When is eating the corpses of sapient creatures justifiably non-evil under D&D alignments?
Assume Purify Food and Drink handles would-be infections.
If one happens to have a cultural reason to consider it a sign of respect is the most obvious thing in my opinion.
Like you eat the flesh of strong warriors so its a sign of respect for your enemies and you would expect your enemies to do the same to you.
You won't swing Lawful most likely but NG, N, CN, and CG should all be accessible.
>>43606489
When the person doesn't have a conscience.
>>43606489
It's never ok if it's your own race.
It's not ok if you need food and you are a lazy faggot.
>>43606524
> Doing what society and tradition expects of you.
> Cannot be lawful.
Yup, I go with the cultural argument. Eating sapient creatures' flesh, by itself, is neutral / unaligned. Hunting down sapient creatures to eat their flesh when it isn't a specific requirement is evil.
Basic Guidelines:
> Good = Willingness to sacrifice self for the well being of others. Basically empathy.
> Evil = Willingness to sacrifice others for personal objectives, even altruistic ones.
> Lawful = Willingness to participate in society, reinforce its rules, and doing what is expected. Placing ranks and titles before personal worth.
> Chaotic = Placing one's freedom and self-worth before titles or rank, showing loyalty to individuals and ideals before structure or title. Seeing society as a mean to control others for one's own benefit.
So by those standards, if the warrior is not out hunting sapient creatures in order to torture them/consume their flesh, it ain't evil. If he eats the flesh because that is what it is expected of him, and he personally dislike him, it's a tiny bit lawful.
>>43606489
when two races aren't genetically compatible, it isn't cannibalism and therefore isn't evil
>>43607331
> I murdered someone because he didn't check his human privilege.
> Didn't eat its flesh.
> Not cannibalism, thus not evil.
> Mass murdered a city and raised all the bodies into undead prisons for their souls, tormenting them for sustenance while they go out and harm other sapient beings, simply because I hate humans.
> Not eating their flesh.
> Not cannibalism.
> And therefore not evil.
>>43606489
>When is eating the corpses of sapient creatures
Literally all animals qualify as sapient creatures, and I'm pretty sure eating a hamburger doesn't cause my paladin to fall.
Did you mean to say 'sentient'?
>>43607570
> Destroying a plane of existence because my "true love" rejected me.
> I won't even be there to eat their flesh. Therefore not cannibalism. Therefore not evil.
> Stuck in a landslide, a family struggles to survive.
> The mother is gravely wounded. She knows she won't make it.
> After hours of torturous conversation, she convinces her children to eat her remains.
> Days later, the rescue team led by Urist McRighteous finds the little boy and girl. 8 and 6 years old. Traumatized as fuck but alive.
> Detect Evil
> Ate their flesh.
> Genetically compatible.
> Smite Evil!!!
>>43607625
Anon, it's... the other way around.
Sentient = feeling
Sapient = thinking
I feel like I've taken the bait. Reel me in and let me die.
>>43607656
Either way... https://www.youtube.com/user/VeganTruth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHd6s0o-51A
EVUUUUUUL!
>>43606962
Why not? If we do not eat the dead, we cannot gain their strength and pass on their positive traits. I do not understand why the hu-mans find this so disgusting. To be consumed is a sign of respect.
The armored zealots don't seem to appreciate our gesture either. They even steal organs from their comrades to deny us the opportunity to eat them.
>>43607634
If you ask me, Detect Evil should be removed. That way it makes the Paladin's job a lot more interesting.
>>43607262
Yeah, I was just saying ''most likely''. Depends on the DM. Some would say ''Its illegal, therefore no lawful for you'' but personally I've always reckoned lawful is more about following a law or code of some kind versus going with your whims and prioritising freedom.
Like, a paladin might go against local laws but because he sticks rigidly to his oath hes still lawful
>>43607855
> Like, a paladin might go against local laws but because he sticks rigidly to his oath hes still lawful.
Please, tell me what kind of law your paladin would break, because mine probably won't. I mean, if the laws are so unjust, he will probably convince another country's leaders of the corruption and vileness and start a war, or challenge someone's champions into a duel, one by one, or something.
