil as eating monkeys.
windscar18 09-30-05, 04:19 PM	I tend to take alignment very lightly as I say that there's so many ways to be an exception to be an alignment. But yes, you have to really question whether this is an evil act. So, it's your call in relation to your DMing style. I wouldn't really say that it's wrong to call cannabilism an evil act.
Gedrin 09-30-05, 04:22 PM	First, I would say it is incorrect to state that the bodies of dead evil doers do not deserve the minimum of respect due a sentient in death. Not only is it a considered proper to respect the dead and departed, leaving any judgment of them from here out to the gods, it's also wise. Since the "eaten dead" will mostly resent it, it could be a bad idea to have vengeful evil people mad at you in death. Is it evil to eat the dead? I'd say not inherently IRL. There's no harm save to customs, IRL. In D&D, you could actually be doing offense/harm to the spirit of the dead. Even if not, it's an almost universal violation of the customs of death (eg, Chaotic). Only in extreme situations is such a thing viewed as acceptable, and even then, still repulsive. Eating the living...you're kidding right?
Salla 09-30-05, 04:28 PM	What exactly is a dragonkin? If its not human or with the human specieses(able to reproduce naturally with), then eating would seem wholly neutral. If the only thing that is similair between a dragonkin and a human is there bodyshap (humanoid), then it would be about as evil as eating monkeys. Lots of apples and oranges there. Monkeys aren't sentient, humans are. It doesn't matter if it's less intelligent than you are. The Short Bus is not the Lunch Wagon for you, in RL, right? The same applies here. The race of the character is completely irrelevant to this argument (other than the player trying to weasel-crap his way out of the punishments for acting out of a Paladin's Code). Hell, saying that you have the right to devour a sentient being (alive or not!) because you are intellectually/physically/genetically superior to it is one of the most arrogant, bigoted, hubristic, evil statements I can imagine. We're definitely in 'Not A Paladin' range here. Remember that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are not abstract philosophical concepts in D&D; they are concrete cosmic forces that define the universe. While an individual may think or feel that an act is good/evil/lawful/chaotic, the universe knows for sure, by an objective measure. If an individual is devoted to his race's views of proper behavior, then he can be a cleric, but unless those views are Lawful and Good by the universe's definition, he ain't no Paladin.
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 04:30 PM	People. Pick up a book. Take a college course. Watch the Discovery Channel. Cannibalism need not be an evil act. There are actual good peoples in the world who actually do it ritually for actually non-evil reasons. It's gross to us, but that doesn't make it evil. And is it even cannibalism in ths case? The guy's part dragon.
RevIron 09-30-05, 04:33 PM	Some societies accept eating the dead as a form of proper burial - as long as he plays up that angle, then it's a Lawful Neutral act, but from what your saying he's deliberatly denying them burial - that is a NE act. Making a bite attack is in and of itself a violation of the Paladin's code of conduct as I understand it. If he ever tries to eat someone without a burial right, I'd give loss of highest level spells, if he hasn't qualified for spells by that point then the most recently gained ability. And I wouldn't let him have a special mount if the character has even thought about it - I just wouldn't trust him not to eat it if I was Bahumat.
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 04:34 PM	Lots of apples and oranges there. Monkeys aren't sentient, humans are. It doesn't matter if it's less intelligent than you are. The Short Bus is not the Lunch Wagon for you, in RL, right? The same applies here. The race of the character is completely irrelevant to this argument (other than the player trying to weasel-crap his way out of the punishments for acting out of a Paladin's Code). Hell, saying that you have the right to devour a sentient being (alive or not!) because you are intellectually/physically/genetically superior to it is one of the most arrogant, bigoted, hubristic, evil statements I can imagine. We're definitely in 'Not A Paladin' range here. Remember that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are not abstract philosophical concepts in D&D; they are concrete cosmic forces that define the universe. While an individual may think or feel that an act is good/evil/lawful/chaotic, the universe knows for sure, by an objective measure. If an individual is devoted to his race's views of proper behavior, then he can be a cleric, but unless those views are Lawful and Good by the universe's definition, he ain't no Paladin. Are you a strict vegetarian? If so, I respect your point of view. If not, practice what you preach and put that steak knife down. As for the alignments not being abstract, yes they are. They are both. D&D allows you to treat good and evil as if they are black and white tangible things. But it also forces you to treat them as concepts and abstracts every time you play a murder mystery, a political intrigue, any complicated roleplaying scene, or, yup, a paladin.
windscar18 09-30-05, 04:34 PM	Agreed, but the definition between right and wrong is fairly skewed depending on the world. If alignment is defined by the cosmos, then it's the gods who determine what is right or wrong. And as real world religions point out, what's right and wrong largely depends on which god and even worshippers of the same god may disagree with one another on who their god really is, and etc.
was_fired 09-30-05, 04:38 PM	Gross and evil are entirely different things. Once a person is dead their soul departs and their body is an inanimate object. Moral judgements about the treatment an inanimate object are entirely cultural. In D&D morality is objective, and as such it cannot be anything other than neutral in such a case. That doesn't mean that if people get wind of you doing this that they won't think your evil though.
JD 09-30-05, 04:42 PM	Are you a strict vegetarian? If so, I respect your point of view. If not, practice what you preach and put that steak knife down. Not to turn this thread into an argument on vegitarianism, but I would say that I don't have the inbuilt right to eat animals. I do it anyway though, because I like the way they taste. The difference is that using this argument doesn't cause me to lose my powers, even if they are just "sleep in until noon" and "awesome su doku solving".
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 04:43 PM	Some societies accept eating the dead as a form of proper burial - as long as he plays up that angle, then it's a Lawful Neutral act, but from what your saying he's deliberatly denying them burial - that is a NE act. Making a bite attack is in and of itself a violation of the Paladin's code of conduct as I understand it. If he ever tries to eat someone without a burial right, I'd give loss of highest level spells, if he hasn't qualified for spells by that point then the most recently gained ability. And I wouldn't let him have a special mount if the character has even thought about it - I just wouldn't trust him not to eat it if I was Bahumat. Wait. Eating dead is a form of proper burial but doing so is then neutral? What? No, if it is proper, it is Lawful to do it. You are allowing your personal gross-out to affect your judgment. Denying a foe burial would not be neutral or evil. When? Most of us leave our foes where they lie in this game, paladin or not. Nobody is stripping us of our powers. Why make an exception here? Further, the paladin's view of evil, neutral or chaotic in this case would depend entirely on his creed. If his religion does not call for burial, but say, cremation, then it is not out of alignment for him to cremate a fallen foe, even if that foe's own religion called for burial. The paladin might simply not know what his foe wanted, or be so strictly taught, as to follow his own creed to the exclusion of all else. Same goes for chowing down. It, in and of itself, is not evil. It's merely utilitarian. If his creed demands he chow on a foe, then doing so is a Lawful Good act. He is following the teachings of his clerics. Nowhere does it say a paladin must be humanoid. If not, he may use his natural attacks, including his bite. It is not a violation to do so. What would be chaotic and possibly evil, is the cruelty of devouring parts of his foe while the foes watches in terror. Really, people here need to take a moment to consider the true nature of evil. Just because something is yucky - and I'm saying this for the umpteenth time this thread - does not make it evil.
Salla 09-30-05, 04:46 PM	Are you a strict vegetarian? If so, I respect your point of view. If not, practice what you preach and put that steak knife down. As for the alignments not being abstract, yes they are. They are both. D&D allows you to treat good and evil as if they are black and white tangible things. But it also forces you to treat them as concepts and abstracts every time you play a murder mystery, a political intrigue, any complicated roleplaying scene, or, yup, a paladin. Okay, I'm going to type this very slowly, in hopes you will be able to keep up. Human=Sentient. Animal=Not Sentient. Vegetable=Not Sentient. Dragonkin=Sentient. Sentient eating Sentient=Bad. Sentient eating Not Sentient=Not Bad. Not Sentient eating Not Sentient=Not Bad. Now, please to back and re-read my previous post, and actually attempt to comprehend it. Thank you.
Prominence 09-30-05, 04:48 PM	I would say it depends on whose 'normal society' you are using for your lawful side. If you're going on the dragonside, I doubt there's anything wrong with eating an orc. Dragons seem, to be, to be 'high and mighty' about stuff, so a normal sentient race to them is pretty equivalent to livestock. If you're going more on the human side of things, it'd be chaotic. Likewise, I would say carrying them around would fall under 'not good'. It's one thing to have dinner, it's another to willingly desecrate the remains of sentient creatures. Everything else involving 'no proper burial' etc would fall under his code. Is Bahamut the crazy smite-all type? Or is he the beneign Healer-type?
Chobemaster 09-30-05, 04:49 PM	Is it "normal" for dragonkin to eat sentients? If so, then it is neither evil nor unlawful to for a dragonkin to eat sentients that were killed for "other" reasons unless it is in contravention to burial practices the Paladin must uphold. (for example a Paladin of Pelor who is a Dragonkin would have to respect Pelor's view, not his culture's) If his cultural/religious view is that the dead are just shells, that there is no moral difference between eating a dead senient and a dead nonsentient, their substance is equal. Note that this view isn't up to the player, it's up to the arbiter of what those cultural views are in the campaign-specific relevant culture, the DM. HUNTING innocents to eat is a different story, but that was not the question in the OP.
ChimericPhase 09-30-05, 04:49 PM	1. Cannibalism: eating the flesh of same species/race. A wolf could hunt, kill, and eat another wolf. Cannibalism. A wolf could hunt, kill, and eat a human child. Not. Cannibalism. Even though the human child is sentient. Are we all clear now? Good. Now down to the matter of evil vs good vs law vs chaos on the matter of eating there here enemies. I really doubt Bahamut goes in for this type of stuff. But it's up to you how you want to interpret this. Dragons are predators, and they eat what they kill. However, Paladins should revere all life and treat it respectfull, even if it is the enemy. As far as eating bodies the Dragonkin has slain in honorable battle, it really comes down to how you feel about this. Are you uncomfortable with it? Rule that Bahamut frowns feasting on the bodies of your foes because they are evil, and why would you devour un-pure flesh? Do you think it's a reasonable idea? State that, in the nature of all things, hunters do not kill needlessly. Even a foe's death need not be pointless, and by eating my foe's flesh it will give me strength to do my god's work. It's your call here, stand up and be the DM. Eating while still alive: Evil. Do you even need to ask on this one?
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 04:54 PM	Not to turn this thread into an argument on vegitarianism, but I would say that I don't have the inbuilt right to eat animals. I do it anyway though, because I like the way they taste. The difference is that using this argument doesn't cause me to lose my powers, even if they are just "sleep in until noon" and "awesome su doku solving". But now you're minimalizing the argument to its detriment. You can't say, "yeah this is evil but only for a paladin." It's either evil or it's not. Then you apply it to the paladin. We all have our feelings on vegetarianism, but feeling different from somebody doesn't make you or them evil. That's where people get confused. They confuse utilitarianism with a lack of morality. But there's a big difference. Eating something is just eating something. Only intent, perspective, teaching, ritual and custom can assign good or evil to it, and then only in the mind of the diner. You can't say that I am evil because you think I don't have a right to eat animals. I am not eating them because I am evil. I am eating them because I believe that humans are meant to eat meat. It's dietarily and evolutionarily sound. It's what I've been taught, and I believe it. I didn't wake up one day and say, "Jeez, what a blast it would be to chuckle wickedly whilst I imagine the horror this poor cow felt as it was slaughtered for my sole enjoyment. I know eating meat is a sin, but I'm gonna do it because I love to sin." I mean, I know people who in jest have poked fun at vegetarians that way. ;) But nobody really does that. Same applies to the paladin. Remember, we're not talking about the slaughter of innocents. We're talking about the ritual disposing of a fallen foe by a member of a clergy of dragons.
Draktaven 09-30-05, 04:54 PM	Lots of apples and oranges there. Monkeys aren't sentient, humans are. It doesn't matter if it's less intelligent than you are. The Short Bus is not the Lunch Wagon for you, in RL, right? The same applies here. The race of the character is completely irrelevant to this argument (other than the player trying to weasel-crap his way out of the punishments for acting out of a Paladin's Code). Hell, saying that you have the right to devour a sentient being (alive or not!) because you are intellectually/physically/genetically superior to it is one of the most arrogant, bigoted, hubristic, evil statements I can imagine. We're definitely in 'Not A Paladin' range here. Remember that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are not abstract philosophical concepts in D&D; they are concrete cosmic forces that define the universe. While an individual may think or feel that an act is good/evil/lawful/chaotic, the universe knows for sure, by an objective measure. If an individual is devoted to his race's views of proper behavior, then he can be a cleric, but unless those views are Lawful and Good by the universe's definition, he ain't no Paladin. You seemed to have missed the point of my post. Im saying, that if the creature isn't a human or human subspecies(which all elves, dwarves, halfelves, and halfings, can easily be considered) it cant be considered canabalism. And eating anything (since they are already considered dead by the creator of the post) is a nuetral act, as it is niether evil nor good to eat. Thier intelligence had no play in my arguement, and thus the school bus things is not a apt comparison as that is canabalism. Keep in mind, that dwarfs eat golbins, and maintain their lawful good alignment. You also have to look at the fact that I asked what a dragonkin is, and thus monkey comparision comes into play, both are humanoids but one eating the other is not evil. This comes from a completely subjective outlook, if the paladins society and god have deep respect for the rights of the dead, a la the Greeks, then it is a entirely different matter. But such a point is entirely up for debate, as good dragons will eat evil beings.
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 04:58 PM	Okay, I'm going to type this very slowly, in hopes you will be able to keep up. Human=Sentient. Animal=Not Sentient. Vegetable=Not Sentient. Dragonkin=Sentient. Sentient eating Sentient=Bad. Sentient eating Not Sentient=Not Bad. Not Sentient eating Not Sentient=Not Bad. Now, please to back and re-read my previous post, and actually attempt to comprehend it. Thank you. I sincerely doubt you tower over me in intellect, so check your attitude, small person. As for your chart, by whose authority do you claim it to be the final word, and use it to attempt to belittle me? You want to argue? Fine. Make an argument. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole. I suggest you go over my other posts and enlighten your own ignorant self. Or keep what you believe, but don't you dare use it to try to judge me. You said this: "Hell, saying that you have the right to devour a sentient being (alive or not!) because you are intellectually/physically/genetically superior to it is one of the most arrogant, bigoted, hubristic, evil statements I can imagine." Why should it apply only to sentient beings? You need to check your morality, or simply not approach food from a moral standpoint.
imperialjunkie 09-30-05, 05:06 PM	Similarly, some peoples throughout history have devoured certain parts of their prey to take on the aspect of that prey. A friend of mine thought people eating the hearts of deer to gain their speed evil, but I quickly corrected him. It's not evil just because it's not what he would do as a Christian. It's just different from what he believes. I'm going to use your real life example to disprove your reasoning but then agree with you. If Christianity is right, then eating the heart of the deer in order to receive its spirit is evil. You are using a generalized definition of morality that is based on pluralism. In other words, if one group of people do not consider it evil then it is not evil. This is faulty logic, and this is the basis for the inevitable meaninglessness and ridiculousness of pluralism. Conflicting truths can not both be true. One must be true while the other is false. Perceptions might color things, but in the end there must be an ethical standard or every act is meaningless and therefore neither good nor evil. Now translate this to a polytheistic game setting... The ethical standard for this act is not the D&D alignment system. It is not modern day ethics. It is not, "What Would Heironeous Do?" The standard of ethical behavior for this paladin of Bahamut is Bahamut. How would the faith of Bahamut, a good dragon god, consider eating evil NPCs? Does Bahatmut eat evil NPCs? Would he condone it in one of his paladins? This is the primary question that the DM must answer, because Bahamut is the paladins ethical standard. In essence, without a divine code from his god, everything he does is meaningless. Bahamut defines morality and reality for this paladin. I'm not familiar enough with the lore surrounding Bahamut because I do not use him in my campaign, but I would venture to guess that it is OK within certain limitations- whether the snack is sentient or not. Carrying around dead people might be over the top. And torture would be over the top. Anything else might be reasonable within the faith of Bahamut and should be considered carefully by the DM.
JD 09-30-05, 05:07 PM	But now you're minimalizing the argument to its detriment... [snip] My other point was going to be that comparing real-world morality to D&D morality is a tricksy endeavour at best, but I must have forgotten to make it while thinking up powers for myself (that post took me at least fifteen minutes to write because my powers are so unimpressive). Honestly, both sides have made good points in this thread. My advice to the OP is to check out what Bahammy thinks and then it's all down to you.
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 05:23 PM	I'm going to use your real life example to disprove your reasoning but then agree with you. If Christianity is right, then eating the heart of the deer in order to receive its spirit is evil. You are using a generalized definition of morality that is based on pluralism. In other words, if one group of people do not consider it evil then it is not evil. This is faulty logic, and this is the basis for the inevitable meaninglessness and ridiculousness of pluralism. Conflicting truths can not both be true. One must be true while the other is false. Perceptions might color things, but in the end there must be an ethical standard or every act is meaningless and therefore neither good nor evil. This area is tricky because neither of us is an evil or bad person, yet only one of us considers Christianity to be valid or the final say on this, and even then, only an interpretation of it to be so. Neither of us can prove the Bible true or false to the satisfaction of the other. The only thing we have in common in the case of this argument is the question of whether or not an act is inherently evil before intent, teaching or dogma affect it. I don't think eating the heart of a deer is inherently evil. I think very few acts are, else what you're saying would be true, and everything meaningless. Most acts, if not all, are utilitarian. They are useful, neutral, not good or evil. But don't freak out. Read on to see where I believe they become evil. Going a step further, I don't think beliefs not immediately in line with those of Christianity are inherently evil. I think Christianity is the application of a mindset that can help a person determine good from evil. But I think any number of other religions, myths, and even fantasies can accomplish the same thing. In other words, just because it is not Christian, does not make it anti-Christian. Conversely, because a thing is Christian, does not make it right, or the final word, except to a believer of Christianity. Intent must be the deciding factor. Because it's the only thing divergent faiths have in common. As human beings, we cannot absolutely prove that any of our myriad faiths is the correct or final one. We're only human beings. Little creatures on a tiny planet at the edge of a vast Universe. It is fine for you to believe what you do, and I cannot argue but what I believe, so this matter cannot be solved. But intent is a close second. To my mind, a tribal people, thanking the felled deer for the gift of its sacrifice and ritually eating the heart to take on some aspect of it, is in no way evil. Only through the dogma of a competing religion can we attempt to say so, but dogma is nothing more than propaganda. It isn't the same as God showing up and saying so to your face. So how do you know? The humility, peace, sympathy and gratitude in those tribal peoples' hearts when they collected their game tells me they are good people and this was not an evil act.
Solik 09-30-05, 05:26 PM	Just let him do it. Then ask him to make a Fortitude save. See how long he keeps doing it.
JD 09-30-05, 05:29 PM	The one other thing I just have to add is that I'm amazed no-one's yet used the pun "heart of a hart". Come on, people! The wordplay is delicious!
Leewei 09-30-05, 05:43 PM	Would a gold or silver dragon chew and swallow a sentient that attacked or otherwise offended them in your game? I'm guessing not. I don't think Bahumat would hold his paladins to a different standard. The practice may be revolting to other PCs, but to a dragon, dead non-dragons are probably just so much meat. It sounds like the guy is quite a roleplayer and has a well thought-out character concept. Otherwise good people might hate him for doing what he does, but I see no reason to say that he is violating his code.
Vaelan 09-30-05, 05:43 PM	Eating people is not a question of Good or Evil. It is a question of societal norms. From the PHB.. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Since this act does not consist of hurting, oppressing, and killing others, it is not Evil.
JusticeZero 09-30-05, 05:54 PM	If he's from a place where that isn't acceptable, that's a highly chaotic act. (though not evil. We must hold the standards of evil to a higher standard than just black tentacles and bugs. Icky does not mean evil.). In some cultures that might be a lawful act, but I can't think of any offhand. I do know that I heard of at least one fictional culture where cannibalism was an act of respect for the fallen. But you'd have to be from such a background for such to apply.
windscar18 09-30-05, 06:03 PM	Exactly. We can not specifically prove that the act is good or bad, lawful or not, as a whole, because good and evil, lawful and chaotic, is so variant on the person that "subjective" is a huge huge understatement. So, it all varies on what "Bahamut" would consider and further more, what you judge in relation to Bahamut's judgement.
loaba 09-30-05, 06:09 PM	Is cannabalism necessarily Evil? No, it is not. But as the DM, it is your job to determine what the overall societal view of cannablism is. If on average, most societies balk towards such behavior, it's a good bet your Paly is not going to be well liked and recieved with open arms. It's also a good bet that if his God supports cannabilism in such a game world, then that God is probably considered Evil by those societies. The Paly's God - how does Bahimut feel about cannabilism? If he is not down with it, then it doesn't matter what race or culture the Paly comes from, he is breaking his God's code.