A personal code is putting your own beliefs and priorities aside of what society expects and, if it goes before local laws, is therefore a chaotic way of thinking.
That said, if the laws are cruel and unjust, and simply held because of the rule of might, they're arguably not laws, simply ways to bully the innocent.
>>43607785
> If you ask me, Detect Evil should be removed. That way it makes the Paladin's job a lot more interesting.
If it was played correctly, it wouldn't be such a problem. People tend to forget a character with 5 levels or less, none of which have an aura of good/evil/chaos/law simply won't ping on any Detect spell.
Source: Pathfinder Core Rulebook, p 266, at the top of the page.
>>43606489
It's called Sub-Saharan Africa, Anon.
>>43608128
......oh........well fuck.
>>43606489
Under D&D alignments and thus subject to D&D objective alignment rules? Never. It's a thoroughly evil act. Its also how you become a ghoul if you do not seek an atonement spell.
All these fucking morons in this thread who don't know how this shit functions should be ignored for their stupidity.
If you fuckers dont want to be subject to the objective rules system, dont fucking use D&Ds Alignment system.
>>43608359
It's the single most effective way to tell if someone hasn't actually read the rules for the system. Ask them if detect evil picks up on commoners. Most of /tg/ has never actually played the system and just talk out their asses in these threads.
>>43608411
Well, they said it for Pounce, must apply for alignment issues as well. "This is why we have DMs.".
>Legends hold that the first ghouls were either cannibalistic hunger dragged them back from death or humans who in life fed on the rotting remains of their kin and died (and were reborn) from the foul disease - the true source of these undead scavengers is unclear.
> Legends are unreliable.
> For an unnatural hunger to bring you back from the dead, you need to be fuckin' worse than Hannibal Lecter.
> Eating rotting corpses is not the same as what OP described. At all.
> The monster manual specifically states it is unclear and left to the DM's devices.
> Nabasu Demons don't require ghouls to exist and create them through their gaze, removing credibility from said legends.
> All these fucking morons in this thread who don't know how this shit functions should be ignored for their stupidity.
ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
>>43606489
Whenever the rules don't state it to be evil. There's no reason to turn this into a moral debate: D&D alignments doesn't operate on a coherent set of morals, let alone philosophy. The only canon way they work is exactly like what's written in canon sources, anything else is homebrew. Does canon say "cannibalism is evil"? Then there are no exceptions unless exceptions are stated.
>>43608087
Well, for example, a paladin whose oath required them to champion equality would be forced to either disobey their oath or break the law seeing as Drow society is largely unbalanced.
For a more personal example, I have a paladin whose Oath basically dictates that they can never ignore immoral or harmful actions of a certain group. In instances where they have legal protection (diplomatic immunity anyone?) they would have to break the law.
Basically 5e made paladins a bit weird like that. In some cases you might be given the option of bisobeying local laws, made by fallible mortals, or disobeying divine laws.
>>43608550
Except that ghouls arise without nabasu influence and those are created from cannibalism as it's an evil act. In addition in PF, it is unequivocally evil, handed down by a dev, and definitely gives rise to ghouls.
Yeenoghu and Dorsain rule over cannibalism and the consumption of sapients. They are both utterly evil and encourage the act to sway mortals towards their worship and eventually gaining control of their souls in the afterlife. They know when such an act is performed. Why the fuck do you think gnolls are CE in D&D? They engage in quite a bit of murder and cannibalism.
Its a fucking evil act and your attempt to portray me as one of you failures has failed.
>>43606524
Some cultures mix a bit of the flesh of the dead in with the food at funeral feasts in their honor.
>>43608773
Aye. And given the society, that might be legally acceptable. Its down to setting, system and DM as to whether or not theres a Divine thing against it. Personally, I say that some divines discourage it while others are neutral and some even encourage it.
>>43608728
> Well, for example, a paladin whose oath required them to champion equality would be forced to either disobey their oath or break the law seeing as Drow society is largely unbalanced.