Bruunwald 09-30-05, 06:15 PM	WWBD? "What Would Bahamut Do?"
imperialjunkie 09-30-05, 06:43 PM	This area is tricky because neither of us is an evil or bad person, yet only one of us considers Christianity to be valid or the final say on this, and even then, only an interpretation of it to be so. Neither of us can prove the Bible true or false to the satisfaction of the other. The only thing we have in common in the case of this argument is the question of whether or not an act is inherently evil before intent, teaching or dogma affect it. I don't think eating the heart of a deer is inherently evil. I think very few acts are, else what you're saying would be true, and everything meaningless. Most acts, if not all, are utilitarian. They are useful, neutral, not good or evil. But don't freak out. Read on to see where I believe they become evil. Going a step further, I don't think beliefs not immediately in line with those of Christianity are inherently evil. I think Christianity is the application of a mindset that can help a person determine good from evil. But I think any number of other religions, myths, and even fantasies can accomplish the same thing. In other words, just because it is not Christian, does not make it anti-Christian. Conversely, because a thing is Christian, does not make it right, or the final word, except to a believer of Christianity. Intent must be the deciding factor. Because it's the only thing divergent faiths have in common. As human beings, we cannot absolutely prove that any of our myriad faiths is the correct or final one. We're only human beings. Little creatures on a tiny planet at the edge of a vast Universe. It is fine for you to believe what you do, and I cannot argue but what I believe, so this matter cannot be solved. But intent is a close second. To my mind, a tribal people, thanking the felled deer for the gift of its sacrifice and ritually eating the heart to take on some aspect of it, is in no way evil. Only through the dogma of a competing religion can we attempt to say so, but dogma is nothing more than propaganda. It isn't the same as God showing up and saying so to your face. So how do you know? The humility, peace, sympathy and gratitude in those tribal peoples' hearts when they collected their game tells me they are good people and this was not an evil act. I understand what you're saying, and I was just using it as an example from your friend's perspective. I'm a conservative Christian and don't think eating a deer's heart would be evil. I think doing so in order to channel a spirit is rather questionable. But that is neither here nor there. Again I was using your example to apply to the OP's issue of eating evil people. The point is that the standard of truth must be determined and then a decision made on the ethics. Real world ethics would not suffice. Nor does the standard definition of 'good' that is for the most part intended for core humanoid races and deities. Here you are dealing with a dragon deity, and the ethics of good dragons must be taken into account. A generic pluralistic definition of goodness will not suffice.
Millennium 09-30-05, 07:12 PM	I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the legends about ghouls, straight from the MM: ghouls are created from people who ate human flesh in life. If you follow this legend, then the paladin risks turning himself into an undead creature when he dies, and creating undead is an Evil act. Let the paladin know about this. If he continues, then he is deliberately putting himself at risk, and that's enough to cause a Fall.
Draktaven 09-30-05, 07:16 PM	Hes dragonkin, so hes not a canabal, and wouldn't turn into a ghoul. Since his food of a different species and genious it becomes a society issue. That is why some, including me, believe the answer lies within Bahamuts divine path. Whether or not good dragons should eat sentient being is the question at this point.
Radijs 09-30-05, 07:40 PM	From what I've reckoned in the DnD fantasy world species matters less with cannibalism. On earth there is 1 intelligent race. Humans. in the DnD world(s) there are dozens if not hundreds of intelligent races. Hence it is my belief that the definition of cannibalism in DnD refers to 1 intelligent being eating another intelligent being.
Millennium 09-30-05, 07:43 PM	Hes dragonkin, so hes not a canabal, and wouldn't turn into a ghoul. Since his food of a different species and genious it becomes a society issue. That is why some, including me, believe the answer lies within Bahamuts divine path. Whether or not good dragons should eat sentient being is the question at this point. In that case, we can look at the dietary habits of good dragons as an example. It's stated outright that all true dragons can eat almost anything, but what do they choose to eat? I don't remember them all, but I seem to recall Golds liking gemstones, Bronzes preferring pearls, and Coppers drinking the morning dew. Draconomicon goes more into this sort of thing, but I distinctly remember MM going into this to at least some degree. But basically, it sounds like Good dragons aren't into eating sentients, even though they're biologically capable of doing so (and, if you believe what the red dragons say, they taste really good).
Talonz 09-30-05, 07:59 PM	Canibalism is, in my view, evil. Desecrating the dead is also evil, if not at least chaotic. What you can raise as a more interesting topic with this character is the struggle he can roleplay, the struggle between his draconic instincts to devour, and his desire to serve Bahamut. In my view, those 2 conflict, and can result in some great storytelling moments. Presented that way to a player you profess to be an excellent roleplayer, and your problem is likely solved, as that conflict should intrigue him.
windscar18 09-30-05, 08:03 PM	Granted though, that would probably frustrate most people to no end. Yes, some roleplayers enjoy having a dark past or an internal struggle to always deal with, but that's not always the case and no doubt, in a case where Bahamut finally said, "Enough. You have been stripped of your Paladin abilities." and the poor former paladin ran into a combat situation, then what's to roleplay anymore considering the paladin is probably dead?
FriendoftheDork 09-30-05, 08:10 PM	I would not take away the pallys' powers over this. First of all he's not killing to consume, just killing in self defense. Secondly any human killing these bandits and evildoers would probably just let them lie there and rot. Now why is getting eaten after death by a dragonkin any worse than being eaten by maggots? If someone can explain me that I'm fine. And "because it's gross" is not an explanation, that's just the inability to seperate self and character in a game. Is it gross for a human to eat humans? Yes for many. For demihumans? Yeah I guess so. For lizardmen? Nope, humans taste good according to them and they... are... not... EVIL. So why is it worse for a Dragonkin?
windscar18 09-30-05, 08:12 PM	I'm not saying that I would personally take away his powers. But I'm saying that in such a situation where the DM would warn the players that he's entering "dark past" territory, most players would just abandon the character idea. Personally, I wouldn't really mind leaving him as good, but leaving him as lawful isn't the most realistic thing and I'd probably give him the chance to convert to a Paladin of Freedom (from Unearthed Arcana).
Talonz 09-30-05, 08:17 PM	Granted though, that would probably frustrate most people to no end. Yes, some roleplayers enjoy having a dark past or an internal struggle to always deal with, but that's not always the case This is why you discuss character concepts, goals and obstacles with the player. What do they think? Are they into the idea? Where would they like to take this conflict? and no doubt, in a case where Bahamut finally said, "Enough. You have been stripped of your Paladin abilities." and the poor former paladin ran into a combat situation, then what's to roleplay anymore considering the paladin is probably dead? You're kidding right? A fallen paladin due to cannibalstic tendancies? And you ask whats to roleplay?? At any rate, it should be a joint decision when and how the dragonkin paladin falls from grace. The player should have plenty of warnings from the dm and take whatever necesary steps they feel to control or surrender to the struggle as the player prefers.
windscar18 09-30-05, 08:26 PM	What I mean is that the paladin's essentially would be screwed in the appropriate battle situation meaning that a dead character can't be roleplayed. THAT's what I mean. Of course, such a conflict you can roleplay. But you can't roleplay a dead character. And yes, he would probably have plenty of warnings, but a lot of players are still cautious.
Masahiro018 09-30-05, 10:13 PM	Wow...can't say I expected this issue to cause such...heated...discussion. Remember guys - it's just a game. I'm the Paladin in question. To clarify a few things, in my 10 years of playing I've never played a Paladin before. I have, however, played Samurai God-only-knows how much. They too are Lawful, but of any Good/Evil alignment. I always play Lawful Good samurai, and I follow a code of honor with them. I imagine that it will be similar to that, but with other objectives in mind than reaching spiritual enlightenment and placing honor above all else. I've never really had much use for Paladins, but I decided to try something different in Lonestar's campaign. I figured adding 'Dragonkin' to the mix would just push things over the top and make it too much fun to resist. The reason I was wondering whether or not I could use my fallen enemies for food is because...well I mean I'm playing a Dragonkin. They're not human. They're not dragons. They're similar to half-dragons, with a few changes. They are large creatures, and they aren't a template added to another race. Dragonkin are their own race. They are called 'the distant cousins of dragons.' At first, I jokingly said I was going to eat what I killed, but the more I thought about it the more I thought it would be an interesting idea. The intimidation factor alone would be enough to stop combat in some cases. If they won't listen to reason and surrender, make an example of them to prevent shedding more blood. To answer the whole "Eating them alive?!?!?!" thing. He could have worded that better. I didn't mean "Latch on and gnaw on his arm until he begs for mercy." I was looking more at a one bite kill - specifically the head. Usually as a finishing move. Scary? Yes. Exactly the point. How likely will a group of bandits be to keep fighting when they see one of their own become breakfast for someone who has told them to surrender or suffer the wrath of Bahamut? They might be likely to take him a little more seriously, and the mention of this "Bahamut" person may very well intrigue them. To go into a little more reasoning, yes it would generate conflict, both with the character himself and with the rest of the party. And conflict makes for great D&D sessions because it's all about the roleplaying. If I'm playing the role of a person who believes devouring fallen warriors will make him stronger, where's the harm? There isn't any info in any of the books about whether or not Bahamut gives the thumbs up to his Paladins eating evil people, but I would think that would be the DM's call. As it stands, he has given me the thumbs down. Which is fine. That's why I asked him in the first place. The campaign doesn't start until tomorrow and I want to make sure that all my info is in order before I get into the mindset of my character. Due to the DM's ruling, I've changed the personality of the character to better accomodate the 'don't eat dead people' thing. Was I looking forward to eating people that I killed? You better believe it! Add some nice herbal seasoning and I bet a halfling would taste like rotiseree chicken. So, to prevent further temper raising among you otherwise mild-mannered D&D enthusiasts, I have withdrawn my request to eat those I have slain, and instead have adopted a personal struggle my character will have with the concept. Namely this: Dragonkin Alignment: Usually Chaotic Evil. I love the 'usually' alignments because I get to play that 1/1,000,000 guy that took the road less traveled by. Cyrus' reason for being LG? Unlike most Dragonkin, his blood is traced back to Silver Dragons, rather than a genetic grab-bag of Chromatic blood like most Dragonkin have. With that, I wish you all well, thank you for your input, and return to my drawing board where I am still doing a graphite sketch of my beloved Cyrus before the game begins tomorrow. Peace!
Talonz 09-30-05, 10:23 PM	What I mean is that the paladin's essentially would be screwed in the appropriate battle situation meaning that a dead character can't be roleplayed. THAT's what I mean. I'm somewhat perplexed as to why you think a roleplaying conflict would screw the character in combat. I'm playing a Dragonkin. They're not human. They're not dragons. They're similar to half-dragons, with a few changes. They are large creatures, and they aren't a template added to another race. Dragonkin are their own race. They are called 'the distant cousins of dragons.' At first, I jokingly said I was going to eat what I killed, but the more I thought about it the more I thought it would be an interesting idea. Sounds kinda like a draconian. So not really cannibalism. Still, we're dealing with desecration of the dead at the least. Sounds like a great chaotic fighter concept to me. Just not a LG paladin.