First of all, paladin would oppose the Drow society because it is evil and promotes evil behavior.
Secondly, you really need to define that "equality", because I see it as pretty equal. It's just a matter of getting others to fear you enough that they ignore your birth!
>>43608734
> Except that ghouls arise without nabasu influence and those are created from cannibalism as it's an evil act.
Citation needed.
> In addition in PF, it is unequivocally evil, handed down by a dev, and definitely gives rise to ghouls.
Citation needed.
> Yeenoghu and Dorsain
Neither are Pathfinder Gods, and therefore completely irrelevant to your own argumentation.
> Why the fuck do you think gnolls are CE in D&D?
> Chaotic = Placing one's freedom and self-worth before titles or rank, showing loyalty to individuals and ideals before structure or title. Seeing society as a mean to control others for one's own benefit.
> Evil = Willingness to sacrifice others for personal objectives, even altruistic ones.
Hunting down sapient creatures to feed themselves because it is their preferred meat is certainly one of the behaviors that entice this alignment. But so is betraying and killing their chief for personal power.
> Its a fucking evil act and your attempt to portray me as one of you failures has failed.
Oh, I succeeded even before you started commenting.
> Stuck in a landslide, a family struggles to survive.
> The mother is gravely wounded. She knows she won't make it.
> After hours of torturous conversation, she convinces her children to eat her remains.
> Days later, the rescue team led by Urist McRighteous finds the little boy and girl. 8 and 6 years old. Traumatized as fuck but alive.
> Detect Evil
> Ate their flesh.
> Genetically compatible.
> Smite Evil!!!
>>43608995
That is the point I was making. The paladin would have to oppose Drow law and society, which is the law of the land there.
And yeah, its fuzzy but in 5 e Drow society is Matriarchal. Divinely so in fact. Men have little to no rights unless they demonstrate exceedingly abnormal capabilities. Even then, it is hierarchical, if meritocratic, which a paladin whose oath requires them to champion equality (proletarian style I mean) would need to oppose.
Thus they would have to oppose the law of the land.
>>43609097
> That is the point I was making. The paladin would have to oppose Drow law and society, which is the law of the land there.
Opposing a law don't mean you have to go through chaotic measures. On the top of my head, one can:
* Have another nation put ultimatums and economic incentives.
* Find a like-minded individual in the drow society and try to elevate that individual so he has the power to change the rules.
>>43609165
Dude Im the person that was stating that you could be lawful while going against the law of the land. I think you're arguing with the wrong person here, we are quite literally agreeing at this point
>>43606962
I'm sure there are examples of wood elves practicing ritualistic cannibalism.
>>43609208
To be honest, I doubt most cultures would given the whole Prions and Mad Cow disease thing. Unless you ignore them because fantasy setting. I mean, unless everywhere has someone that can cast Purify Food and Drink or something.
Although that does give me a great idea for an encounter, thanks for that
>>43609165
>* Have another nation put ultimatums and economic incentives.
You forgot to mention our Paladin was a monarch.
>* Find a like-minded individual in the drow society and try to elevate that individual so he has the power to change the rules.
You're trying to say that the only way a Paladin gets to interfere in drow society is by backing a Lawful Good drow who must try to rise to the absolute top of drow society, to the point of ending Lolth worship and all the influence of the noble houses, and he can't do it through methods illegal in drow society?
>>43609189
I meant that you can oppose a society without breaking its laws, and that is something that should be at least attempted.
>>43609329
> You forgot to mention our Paladin was a monarch.
Paladin have a slight tendency toward charisma. He can use it to convince other monarchs.
> You're trying to say that the only way a Paladin gets to interfere in drow society is by backing a Lawful Good drow who must try to rise to the absolute top of drow society, to the point of ending Lolth worship and all the influence of the noble houses, and he can't do it through methods illegal in drow society?
Basically, it would make for an awesome campaign to steer a powerful drow toward the path of good and then have him/her change his/her society. inb4 you strawmaning me.
> I gave two possible solutions.
> I said "on top of my head".
> I'm apparently saying THIS is the ONLY way
>>43609482
I concur.
However, should one be left with no alternate option then I feel the Oath, a literal divine law, should take precedence, no? Like obviously if its some entirely personal code, favouring it over the law is chaotic but when considering Oaths and divine mandates and such it changes, does it not?
>>43607785
it pretty much was in 5th ed
Detect Evil and Good:
"For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated"
>>43609553
>Paladin have a slight tendency toward charisma. He can use it to convince other monarchs.
Yeah, if you have a shit DM who lets a paladin dictate national policy just because he can roll high on Persuade. What "Lawful Good" nation would be trading with drow anyway, like what the fuck do they have to offer, and vice versa?
Feel free to give more examples of how a Paladin can promote Law and Good among drow without breaking any of their laws. I mean, literally the only thing the drow would have to do is make a law that says "Paladin aren't allowed to interfere with or influence our society" and no Paladin can do shit.
>>43609583
> However, should one be left with no alternate option then I feel the Oath, a literal divine law, should take precedence, no?
Not really. Here's my take:
> An Oath is a personal thing, not a divine law.
> The concept of the Divine Law of a God/Religion lose quite a bit of potency in a polytheist society.
> The concept of "no alternate option" is akin to being coerced to do something. It removes the concept of Morality and Ethics. If I place a remote detonator and bomb in your brain and order you to kill an innocent child, you're not Evil. You're coerced.
>>43609765
Eh, differs case to case I suppose. Some DM's like to make the Oaths divine/cosmic things. My personal view has always been that its an oath, usually to a specific God, and thus something to be taken with utmost respect and treated with ultimate dedication.
But yeah, I agree about the ''coerced'' thing. In that instance, the Paladin isn't really acting ''Chaotic'', rather they're acting in the only manner left available to them. Though they have other options technically, said options require them to break an oath to a God, which is not undertaken lightly.
Still, its your thing man. You do you, I like the sound of your paladin. Got any stories? So far my one paladin Ive got to play hasn't done much but beat the shit out of some over-sized, overly aggressive crayfish so Id appreciate some stories of your own paladin...
>>43606489
Killing dudes isn't always evil, right? If they're already dead, then who cares? As long as you only kill and eat bad dudes I guess it's fine. Really, the alternative is wasting food.
>>43609870
Just make sure to avoid yer own species unless ya want to get Mad Cow disease
>>43606524
This. Once played a druidic death cultist who belonged to a tribe that considered it a sign of blatant disrespect to not utilize the corpses of the fallen in some manner. She asked the party to make her into jerky if she died and when they politely refused she got massively offended.
She didn't fear death but the idea of not being reincorporated into the foodchain with utmost haste disturbed her greatly.
>>43609703
> Yeah, if you have a shit DM who lets a paladin dictate national policy just because he can roll high on Persuade.
Wow such strawman. Much Bait. We're talking long-winded campaign with drow infiltrators attempting coups on the PCs as they try to rally support. Not "I roll diplomacy so that the Kingdom of Lastwall goes into a holy war with Menzoberranzan".
> What "Lawful Good" nation would be trading with drow anyway, like what the fuck do they have to offer, and vice versa?
Resources? Not having to deal with the sunlight/underdark? Of course, we're not talking close allies here, but even the drow accepts to trade a bit, as long as trading cost less than attempting to take by force.
> Feel free to give more examples of how a Paladin can promote Law and Good among drow without breaking any of their laws. I mean, literally the only thing the drow would have to do is make a law that says "Paladin aren't allowed to interfere with or influence our society" and no Paladin can do shit.
Well, if it comes to that specific law, then diplomacy have failed. As Ghandi himself said:
> "where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
No that's not right. I would attempt to create an exodus. This will weaken the Chaotic Evil individuals at the top and force them into reviewing their laws.
>>43609976
Still not addressed what said kingdoms are trading with the drow, and among who are you rallying support? Are you implying democracy?
>resources
Yeah, I'm sure Lolth would be thrilled to have her followers build a way of life reliant on the goods of non-believing overworlders.
I'm fairly certain that leading a drow exodus against Llolth's will is considered illegal by drow law.