Masahiro018 09-30-05, 10:27 PM	Well, I withdrew the request anyway, so it's not really an issue anymore. I think it would all depend on Bahamut's view of burial rights. And neither the Draconomicon nor the Complete Divine have been much help to me with that one. What good is having a library of D&D books worth more than your car if you can't figure out whether or not it's ok to eat a bandit that tried to kill your wizard?
pres_man 10-01-05, 12:08 AM	I'm glad to hear the DM and the player have worked out the issue. Let me just make a few comments for the community at large. Cannibalism I think some people are using one definition while others are using a different one. One definition refers to any creature eating one of its own kind, the other real world definition refers specifically to humans eating humans. This second one is what I see people expanding in a fantasy game setting. Since humans are the only sentient species on the earth (that we know of ;) , been watching too much sci-fi lately) if we expand it to a world with many sentient species, we could change the second definition to be a sentient eating another sentient. I realize that some may not like this less then precise definition, but it makes the statement easier then saying sentient eating sentient each time. Looking over a quick etymology of the word it looks like it is based more on "person" then species, so it could be used perhaps whenever talking about a "person" eating another "person". Is eating sentient life evil? As for the act of one sentient eating another sentient (see wouldn't it be easier to just say cannibalism) being evil, I think it matters how it is done. In my campaign, lizardfolk eat the hearts of their companions in order to retain the strength in the group. They will not eat the heart of a foe unless that foe has proven themselves to be worthy, currently they are fighting a bunch of half-fiend lizardfolk and the normal lizardfolk do not eat their tainted hearts. On the other hand if a person chews on a finger and then tosses the bones/left overs off the side without any respect for the dignity of the fallen, I would have an extreme hard time not seeing that as evil. Also biting/swallowing another sentient being for the purpose of eating while they are still alive is definitely evil in my book. Should a paladin eat sentient beings? I asked my wife, who is quite smart, this question and she gave a very wise answer. No a paladin should not, not because the act is itself evil, but because of the image this gives for others with respect to the paladin. A paladin might only eat the foes that attack him, but to outsiders looking in it may look like the paladin fought the person merely to consume them. Image is very important to a paladin, to a chaotic being they might not care what others might infer, a paladin definitely should care.
Jaxgaret 10-01-05, 12:29 AM	Awesome post conversation so far. Wanted to add this point to aid your DM's thumbs-down decision: you state that mostly the eating of slain foes/final blow mastication will be done primarily as an intimidation tactic. Think conversely of the feelings of your allies and bystanders to the sight of such tactics. Seems like a lot of folks will have a hard time even believing your character when he says that he's a paladin! "You're a paladin??!?! They must make paladins different where you come from" :D Or not. But it's something to take into account - a lot of what paladins stand for is a perception of goodness and order for the populace to look up to, not just being so for their own sake. EDIT: Wow, pres man, your wife beat me to it! Heh.
Ridureyu 10-01-05, 01:21 AM	Man, this thread's made me hungry.
Cantankerous 10-01-05, 02:49 AM	1. Cannibalism: eating the flesh of same species/race. A wolf could hunt, kill, and eat another wolf. Cannibalism. A wolf could hunt, kill, and eat a human child. Not. Cannibalism. Even though the human child is sentient. Are we all clear now? Good. Sorry, no. Cannibalism is the eating of a SAPIENT life form by another SAPIENT life form. An earth worm is sentient. A goat is sentient, a cow is sentient. They are not SAPIENT. I know, the RAW uses the word Sentient. Is a a VERY POORLY chosen word. On this planet, in what passes for "the Real World", there is only one SAPIENT race, human beings. Thus the eating of a human being by a human being is Cannabalism. In a fantasy world with many SAPIENT races, there is a difference. Cannabalism is NOT species specific. It is specific to the idea of SAPIENCE, the ability to understand the ramifications of thought. THEREFORE, the Dragonkin most definately would be commiting an evil act as it shows a great lack of respect for SAPIENT beings. This is why the example that PresMan uses about the Lizardman race in his campaign is exempt from this. THEY (that race) ARE showing a great deal of respect for the dignity of their fallen comrades. Isshia
ChimericPhase 10-01-05, 03:30 AM	Sorry, no. Cannibalism is the eating of a SAPIENT life form by another SAPIENT life form. An earth worm is sentient. A goat is sentient, a cow is sentient. They are not SAPIENT. I know, the RAW uses the word Sentient. Is a a VERY POORLY chosen word. On this planet, in what passes for "the Real World", there is only one SAPIENT race, human beings. Thus the eating of a human being by a human being is Cannabalism. In a fantasy world with many SAPIENT races, there is a difference. Cannabalism is NOT species specific. It is specific to the idea of SAPIENCE, the ability to understand the ramifications of thought. Isshia I'm sorry, did my denotation get in the way of your connotations? In that case, allow me to elucidate: From the lovely The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: can·ni·bal n. 1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans. 2. An animal that feeds on others of its own kind. 3. The eating of the flesh or the eggs of any animal by its own kind and also, from the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary: cannibalism n : the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind All at the courtesy of Dictionary.com Nope, nothing here about sapience or sentience, and in truth it really doesn't matter which word you use either way. And just for clarification: sentience means to be aware and self awareness; whereas sapience means ability to apply knowledge, wisdom or forsight. Most mammals have both. So don't bandy your POORLY CHOSEN WORDS with me, because according to your post, preying mantis do not perform cannibalism, when indeed they clearly do. Also, while nobody has really had the chance to question them, its highly unlikely earthworms are sentient, or sapient, or even senile. And try to go a little easier on the caps lock the next time you'd like to emphasis text. I'm sure if you're creative you can find less primitive ways to draw attention other than visually shouting at a person.
Cantankerous 10-01-05, 03:48 AM	I'm sorry, did my denotation get in the way of your connotations? In that case, allow me to elucidate: From the lovely The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: can·ni·bal n. 1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans. 2. An animal that feeds on others of its own kind. 3. The eating of the flesh or the eggs of any animal by its own kind and also, from the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary: cannibalism n : the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind All at the courtesy of Dictionary.com Nope, nothing here about sapience or sentience, and in truth it really doesn't matter which word you use either way. And just for clarification: sentience means to be aware and self awareness; whereas sapience means ability to apply knowledge, wisdom or forsight. Most mammals have both. So don't bandy your POORLY CHOSEN WORDS with me, because according to your post, preying mantis do not perform cannibalism, when indeed they clearly do. Also, while nobody has really had the chance to question them, its highly unlikely earthworms are sentient, or sapient, or even senile. And try to go a little easier on the caps lock the next time you'd like to emphasis text. I'm sure if you're creative you can find less primitive ways to draw attention other than visually shouting at a person. Look, when you are discussing Good and Evil, which is the topic of this thread, in case you haven't noticed, and is the half of the topic of Alignment (the other half being Law v Chaos), then ANIMALS are not included. Spliting hairs aside, putting aside a simple desire to one upsmanship, animals do NOT come into a discussion of Good and Evil. Or do you so avere? Also, I'll go easier on the caps if you'll go easier on the snide assed comments. Isshia
ChimericPhase 10-01-05, 03:59 AM	Look, when you are discussing Good and Evil, which is the topic of this thread, in case you haven't noticed, and is the half of the topic of Alignment (the other half being Law v Chaos), then ANIMALS are not included. Spliting hairs aside, putting aside a simple desire to one upsmanship, animals do NOT come into a discussion of Good and Evil. Or do you so avere? Also, I'll go easier on the caps if you'll go easier on the snide assed comments. Isshia Glad you noticed the discussion is about good and evil, and I clearly commented on in my original post. And due to the nature of cannibalism, the entire issue is obviously not concerning actual cannibalism as I also pointed out in my original post. However, I could not let your post pass with such a glaring discrepancy that could potentially cause confusion among others. The usage of animals were merely placed for exemplification. That aside, it would be nice to return to the original debate. Profanity aside, likewise.
ChimericPhase 10-01-05, 04:14 AM	We all have our feelings on vegetarianism, but feeling different from somebody doesn't make you or them evil. That's where people get confused. They confuse utilitarianism with a lack of morality. But there's a big difference. Eating something is just eating something. Only intent, perspective, teaching, ritual and custom can assign good or evil to it, and then only in the mind of the diner. emph. added by me. You make a good point, but you also assume that good and evil in D&D are strictly philisophical points of view. As they are in the real world, truth is personal, and every individual has their own 'truth' on what is good or evil. Very few individuals will ever agree on what is good or evil, and even if they do agree, they will agree based on different judgements. However, in D&D good, evil, law, and chaos aren't just philosophical views or cultural ideas - they are real cosmic forces that are manifested via paladins, clerics, outsiders, and even entire planes of exsistance. In D&D what is good or evil is not an issue of what so-and-so believes is pious or sinful - but what is universally enforced as good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. At least they would be, if anyone here in the plain ole' real world could decide on what those standards really are - and we can't because we all have different judgements. Again it really comes down to your call on the situation. It may or may not matter which way you decide, but lay down the law for your world and stick to it. Consistancy is more important here than anything else, really. I understand the player has withdrawn the question to you, but issues like this are always likely to crop up again. A day doesn't go by when a new post is on the forums with "Is X action okay with Z alignment?!??" :rolleyes:
Cantankerous 10-01-05, 05:18 AM	The point is, Cannibalism as was referenced in the OP, does NOT have anything whatever to do with animals. Neither is it necessary any discussion of Good and Evil; vias- alignment. These, as they relate to the topic, not some far flung non-sense about Animals, is germaine to the issues. Thus the comment about the VERY POOR wording in the RAW. Especially for someone who is such a stickler for EXACT definitions: sentience n 1: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness" [syn: awareness] 2: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing" [syn: sense, sensation, sentiency, sensory faculty] 3: the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart [ant: insentience] versus sapience. sapience n : ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight [syn: wisdom] ALL alignment issues are based upon SAPIENT, not Sentient, thought. The sentient is able to perceive it's world, the sapient is able to UNDERSTAND it. Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos) are not things that can be perceived, ONLY understood. Therein lies the difference and therein lies the reason why the use of the word Sentience in the RAW is "very poor" word choice. Which is ALSO why using a definition of Canabalism that includes animals is completely and totally non sequitur. Finally, I use caps to stress a particular idea. If you don't like it, to bloody bad. Don't read my posts. Isshia
Gilean 10-01-05, 09:18 AM	All who say that cannibalism (used falsely, but that is besides the point) is evil, would it be evil to eat a sentient (sapient) creature if that is all the food that is available? Also, lizardfolk eat humans regularly and are usually neutral. How is that explained?
Utokai 10-01-05, 09:32 AM	Let's get a few things straight. This is not cannibalism. People are animals too. Eating other living creatures is not wrong. Even if they're sentient, it doesn't make it wrong unless the society forbids it. How many people (in the D&D world) would object to the eating of an evil-doer? Not too many I'd suspect. However, his attitude for why he should be able to do it is where he gets in trouble. Disregard for life is definitely an evil act. Disregard for the bodies of what was once living is still evil, no matter what alignment that person had.