>>43606489
Eating?
Neutral act
Killing?
Depends on why you're killing them, same as normal murderhobo behavior
>>43610164
Most obviously, surface elf slaves. Actually kidnapping surface elves would probably be difficult, at least more so than buying them
>>43609841
Cavalier of the Blue Rose actually. Just as self-righteous.
> Some kids were attacked by orcs.
> We do a bit of investigation.
> Turns out the kids went quite far away from the village. One of them severely wounded.
> Ask them why they would do such a thing.
> Hunting, and pushing a bit farther, Taunting.
> Still is a criminal act.
> Walk through the woods. Ambushed by orcs.
> "Attempt to incapacitate them if doing so do not jeopardize your own lives!"
> Only one dead, the rest captured.
> Orcs are on ancestral lands. Nomads.
> They left a few months ago because food got scarce and they make for lousy farmers.
> Reach camp.
> Climb a stone and yell that the whole camp is under arrest. No harm shall come to them if they surrender.
> We're clearly outmatched.
> Get to duel the orc chieftain.
> I beat the chieftain, so its elite guard lunge at me.
> My party comes to my defense, there's, sadly two casualties in their ranks.
> The rest don't have the guts to face us.
> We parley.
> Turns out the horde is strong but famished and looking for new food sources.
> The village have surplus, but lacks any kind of military.
> Offer food and shelter in exchange for protection on an individual basis.
> Hunting lands made officially the property of the orcish clan, militia reinforced using a rather small amount of food, regular trades for ammo / grain and meat.
>>43610227
I'm not too sure about our Paladin's chances at convincing a slaver society that the drow are evil and that their evil can be stopped if the slave trade with them is stopped.
>>43610254
Now thats how you Lawful Good, hell the fuck yeah.
My paladin so far has only fought those crayfish things and Kua Toa, neither of which would negotiate. And that campaign is ended basically. 1 fucking session we managed...
>>43606489
Of course. Waste not.
>>43610297
Not my paladin, just spitballing. Also, most old-school medieval societies required slavery (thralls and serfs anyone?) but would still be good. Its just some people were seen to forfeit rights in certain cases or not have any to begin with
>>43610164
>Still not addressed what said kingdoms are trading with the drow:
Have you got absolutely no imagination? When I had to describe the sumptuous meal of a drow matron, I went with very exotic meals like "A monstrously big roasted centipede whose insides have been removed and replaced with a spicy puree you can dip its legs in" and then simply stated "and a bowl of apples". Guess what caught their attention. Motherfucking apples 1+ mile under the surface, a week from any exit. But fine, I'll give you a few exemples.
* Fruits and derivatives
* Medicine
* Wood
* Minerals mostly found in sedimentary layers
* Fabric
* Pearls
* Anything that requires expertise and one of the above to make, like good ol' wine
* Reagents
> Yeah, I'm sure Lolth would be thrilled to have her followers build a way of life reliant on the goods of non-believing overworlders.
Of course. Anything to flaunt one's power and influence, such as indulging a desire for luxury. And anything that requires surface dwellers to make a trip into the underdark to trade with the drow counts as such.
>>43610386
You mean the drow will stop being evil because they can't eat apples or have a few other novelty articles?
>>43607331
How about justifying your taboo instead of making up some arbitrary rules?
>>43610386
>Of course. Anything to flaunt one's power and influence, such as indulging a desire for luxury. And anything that requires surface dwellers to make a trip into the underdark to trade with the drow counts as such.
This doesn't sound anything like Lolth, by the way. Taking shit from surface dwellers is the kind of show of strength she likes, trading with them to the point of becoming reliant on them is not.
>>43610386
Lolth actually abhors luxury last I checked, shes just willing to accept it assuming it doesn't make you go soft. Reliance on another species for luxury is the sort of shit that would make her throw a shitfit of biblical proportions
>>43606489
What if you eat human flesh without killing them?
>>43610519
Then you're into some kinky shit and the taboo is augmented
>>43610315
The DM was very cooperative, as I am pretty sure he just rolled with it. If he was willing to make shades of gray, I had to offer a way for them to redeem.