Lord Ian Stark 10-01-05, 09:56 AM	would it be evil to eat a sentient (sapient) creature if that is all the food that is available? That's irrelevant to this topic as this "eating people" is out of a want not a need. One of my players is a LG Dragonkin Paladin of Bahamut. He's a awesome guy and good roleplayer however, he wants to do something I think would seriously violate his alignment. He wants to use badguys as food. Literally. He thinks it would not be evil for him to use slain enemies such as bandits and whatnot as rations. I think this would be grounds for him to lose his alignment. We're both reasonable people, so I come to ask you, what do you think? Do you agree this would be evil? His justification is that they are evil, and thus they do not either deserve a proper burial and that he thinks it would not matter if he was to consume their corpses since they do not deserve such respect. IMO, as long as the Dragonkin doesn't eat any reptilian creatures he is not doing any cannibalistic action. Dragonkins are "reptilian" creatures. So now that is out of the way... a LG Dragonkin? The majority are Chaotic Evil, a Lawful Good one would be very, very rare. But possible... One level of Paladin would make this an ECL 10 character (Draconomicon) so this must be a pretty decent level party you have. But back to the questions. Hmm, a Paladin that eats it's enemies........ Let's just say the only reason this may be possible is he is a race of beings that are not of the core classes. I can't see many of the core classes eating other core classes except maybe the half orc. In D&D we have to immerse ourselves into the crazyness of hundreds of races and creatures out there. So being closeminded and saying anything with an INT over 3 is not fit for consumption is down right idiotic IMO. Fit for consumption by whom is the question? A human? Probrably not. A reptilian creature? Maybe. So as a Paladin of Bahamut, I would say no to eating any Dragon or reptilian creature. However it's chow time for the others. ;) Just have him fight some undead for a while and maybe he will learn to start getting some "regular" trail rations. Oh and the comment on the burying dead creatures is only in the minds of the religeous Gods that deal in ceremonies and such. Bahamut doesn't really have any churchy things set up. He is more of an older style God of worship in the mind and not through silly traditional dances and masses, etc... Also, he wants to know if using someone still living as food is would be considered evil. His justification for this is that he has a bite attack. If he can use it in battle and swallow what he bites off, what is the problem doing it to an evil character under different circumstances? I'm looking in the Draconomicon on page 150 & 151 and I don't see this Dragonkin getting a bite attack? Eating a creature alive is a form of torture IMO and not befitting of any Paladin. Torture is evil. Eating people alive is torture. So I would say no dice. He has to do the "Bite to wound" and not the "Bite to eat" style.
revnk 10-01-05, 02:08 PM	I asked my wife, who is quite smart, this question and she gave a very wise answer. No a paladin should not, not because the act is itself evil, but because of the image this gives for others with respect to the paladin. A paladin might only eat the foes that attack him, but to outsiders looking in it may look like the paladin fought the person merely to consume them. Image is very important to a paladin, to a chaotic being they might not care what others might infer, a paladin definitely should care. What if he uses a fork? :D
Rhomphaia 10-01-05, 05:11 PM	The way I see this issue is this. Cannabalism itself is not evil, or chaotic or lawful or good. It is one of those things, like going to the bathroom, is simply a neutral act. Where it is good or evil varies greatly with circumstance. If it is done as a culturally ritualistic matter after killing a foe (like the lizardfolk example a couple pages back). Also there are real world examples of forms of cannablism where the act would be considered good. There is a tribe that lives on islands in the South Pacific that have a funerary practice when someone dies. They burn the body, let the bones smolder, and then grind up the bones and mix with milk and a couple of other things and drink the concoction. To them, this is not evil. In their eyes they are allowing the person to live on in their bodies and to continue to experience life and its joys until the next person in the village dies. I would also go insofar as to say this particular example is also lawful, as there is a set ritual, that takes days to accomplish, associated with it. I think this whole question came up because of the classical headhunter/cannibal stereotype. Primitives wielding spears and catching unwary travellers and then cooking them alive on spits over huge bonfires. Either that or the 'Hannibal Lector' cannibal that actually goes out and murders people to fulfill urges. Anyway, the way I see it, cannabalism is not a matter of perspective, but in what context it was carried out as it relates to the definitions of alignment in Dungeons and Dragons. I would strongly encourage DMs to work with their players and seek advice from other DMs on issues such as this.
Masahiro018 10-01-05, 05:40 PM	I thought I stated in an earlier post that I was mistaken about the bite, but I guess I forgot to do that. There is no bite attack with Dragonkin. My bad. Secondly - Dragonkin only have an ECL of +2...I don't get how you get +10...but there may be something I overlooked. Thirdly - I WITHDREW THE REQUEST! Please stop arguing and getting angry at one another over the issue. If I had known it was going to cause this much of an upset I would have just played a bard...no one cares about them. People being mad = bad. Don't be mad. These are all just opinions, really. I mean, beauty is in the eye of the Beholder, right? (Heh...get it...it's a D&D board and I capitalized...nevermind.) Anyway. Yeah. Please no fighting? Huh? Love and peace? Vash the Stampede? Anyone? No one? Please?
Draktaven 10-01-05, 05:48 PM	I thought I stated in an earlier post that I was mistaken about the bite, but I guess I forgot to do that. There is no bite attack with Dragonkin. My bad. Secondly - Dragonkin only have an ECL of +2...I don't get how you get +10...but there may be something I overlooked. Thirdly - I WITHDREW THE REQUEST! Please stop arguing and getting angry at one another over the issue. If I had known it was going to cause this much of an upset I would have just played a bard...no one cares about them. People being mad = bad. Don't be mad. These are all just opinions, really. I mean, beauty is in the eye of the Beholder, right? (Heh...get it...it's a D&D board and I capitalized...nevermind.) Anyway. Yeah. Please no fighting? Huh? Love and peace? Vash the Stampede? Anyone? No one? Please? This is a forum, and despite the fact that your game no longer has the issue, other people still want to discuss the topic. Any thread with the words paladin and palade code in them will cause heated debates, it is a fact of WoTC forum life. Just let people have their fun and ignore the rest of the topic as it no longer applies to you. As far as the dragonkin being +10, you need to look into racial hitdice and stuff, I remember seeing that race and just adding a +2 wasnt enough.
Masahiro018 10-01-05, 06:07 PM	Well the book says +2 so any change beyond that would be DM discression, I would think.
imperialjunkie 10-01-05, 07:29 PM	The way I see this issue is this. Cannabalism itself is not evil, or chaotic or lawful or good. It is one of those things, like going to the bathroom, is simply a neutral act. If you ever move to Maryland in the US, please let me know. I'll move. ;) So as a Paladin of Bahamut, I would say no to eating any Dragon or reptilian creature. However it's chow time for the others. ;) Strongly agreed. The long discussions on the ethics of cannibalism are pointless. The issue is the Church of Bahamut and the race of the PC. What does the church allow? I agree with Lord Ian Stark that a good dragon god would allow a dragonkin paladin to eat his slain enemies. Bahamut would do the same I would think.
fairypuff 10-01-05, 11:41 PM	i made a similar thread a while back. I was a cg half dragon and i tasted me slayed foes and skinned them into a coat because i had lived like that by neccesity for a few months while being chased by a army of hobgoblins. I acquired the tasted and continued doing it. the paladin sayed it was evil the necromancer thought it was dandy and the barbarian was too stupid to care. so generally its at best chaotic. chewing on them as they live is evil that is turture but some honor the dead by eating them so its not. point eating is chaotic in my opinion if they r intelligent (people gnomes goblins) eating alive is evil period ( dont eat live chickens do u) eating dead stupid stuff is fine (cows pigs sheep ducks) this is provided your intelligent religion can change (jews and pigs) so its cercumstancial except hes a paladin dragonkin (draconomicon) are usually evil think dragons though eat everything so its really just the dm's call
Lao, Ninja of the Dragon 10-02-05, 01:10 AM	Okay, Cannabalism when you do not need to partake in it is evil. In D&D terms, I wouldn't know where to put survival cannabalism. I would rather starve than resort to eating a sentient (sapient, whatever) creature. Or a dolphin. Or an ape. And no, Good dragons do not eat evil NPCs. Well technically, they could get away with this in FR (I am referring to the hunting and eating of sentient creatures such as dragonturtles by good aligned beings :nonono: )
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 04:03 AM	Well the book says +2 so any change beyond that would be DM discression, I would think. A Dragonkin PC has 7 Racial Hit Dice and a +2 LA. So that makes him an ECL 9 character with NO class levels. One Level of Paladin would make him equivalant to a 10th Lvl Human Paladin. This is found in the Draconomicon book on pages 150 & 151. According to the Deities and Demigod's book under Bahamut, it states that he doesn't really have churches as the majority of his followers are mostly dragons. It also says the dragons may have a small shrine to him in there cave/home which is usually just as simple as his symbol etched into the cave wall. So no churchesqe things as humanoids go to.
SwiftFox 10-02-05, 04:37 AM	Yeesh... After the first page I stopped reading the replys for this topic, it was obviously turning into one of those 'morality argument' threads which are always POINTLESS. Why bring RL morality into D&D??? and for pete's sake, dont waste your time trying to 'interpret' the D&D rules, they are straight-foreward black-and-white, not meant to be interpreted as though there is any deeper meaning to be extracted though serious contemplation! In response to the original post : No, an LG person cant rationalise eating the corpses of slain foes except possibly as an act of desperation and even then he would still require an atonement in order to keep his alignment. The same goes double for still-living foes. Why? because such an act is neither lawful, nor good... not intrisicly evil depending on the specific circumstances, but definately not acceptable conduct for one who is supposed to exemplify honor, compassion and respect for the dignity of other intelligent creatures. The idea that a PALADIN would not only ignore a slain foe's right to burial, but desecrate his corpse further by treating it as a mere food source is beyond beliefe. If that's what the character wants to do, guess what? he deserves an involuntary alignment change, to N or CN at the very least, and the subsequent loss of his paladin abilities. The rules are very explicit on this point, and if eating the corpse of your foes isnt conduct unbecoming of a paladin, I dont know what is. That poster who said, 'if you have to ask, you should know the answer will be NO' was absolutely right.
Gilean 10-02-05, 04:41 AM	That's irrelevant to this topic as this "eating people" is out of a want not a need.If cannibalism is evil, then it is evil no matter the circumstances. Torturing of need, summoning fiends of need, cannibaism when needed...