Still, to be fair, it wasn't that much more work for him. We faced a few less encounters, but they were made much more challenging as everyone tried to hit with the flat of the blade.
Our nation was caught between a CE nation and a LG nation. We tried to maintain peace. We once enlisted a camp of ruffians to become commandos with hit-and-run tactics in order to slow the CE army's advance by hitting their resources, slowing their advances, obtaining surrenders and destroying their weapons, etc.
Shit was cash.
>>43610419
Strawmaning again? No. It's only a way to put pressure on a people. This way, you can erode an individual personal sway over a nation. Baby steps, dude.
>>43610446
>>43610493
Then how the fuck is a paladin even supposed to be walking around. He should be fighting them every step inside the town, which makes the original question completely moot.
This basically means the paladin is in a nation at war with the drow, and therefore completely allowed to engage enemy troops. He should show mercy, take prisoners when possible, avoid war crimes, that sort of things.
If his nation is somehow not at war, he should find out why. Corrupted officials? Greater common foe? Once that problem is fixed, he can work on the next step.
>>43610519
Depends on the circumstances, but that seems like it probably counts as torture which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be evil.
>>43610921
What if it's after previous agreement and both their pain and tissue loss is compensated by coin and magic?
Daily reminder that, in DnD (which is the only place alignment exists), morality and alignment are wholly unrelated.
Morality comes from the gods and deities. Create the pantheon from which your world derives its laws.
>>43610726
I would presume hes walking around under the ''we need to do X in here and you doing Y will fuck that up so don't'' sorta thing. Like to stop an apocalypse, they need a mcguffin owned by a Drow Matriarch for example.
Depends on the paladin though, some oaths would require them to pull a Rorschach while others would leave enough room for them to get away with it
>>43611037
Why would you ever trust deities with defining morality? They're a bunch of jerks most of the time.
>>43611162
The two of us seem to be alien to each other.
I can't understand the idea of having gods having qualities the person having invented them didn't put there in the first place.
It's not evil to eat sophonts as long as there is at least a specifically good god having this in its portfolio because the worldbuilding author needed that.
A god did it is helpful.
>>43611162
Me again. I am German. Maybe that is the reason I don't understand you although I think I can understand English well enough. Don't want to antagonise you at all, I am simply bugged by the idea that gods have traits unaffected by the GM..
We eat the dead because, like...fuck, think about it! What are you gonna do with them? Bury them to rot? Burn them to ashes!? That's horrifying. They have served the clan all their lives. They wish to serve the clan in death, too. You people disgust me. You dispose of your dead and your garbage by the same means.
>>43611418
Their family divides and eats their heart, their spouse keeps their genitals, and the rest is shared out to the whole clan in a great feast. To do otherwise would be as good as giving the body to worms, or worse. He is ours. We keep him with us.
>>43611317
I'm basically just joking about the way that a lot of the time, in the polytheistic mythologies these kinds of things tend to be based on, the gods are full of human weaknesses of character even as they wield immense power. These kinds of gods I wouldn't trust to define morality in any absolute way any more than I would trust mortals to.
>>43606489
>When is eating the corpses of sapient creatures justifiably non-evil under D&D alignments?
It's only an evil act for a sentient to commit cannibalism. An orc eating an elf or vice versa is evil, because they're both humanoids, or for a green dragon eating a brass dragon, because they're both of Ao. However, it's not evil for a stone giant to eat a dwarf, because one is a humanoid and the other isn't, nor is it evil for a human to have a dragon steak.
>>43611037
>Morality comes from the gods and deities.
That idea neither is true for any popular setting, nor for the real world (because humans make moral judgements of holy scripture all the time, sorting out what they want to follow and what not). D&D is a bit strange in that "Good" and "Evil" are literal cosmic forces and even types of "stuff", but they still don't come from any specific deity.
>>43606489
When the alternative is starving to death, and you didn't kill them to get the food, they died for another reason, such as self defence.
>>43611533
Io is dragon god. Ao is the other one.