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 04:47 AM	If cannibalism is evil, then it is evil no matter the circumstances. Torturing of need, summoning fiends of need, cannibaism when needed... That's all "If." Not to mention a Dragonkin eating a non-reptilian or Dragon creature is not Cannibalism.
pwatson1974 10-02-05, 05:53 AM	That's all "If." Not to mention a Dragonkin eating a non-reptilian or Dragon creature is not Cannibalism. Can we at least agree on what cannibalism is? Otherwise, we're going to be going round in circles unti we make crop circles in the boards. 2 definitions are being used here: 1) Cannibalism only applies to eating your own or related species. 2) Cannibalism only applies to eating things that think, reason and have some kind of moral code above and beyond survival instinct. Personally, I prefer the latter definition. It makes more sense in a world with many morally capable beings than the first whichis derived from our own world where there is only one type of creature capable of being moral (even if it can't be bothered a lot of the time). Intent is also a factor, as well as action. If consuming a worthy enemy's heart is considered a sign of respect, then it is not only not desecrating a corpse, but is actually granting them a great honour and couldn't be called evil (although I'm not sure it could be called good, either). That said, just chowing down on your fallen foes certainly seems to be offering their corpses no respect, which would not be a good act. And if animating a corpse is evil, I would say eating one is as well.
Cantankerous 10-02-05, 06:01 AM	It's not the ideal of canabalism that matters AT ALL here in the first place. It is the very strong way in which the eating of a dead opponent shows a lack of respect for sentient (sapient) beings, as per the RAW. Whether the devouring of the persons flesh is done in a respectful manner by the devourer or not, the body (the corpse) still BELONGS to the gestalt being that inhabited it, body and soul, before death. Thus dishonoring the corpse (which is almost universally abhored both IRL and in fantasy literature) is a definate no no. It does not matter if the person (Paladin) involved is a Dragonkin or a human being, the devouring of the flesh of the sentient (sapient)shows a great disrespect to that being as it is, in effect, stealing that which was part of them. Isshia
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 06:28 AM	Can we at least agree on what cannibalism is? 2 definitions are being used here: 1) Cannibalism only applies to eating your own or related species. 2) Cannibalism only applies to eating things that think, reason and have some kind of moral code above and beyond survival instinct. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition to set us all straight. ;) Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism Pronunciation: 'ka-n&-b&-"li-z&m Function: noun 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 So, a Dragonkin is a reptilian creature. So as long as it doesn't eat another reptilian creature it won't be cannibalism by definition. Ok? That said, just chowing down on your fallen foes certainly seems to be offering their corpses no respect, which would not be a good act. And if animating a corpse is evil, I would say eating one is as well. How is eating the dead flesh of a creature evil? People aren't friggen carnivores in D&D? I already explained the ideals of most church based gods have ceremonies and things like that. Bahamut doesn't. When a Dragon goes to die it goes to a place like elephants in RL. A graveyard like place. No tombstones or ceremonies like the core races. They just lay down and die. I think everyone is confusing the core races Gods and monstrous Gods here. Think of all the intelligent creatures eaten by Good Dragons in the past. Those were all evil acts, right? I don't think so. You're confusing human philosophy with creatures IMO.
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 06:29 AM	Bah double post due to board lag...
Gilean 10-02-05, 09:55 AM	It is the very strong way in which the eating of a dead opponent shows a lack of respect for sentient (sapient) beings, as per the RAW.Pray tell, where does the RaW say that eating sentient (sapient) things shows disrespect towards them?Thus dishonoring the corpse (which is almost universally abhored both IRL and in fantasy literature) is a definate no no.Whether it is abhorred or not is irrelevant. I repeat my question; would you, Cantankerous, say that it would be an evil act to eat sentient's corpse if it was the only food source available? Also, why are lizardfolk, who eat humans, nonevil?
pwatson1974 10-02-05, 11:21 AM	I repeat my question; would you, Cantankerous, say that it would be an evil act to eat sentient's corpse if it was the only food source available? Actually, limiting options does not necessarily change the evilness. If eating another sapient/sentient/thinking/moral/whatever creature's corpse is evil, then the fact that you haven't got anything else to eat doesn't make it less evil. It might make it necessary for survival, but Paladins aren't supposed to compromise their ideals for anything, even death.
Cantankerous 10-02-05, 11:21 AM	Pray tell, where does the RaW say that eating sentient (sapient) things shows disrespect towards them? Pray tell, show me where does the RAW say that water is wet? They're roughly in the same place. Whether it is abhorred or not is irrelevant. No, abhorence (especially a near universal abhorence) of a practice is ENTIRELY relevant to the discussion. The Raw states: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. That which is abhored (especially again, in a nearly universal fashion) DEFINES what is counter-respectful (among other things) or clearly demonstrates a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient (sapient) beings. It really is a "water being wet" kind of thing. I repeat my question; would you, Cantankerous, say that it would be an evil act to eat sentient's corpse if it was the only food source available? Yes. By the definition from the RAW, yes. But, so what? A Good person, an Astral Deva, a Paladin, a very god of Good, CAN and sometimes do commit evil acts. So what? A Paladin, because of his special restrictions needs to atone afterwards. So what? An act, or even several, or such a nature will not make the person evil, even by D&D terms, although it will certainly lead them in that direction. Killing one person to save the lives of many is ALSO an evil act, per the RAW. Period. Yet it is a much less Evil act than not doing so and thereby abetting in the deaths of many. Alignment in D&D is NOT complex. There is NO perfection of it. It is far too sharply delianated for that. It is only in trying to write in thousands of exceptions, instead of realizing the simple truth that there will be actions that abrogate one alignment or another irregardless, that the whole thing gets complicated. Also, why are lizardfolk, who eat humans, nonevil? Simply, because eating humans, or any other sapient life form, while Evil as per the RAW, is not the only thing these beings do. The other things they do tend to balance out this particular. In a Lawful Good society that keeps slaves, where it is cultural for them to be extant, the society at large is acting contrary to the dignity of the sentient beings in it who are slaves, yet the society as a whole can still be Lawful Good. The reasons and rationales are the same. Very, VERY clearly stated in the RAW is the fact that a single evil act does not make you evil, any more than a single act of altruism might make a devil Good. It is a preponderance of actions that count, not individual actions. Isshia
beezly 10-02-05, 11:33 AM	Don't have him lose his alignment, but have a troupe of bandit ghosts following him around until he gives them a proper burial or something.
ercpkr 10-02-05, 11:35 AM	Well, dragons eat evil people, and he is a paladin of the dragon god. Maybe he is doing it as an homage to Bahamut?
Gallameed 10-02-05, 12:44 PM	One of my players is a LG Dragonkin Paladin of Bahamut. He's a awesome guy and good roleplayer however, he wants to do something I think would seriously violate his alignment. He wants to use badguys as food. Literally. He thinks it would not be evil for him to use slain enemies such as bandits and whatnot as rations. I think this would be grounds for him to lose his alignment. We're both reasonable people, so I come to ask you, what do you think? Do you agree this would be evil? His justification is that they are evil, and thus they do not either deserve a proper burial and that he thinks it would not matter if he was to consume their corpses since they do not deserve such respect. Also, he wants to know if using someone still living as food is would be considered evil. His justification for this is that he has a bite attack. If he can use it in battle and swallow what he bites off, what is the problem doing it to an evil character under different circumstances? The good metallic Dragons of the Forgotten Realms are forbidden to eat any sentient being. This is stated in the "Rage" books, the cromatics dont mind noshing away on the ''little ones'' though.
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 01:24 PM	The good metallic Dragons of the Forgotten Realms are forbidden to eat any sentient being. This is stated in the "Rage" books, Bahamut is a FR deity huh? Sure about that?
Lao, Ninja of the Dragon 10-02-05, 01:34 PM	Bahamut is a FR deity huh? Sure about that? Yes, though he is like his Sumerian counterpart and has really nothing to do with dragons. and people, name one time a good dragon ate an evil NPC.
imperialjunkie 10-02-05, 01:51 PM	and people, name one time a good dragon ate an evil NPC. How can you make a rhetorical request like that? There are thousands and thousands of campaigns going on and you make the assumption that there is not a single good dragon in anyone's campaign who eat evil NPCs? And if you are referring to books, then name one time a good dragon killed an evil enemy and then buried him honorably. That argument is fallacious. The argument from silence is not sufficient to prove your point. A dragon is a carnivore. Carnivores eat their prey. Sometimes people are the prey of dragons, just as cattle are sometimes the prey of humans. An evil NPC could conceivably be eaten by a good dragon as prey. Sentience is not the issue. Eating habits is the issue. I would have no problem with a good dragon eating an evil humanoid. This is fantasy. With so many types of creatures, sentient and non-sentient, the food chain is complicated and broader than the modern definition of cannibalism allows. There must be some flexibility.
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 06:12 PM	Yes, though he is like his Sumerian counterpart and has really nothing to do with dragons. Hmm. I don't have the FR Deities book so maybe he's in there. I didn't see him in the FR setting book or the Races of FR book. Wait, did the OP say he was in FR?
Lao, Ninja of the Dragon 10-02-05, 06:54 PM	Well Dragonkin originated in FR, so if its not homebrew, its probably in FR. And my last post was reffering to books. Its just that a good creature eating another sentient creature if there is non-sentient prey...doesn't seem good.
pres_man 10-02-05, 06:59 PM	It all comes down to if the action is promoting law and goodness. If the paladin wishes to eat his fallen foe merely because he is a bit hungry after the fight and hey, they're there so go at it. I think there is a problem with a paladin doing that. If instead there was some kind of religious funeral service activity associated with the eating of the foes that promoted goodness and lawfulness ("By eating your fallen foes, you're body can change their foulness to goodness as you metabolis them."), then it would be fine, creepy but fine. But again, I push the idea that a paladin needs to be careful that they are not sending out the wrong message to outside viewers. It has to be perfectly clear the paladin did not kill the person in order to eat them. This also ties with the people talking about dragons eating people. If an evil person breaks into the home of a good dragon then the dragon might well eat them, dragons can eat a lot and almost anything so it does not matter if the body has to wait for a month before being eaten. Also this can just be seen as disposing of the body. But if a good dragon suddenly began searching the country side for evil humanoids to eat, how long would it take for them to start eating neutral humanoids and then good humanoids. As someone said, it is about eating habits, and if you make a habit of eating humanoids then why would you stop with just the evil ones when you got a bit hungry. The best way to stop a habit is to never begin a habit.
Lord Ian Stark 10-02-05, 07:15 PM	Well Dragonkin originated in FR, so if its not homebrew, its probably in FR. I see the Dragonkin in the Draconomicon and it may be in the MM III or Fiend Folio as my buddy has those right now. Anywho... I think this topic has been beaten enough as the OP and the actual Dragonkin PC have posted there response. :pint:
Andrew_980 10-02-05, 11:29 PM	Is it evil (by core rules) to eat a corpse? Can a paladin eat meat? Is a paladin ever by rules required to give a "proper burial"? Is a paladin required to be fully "mainstream"? Does LG mean you can't have any abnormal customs? Bahumut as in the good dragon king is not a god and doesn't originate from any world. But again, I push the idea that a paladin needs to be careful that they are not sending out the wrong message to outside viewers. It has to be perfectly clear the paladin did not kill the person in order to eat them Good and evil have nothing to do with perception so it matters not at all what others think. Simply, because eating humans, or any other sapient life form, while Evil as per the RAW, is not the only thing these beings do. The other things they do tend to balance out this particular quote me the RAW (core) that says it is evil. page number, please.
SwiftFox 10-04-05, 12:52 AM	I think its irrelevant to the discussion as to whether cannibalism is evil or not, and this is why : even if it wasnt evil, it isnt good, so what, that makes it neutral, right? guess what : a paladin does not have the freedom to act as though he has a neutral alignment, he has to be LAWFUL and GOOD... he looses all his paladin class abilities the instant he stops being LAWFUL and GOOD even if he wasnt being chaotic or evil. Being draconic doesnt give any paladin open-liscence to act neutral while masquerading as LG.
Cantankerous 10-04-05, 01:20 AM	I think its irrelevant to the discussion as to whether cannibalism is evil or not, and this is why : even if it wasnt evil, it isnt good, so what, that makes it neutral, right? guess what : a paladin does not have the freedom to act as though he has a neutral alignment, he has to be LAWFUL and GOOD... he looses all his paladin class abilities the instant he stops being LAWFUL and GOOD even if he wasnt being chaotic or evil. Being draconic doesnt give any paladin open-liscence to act neutral while masquerading as LG. Fox, I'd like to agree with you, but as per the RAW, he CAN act Neutrally in many respects. The way he looses his Paladial abilities (but not his Paladinhood necessarily) is by a large number of Chaotic acts or by any truely Evil act. If a Paladin, a human one, was to want to eat the bodies of his dead foes, how many DMs here would allow it? Isshia
SwiftFox 10-04-05, 02:10 AM	Fox, I'd like to agree with you, but as per the RAW, he CAN act Neutrally in many respects. The way he looses his Paladial abilities (but not his Paladinhood necessarily) is by a large number of Chaotic acts or by any truely Evil act.Well, the first line in 'Ex Paladins' Page 44 PHB reads : "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good,..." and frankly all other stuff aside that is enough to loose paladin abilties. Its up to the DM to determine if a PCs actions merit an alignment change, and frequently performing ats which no lawful or good character should consider, ie. eating dead intelligent creatures, that would be enough to do it in my book.
Vharuck 10-04-05, 02:34 AM	One of my players is a LG Dragonkin Paladin of Bahamut. He's a awesome guy and good roleplayer however, he wants to do something I think would seriously violate his alignment. He wants to use badguys as food. Literally. He thinks it would not be evil for him to use slain enemies such as bandits and whatnot as rations. I think this would be grounds for him to lose his alignment. We're both reasonable people, so I come to ask you, what do you think? Do you agree this would be evil? His justification is that they are evil, and thus they do not either deserve a proper burial and that he thinks it would not matter if he was to consume their corpses since they do not deserve such respect. Also, he wants to know if using someone still living as food is would be considered evil. His justification for this is that he has a bite attack. If he can use it in battle and swallow what he bites off, what is the problem doing it to an evil character under different circumstances? I have not much to say. Except this is why I tend to use my "Iron DM Fist" (TM) so liberally when moral arguments come up. But, I might read this thread before class tomorrow for a good laugh at how some people will invariably argue for the consumption of an intelligent being's flesh by that stalwart of good and order, the paladin. Oh yeah, and carrying foes in pouches for later consumption. Just toss them up in the air and see if you can catch the screaming villains in your mouth. Little evil poppers. Yum.
Lord Ian Stark 10-04-05, 12:49 PM	Well, the first line in 'Ex Paladins' Page 44 PHB reads : "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good,..." :rolleyes: A Paladin makes a bajillion "Neutral" decisions every day. Hmm, what shall I wear today, should I put salt on my meat as I know it slightly bothers my stomach but tastes so good, I'll clean my sword, I'll wash out my helmet, I'll wave to the blacksmith while walking by.... Please people. Let's not get rediculous. Bahumut as in the good dragon king is not a god and doesn't originate from any world. Hmm... ::looks at page 58 of the Deities and Demigods:: Says he is a lesser diety in the D&D Pantheon.
Andrew_980 10-04-05, 01:17 PM	Hmm... ::looks at page 58 of the Deities and Demigods:: Says he is a lesser diety in the D&D Pantheon I have never read that, and he has been in the game since 1st ed as a powerfull dragon but never before a god
Gilean 10-04-05, 01:38 PM	No, abhorence (especially a near universal abhorence) of a practice is ENTIRELY relevant to the discussion.True, if it were universal. It is not. Tribal people on our Earth have done it. And not been evil. Are you arguing that they were doing evil deeds all the time?A Good person, an Astral Deva, a Paladin, a very god of Good, CAN and sometimes do commit evil acts. So what? A Paladin, because of his special restrictions needs to atone afterwards. So what? An act, or even several, or such a nature will not make the person evil, even by D&D terms, although it will certainly lead them in that direction. Killing one person to save the lives of many is ALSO an evil act, per the RAW. Period. Yet it is a much less Evil act than not doing so and thereby abetting in the deaths of many.For outsiders, debatable. What if the one being eaten gave a permission to do that after h(is/er) death?Simply, because eating humans, or any other sapient life form, while Evil as per the RAW, is not the only thing these beings do. The other things they do tend to balance out this particular.I don't see any particularly good acts on their description. So, if a race behaves like humans do, but does one evil act very often, is the race still neutral? I'd say often evil, at least.In a Lawful Good society that keeps slaves, where it is cultural for them to be extant, the society at large is acting contrary to the dignity of the sentient beings in it who are slaves, yet the society as a whole can still be Lawful Good. The reasons and rationales are the same.Slaving is very lawful and nongood, not automatically evil.
revnk 10-04-05, 01:38 PM	I have never read that, and he has been in the game since 1st ed as a powerfull dragon but never before a god Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Bahamut and Tiamat are described as minor deities in the original AD&D Monster Manual. It's not here with me, so I can't confirm that for 100% certain, but recollection is that the authors describe Bahamut as the LG deity of good dragons, residing in a cloud castle in the Seven Heavens with an entourage of seven exceptionally powerful, ancient gold dragons. Tiamat was claimed to rule the first layer of the Nine Hells, the original mother of all evil dragons, and their goddess. Neither entity appeared in the original AD&D Deities & Demigods, but 1E AD&D tended to blur the lines between "deities" (Deities & Demigods), epic heroes (Deities & Demigods), devils and demons (Monster Manual), "demon gods" like Lolth (Fiend Folio, under the listing for "demons") and epic aberrations (the first edition of the 1E Deities & Demigods included an section on the Cthulhu Mythos that was removed from subsequent editions after threatened legal actions by Chaosium and Arkham House). Indeed, none of these beings had what would later be called "portfolios," all had stats and spells, and old school power-mongers could go toe-to-toe with any of them at any time, although none of the above entities (except possibly the epic heroes like King Arthur) could truly die unless they were slain on their home plane. In fact, that was the clearest sign, if nothing else, of Tiamat and Bahamut's divinity.
Cantankerous 10-04-05, 01:44 PM	True, if it were universal. It is not. Tribal people on our Earth have done it. And not been evil. Are you arguing that they were doing evil deeds all the time? By this extremely naive definition, nothing, ever, even COULD be evil. Nothing! Ritual Murder, ritual child abuse, all of these and countless more things have been practiced by one society at one time or another. The bias of the writers are pretty clearly stated. THEY, not whatever you feel like at the moment, are the Official word. Isshia
Vestigial_Thumb 10-04-05, 02:01 PM	By this extremely naive definition, nothing, ever, even COULD be evil. Nothing! Ritual Murder, ritual child abuse, all of these and countless more things have been practiced by one society at one time or another. The bias of the writers are pretty clearly stated. THEY, not whatever you feel like at the moment, are the Official word. Isshia They had different ways than we do now. They didn't consider themselves evil, but we do. Which opinion matters more is a good question. Also on point, dragging bad guys along with you only to eat them later, with them knowing it, is horrible. It's inhumane and a paladin would most likely be stripped of all his abilities before he could say "time for dinner." You should go Irreversible (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/) on his face. Also, not giving someone an honorable burial if it's possible sounds like something a CN, or even a CE person would do (I'd give it to them, in spite of my otherwise chaotic tendencies).
pres_man 10-04-05, 07:42 PM	:rolleyes: A Paladin makes a bajillion "Neutral" decisions every day. Hmm, what shall I wear today, should I put salt on my meat as I know it slightly bothers my stomach but tastes so good, I'll clean my sword, I'll wash out my helmet, I'll wave to the blacksmith while walking by.... Please people. Let's not get ridiculous. I think the point really was (but wasn't stated explicitly) that if they are choosing to do neutral acts OVER good or lawful acts, then it is a problem. Choosing to eat dinner (neutral act) isn't going to shift a paladin's alignment, choosing to eat dinner (neutral act) instead of saving the drowning child (good act) would.
SwiftFox 10-04-05, 08:19 PM	Tribal people on our Earth have done it. And not been evil. Are you arguing that they were doing evil deeds all the time?The point is they wouldnt have been good either... what you are describing is a bunch of unsophisticated neutral people who wouldnt posess the moral awareness to qualify for being a paladin anyway. Slaving is very lawful and nongood, not automatically evil.That doesnt mean a paladin can own slaves though! it doesnt matter if it's non-evl, its non-good too! Mr. paladin is welcome to own slaves, however this IMMEDIATELY nessesitates an alignment change, and Mr paladin becomes LN and looses his paladinhood. Paladins do not have the freedom to posess a loosely-defined system of morality... if a draconic paladin can rationalise eating intelligent beings, behaps he is culturally unsuitable for being a paladin! Bahamut would take a good stern look at him and decide; "sorry, you mean well but youre just not GOOD enough to represent my interests. Call me if you ever get over your human-eating habit".
Catra 10-04-05, 08:26 PM	"Cannibalism" is defined as an animal that feeds on others of its own kind. The implication is, you kill a living creature of your own race solely for its nutritional value. In this instance, it could be considered an evil act, betrayal against your species, ect. HOWEVER, if you inadvertantly kill an enemy, and decide not to let its already-dead flesh go to waste, that is not an evil act, because you weren't killing it because you wanted food, you were killing it because it's an enemy. Therefore, there is a fine line between killing a creature of your own kind for mean, and using the meat already provided by your enemy's corpse. It no longer houses a soul, after all, and humans are animals too. What's the difference between an ogre eating a human and a human eating a human if it's just a corpse no one cares about either way? It's not like he's eating the guy live.
20goingon1232 10-04-05, 08:38 PM	Okay, I'm going to type this very slowly, in hopes you will be able to keep up. Human=Sentient. Animal=Not Sentient. Vegetable=Not Sentient. Dragonkin=Sentient. Sentient eating Sentient=Bad. Sentient eating Not Sentient=Not Bad. Not Sentient eating Not Sentient=Not Bad. Now, please to back and re-read my previous post, and actually attempt to comprehend it. Thank you. And I will also go slowly so you'd understand: Dragon = Sentient Human = Sentient Dragon eat human = good or bad? So tell me: In your world, the good aligned dragons are all vegetarians, correct?
Vaelan 10-04-05, 09:21 PM	The main problem that has plagued ethicists throughout the ages is the fact that morality is entirely subjective. In order to come up with an actual answer to a question regarding morality, you must have an established moral basis upon which to judge an act. Luckily, one is presented in the PHB. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. If you can't use one of these two quotes (or one from the PHB that I overlooked) to explain why cannibalism is an Evil act, then I don't care about your opinion as it is not based in a relevant context. There are five criteria listed in the above quotes. For cannibalism to be an Evil act, it has to fit one of those five points in all situations (by which I mean all situations that won't make me seriously consider your sanity). So here are my questions... How does eating someone who is already dead debase innocent life? How does eating someone who is already dead destroy innocent life? How does eating someone who is already dead hurt others? How does eating someone who is already dead oppress others? How does eating someone who is already dead kill others? I will admit that cannibalism could easily be considered disrespecting innocent life and thus not a Good act, but just because it is not a Good act doesn't make it an Evil act. Incidentally, the PHB's alignment system is rather stupid. A Paladin cannot commit an Evil act, yet a Paladin can hurt and kill others.
SwiftFox 10-04-05, 10:02 PM	The thing is, in D&D alignment isnt subjective... for more detail on alignments see the book of vile darkness and exalted deeds respectively : they give definitions of good and evil behaviour, and guess what, cannibalism is defined as a fetish/addiction which can be defined as either eating your own kind, or broadly to include any other intelligent species. Im not saying that its inherantly evil, but it requires a moral stance in D&D terms, and it certainly isnt the act of a LG person, definately not a paladin. Paladins dont merely have to get through the day without being evil, they have to exemplify good. A druid might take a stance that, its okay to eat the dead, its not an unnatural act, but I cant imagine a paladin dishonoring the dead by seeking alternatives to proper burial.
feartheinvinceblehamster 10-04-05, 10:19 PM	I prefer the fuzzy lil' DEATH bolt of cutesty-wutesy DM wrath. some suggestions: both me and my cousin have done this: Elmira from tiny toons. +30 grapple modifier. grapples you to death while saying "i'm gonna love you and hold you and kiss you forever my cousin: Chicken time! me: threat of the unholy dire fiend flind goblin orcish elvish nymph tarrasque with 20 levels of ninja and 2 +10 katanas of beating the holy ^$@! outta stuff
Andrew_980 10-05-05, 12:48 AM	Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Bahamut and Tiamat are described as minor deities in the original AD&D Monster Manual. It's not here with me, so I can't confirm that for 100% certain, but recollection is that the authors describe Bahamut as the LG deity of good dragons, residing in a cloud castle in the Seven Heavens with an entourage of seven exceptionally powerful, ancient gold dragons. Tiamat was claimed to rule the first layer of the Nine Hells, the original mother of all evil dragons, and their goddess I have it, not gods. She rules a level of hell, he lives in heaven but neither are divine
SwiftFox 10-05-05, 01:14 AM	That is a point... if Bahamut is only a demi-god, is he even eligable to have paladins? I recall there is a prestige class in Book of Exalted deeds; Vassal of Bahamut... its really more fighter-centric than divine.
Cantankerous 10-05-05, 03:29 AM	There is a reason for the burial rituals in use, for the simple fact that when people die we don't just throw them into the nearest waste recepticle, it's the same reason for funerals, for all of the complexities that nearly every culture ever extant has created when dealing with the dead: Respect. Like it or not, it is a intregal part of awareness (that is self awareness as a rational and rationalizing being) that the body that houses the spirit is not entirely a seperate thing from that spirit, that there is in fact a connection, even after death. This too is as close to universal as is possible in this species. The game writers were all human. There wasn't a non-human an anthropomorphic being among them. They were all of this species and the rules were all predicated on the values of this species, made as general and superficial as possible to fit the largest number of possibilities. So sorry, the general HUMAN ideal of Good and Evil and the general Western European/American ideal of Law and Chaos are the ones in place. You can make different ones, of course, but when things then don't work well, don't be surprised. Since the rules of the game are predicated on a distinct and enumerated set of standards for Law and Chaos, for Good and Evil, THOSE STANDARDS are the ones used, at least offcially, to determine what IS or IS NOT either Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. It thus matters NOT AT ALL whether ancient culture A thought such and such was evil and such and such was good, even if you are basing a campaign in an area where the PCs will interact with ancient culture A, or it's in campaign equivalent. ALL that matters, officially, is the very SIMPLE set of OFFICIAL guidelines as to what is Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic, as those will have to be applied equally EVERYWHERE within the campaign universe for Alignment to have ANY meaning at all. Isshia
Lao, Ninja of the Dragon 10-05-05, 07:40 AM	I have it, not gods No, they are gods.
Lord Ian Stark 10-05-05, 07:55 AM	That is a point... if Bahamut is only a demi-god, is he even eligable to have paladins? I have it, not gods. She rules a level of hell, he lives in heaven but neither are divine Before this gets out of hand let me correct the Bahamut as a God or not issue and whether he can have Paladins. This is 3.x edition so what was said in early editions was good for the earlier edition and not 3.x if it has been superseded. In 3.x Bahamut is a Demigod which means he has the fewest in followers than any other divine rank. However he is still a God and therefore can have Paladins. Proof that a Demigod can have Paladins is the Demigod Nobanion from the FR Pantheon. He is also known as the Lion King. Anyhow in the Faiths and Pantheons web enhancement it shows that he has an order of Paladins that can multiclass freely with Cleric and Divine champions. There are other Demigods that have Paladins but I'm not going to list them all here as this is a perfect example that shows everyone whether they have Faiths and Pantheons or not that it's legit. So point being Bahamut is a God In D&D 3.x and he is allowed to have Paladins. Now back to your regularly scheduled "Is chomping on enemies legit for a Pally" debate. ;)
Chobemaster 10-05-05, 09:37 AM	I have it, not gods. She rules a level of hell, he lives in heaven but neither are divine Dragonlance was originally 1e....Takhisis is Tiamat and Paladine is Bahamut, and they ARE divine.
pres_man 10-05-05, 02:22 PM	I would suggest DMs when faced with a PC that wants their paladin to eat their foes ask the player this question, "How does this promote good and/or lawfulness or your codes and oaths?" If the act can not be justified to promote any of these, but instead only doesn't violate them (neutral act, not chaotic or evil), then ask the player, "Is there some other actions you could be taking instead of these that would promote good and/or lawfulness?" If the player can think of other acts their character could do instead, such as funeral service with cremation, burial, build a burrow, etc. And if they still choose to consume the person instead of doing some good or lawful act, then there probably should be some kind of reprocussions. Doing neutral acts is fine for paladins as long as they are not doing them instead of doing good or lawful acts.
Andrew_980 10-05-05, 02:33 PM	ragonlance was originally 1e....Takhisis is Tiamat and Paladine is Bahamut, and they ARE divine One specific world gods were based off of them. by the main books, NOT gods.
Chobemaster 10-05-05, 03:04 PM	I would suggest DMs when faced with a PC that wants their paladin to eat their foes ask the player this question, "How does this promote good and/or lawfulness or your codes and oaths?" If the act can not be justified to promote any of these, but instead only doesn't violate them (neutral act, not chaotic or evil), then ask the player, "Is there some other actions you could be taking instead of these that would promote good and/or lawfulness?" If the player can think of other acts their character could do instead, such as funeral service with cremation, burial, build a burrow, etc. And if they still choose to consume the person instead of doing some good or lawful act, then there probably should be some kind of reprocussions. Doing neutral acts is fine for paladins as long as they are not doing them instead of doing good or lawful acts. Good post. This would actually apply in a great many paladin situations. BUT, it's subject to manipulation by ends-justifies-the-means and contorted justifications, so it's not ironclad.
Lincoln Hills 10-05-05, 03:48 PM	...He thinks it would not be evil for him to use slain enemies such as bandits and whatnot as rations... His justification is that they are evil, and thus they do not either deserve a proper burial and that he thinks it would not matter if he was to consume their corpses since they do not deserve such respect... Also, he wants to know if using someone still living as food is would be considered evil... I think you know the answer to these questions, Lonestar. You used the word 'justification'. In fact, now that I think about it, that could very well be the One Commandment that we DMs have been trying to enforce on paladin players for so long. :smirk: 1. Thou shalt commit no action that requires thou to say, "I can prove through logic that this was not an evil deed." You don't have to consult the Rules-As-Written or have a massive alignment debate. Just ask yourself, "Is the player just trying to ease my doubts? or is he trying to justify himself?"
Millennium 10-05-05, 03:50 PM	So tell me: In your world, the good aligned dragons are all vegetarians, correct? Again, if we go by the MM and Draconomicon, most of the Good aligned dragons aren't just vegetarian: they don't even like eating life. Gold dragons eat gems, there's another type that likes pearls, and there's even one type just drinks the morning dew. There's one type -I think it's copper- that likes eating venomous creatures, but once again it doesn't go for sentient creatures. The closest we ever hear to anything like this is that newly-hatched wyrmlings are said to often eat their own eggshells. The point of this is that Good dragons, who worship Bahamut, don't eat sentients even though they're biologically capable of doing so. This strongly implies that at least in Bahamut's view, eating sentient creatures is either cannibalism or some other kind of Evil act for which the real world has no name. Since Bahamut is this paladin's patron, Bahamut could certainly revoke his paladin abilities for doing something like this (perhaps with a very stern warning on the first offense, but not afterwards). Let's put this another way. Let us say that elves were to appear in the real world. Would it be considered cannibalism for elves to eat humans, or vice versa? Keep in mind that current real-world definitions of cannibalism have never had to deal with humans not being the only sentient species on the planet, whereas in D&D multiple sentient species are the norm. How would this change things like the way cannibalism is defined?
Lord Ian Stark 10-05-05, 07:05 PM	The point of this is that Good dragons, who worship Bahamut, don't eat sentients even though they're biologically capable of doing so. This strongly implies that at least in Bahamut's view, eating sentient creatures is either cannibalism or some other kind of Evil act for which the real world has no name. Since Bahamut is this paladin's patron, Bahamut could certainly revoke his paladin abilities for doing something like this (perhaps with a very stern warning on the first offense, but not afterwards). Bah, speculations. But then again that's all we have to go by. :D One specific world gods were based off of them. by the main books, NOT gods. Hey I thought I cleared up this Gods issue. :P Unless you guys are just arguing about Pre 3rd edition.
Always-Late 10-05-05, 09:00 PM	Hey, eating an enemy is the same thing as burial. You just get processed a bit before you get to the burying.