Let's say that there exists a creature that requires human flesh as part of its diet. Due to the creature's unnatural physiology, it requires the meat of at least three humanoids every day or it will perish from starvation. The flesh of animals other than humans won't satisfy its hunger, nor will the flesh of corpses: it needs to devour live, sapient human beings. The creature possesses intelligence not unlike ours and is fully aware that it needs to slay people with their own lives and families in order to survive. It feels the same way about slaughtering humans as we do about killing cattle and chickens for food. Would this creature be considered of an Evil alignment?
>>753017I think we should all kill ourselves for slaughtering these innocent cattle.
Depends on perspective.Also from an utilitarian view (ie Greatest happiness for the greatest number), this creature is fail.Also, I'd like to see someone eat 3 cows a day.Non-intelligent animals fail (see futurama)
>>753028>Also, I'd like to see someone eat 3 cows a day.Not that hard when you're Huge size or bigger.
>>753028Not to mention that cattle reach maturity and can replenish their numbers far faster than humans.As is, this creature would eventually kill all available humans and end up dying of starvation, provided that it doesn't get hunted down itself.
>>753043Assuming it lives for 800 years and keeps up on its diet of 3 humans a day, it will need to kill only 876,600 humans in its lifetime (1095.75 humans per year on average taking into account leap years).
OP here. Please disregard the feasibility of the creature ("HAY GUYZ IT'S GOING TO EAT THE POPULATION OF THE EARTH IN X AMOUNT OF YEARS") and focus on the morality bit.
>>753055Assume it is as intelligent as we are. Similar norms. Its self-sustainance may be a right, but so is the right of the human to live. One for one might be a problematic issue, but sacrificing many rights to fulfil one right is immoral.
>>753055Doing what it has to do to survive, in my opinion.But if it's all "GRRA GRAA BITCHES, NO YOUS GONNA SLOWLY DISSOLVE IN MAH BELLEH AND EVENTUALLY, AFTER A PAINFULLY LONG TIME, DIE IN EXCRUTIATING PAIN! <deep breath> PAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIN!", then I think it's alignment is very much obvious.
>>753067If it lives for 80 years, then it has to devour only 87,660 humans in its lifespan.
>>753011KILL IT WITH FIRE FOR THE GLORY OF THE EMPERORSUFFER NOT THE XENO TO LIVE
>>753067>>753082Speaking from a world population point of view, 876,600 is pretty small.
I wonder how many babies it would need to munch on to keep its hunger at bay. Does a child count as half?
It can always go to a major prison and ask to devour the convicts on death row there. Or if it feels that it's an unstoppable badass, it could join the military and swallow enemies on the battlefield.
>>753088So now this hypothetical monster has teleportation abilities and human radar, huh?
i dont see what the problem is1 american weights as much as 4 normal peoplethe creature can gorge on the fat carcasses of americans and it will be loved by everyone.
>>753105Fat isn't healthy :(
>>753102If we go by our world's population, then the beastie wouldn't need it. Anyway, I'm sure something that completely specialized in its diet would _know_ exactly what to look and smell after, and what to track, to find humans.
>>753109good. so it dies faster, thus saving even more human lives
>>753088Yes, but considered another way, a global population of 7000 of them would wipe out humanity.
>>753111>If we go by our world's population, then the beastie wouldn't need it.I was thinking more about GENERIC MEDIEVAL FANTASYLAND, since alignment was brought up in the OP. Points of light, small villages, and all that.>Anyway, I'm sure something that completely specialized in its diet would _know_ exactly what to look and smell after, and what to track, to find humans.I'm pretty sure you need radar and teleportation to do that effectively. Or at least the Track feat.
>>753089http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/LeahOppenheim1.shtmlhttp://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/AlexSchlessingerman.shtmlAn average baby weighs 3.4 kilograms and an average adult weighs 80 kilograms, so a baby only counts as 1/23.5th a normal adult.
>>753129Assume it has the Track feat.
All we'd need is an elephant to save us.
relevant to the thread
>>753129It can fly.http://youtube.com/watch?v=bTIklFsMjjU
>>753129>I was thinking more about GENERIC MEDIEVAL FANTASYLAND, since alignment was brought up in the OP. Points of light, small villages, and all that.If we're swinging that way, page 98 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting points out that Faerun has a population of 68 million NPCs. And that's just a single continent of Abeir-Toril.
>>753143I was expecting a Rumia video and got Boss Nigger-rolled :(
>>753154Here we go.http://youtube.com/watch?v=c_4UDmcnVK0
OP here. Let me clear some things up. Assume that the creature kills nonchalantly and dispassionately (but not cruelly), that the it has sufficient means to track down its pray, that it has a lifespan of 80 years, and that the world's population is enough such that 100 of them would wipe out less than 1% of the world. Focus on the morality bit here, people.
>>753146Well, that's ELMINSTER 'N' DRIZZT LAND (just down the hall), and who knows what's happening there, what with the Spellplague, the new 4E Realms ideology, and the orc civilizations.But still, anything that needs to eat 70 and a half babies a day (OR DIE INSTANTLY) has got to be EVIL.
>>753190It could eat 3 evil criminals a day instead...
>>753199It could eat 70.5 baby criminals instead.
>>753140i would sacrifice myself to become part of her
>>753199>>753204It could eat 6 halflings a day instead.
>>753189Okay, ignoring for a moment the implausability of the thing, yes, it's evil. It callously kills sentient beings in large numbers. Possibly one could take its victims from the ranks of thieves, murderers, condemned criminals, evil cultists and the like, but a creature who sees intelligent humanoids as no more than cattle will almost certainly never develop the ability to distinguish between a good humanoid and a bad one, so one that abided by such a moral code would be unique among its kind.
>>753217Meh. I bet it doesn't eat kender.
>Requires living human flesh>Slaughters humans as if they were cattleYup, we have a pretty good candidate for a Neutral Evil.It'd be TN like most animals if it got hooked up with a stone to flesh spell (lol I love you nethack) and made its food out of a mountainside.
>>753224Humans don't go "MUAHAHAHA DIE YOU WORTHLESS SCUM" whenever they kill cows. The point is that it doesn't want to kill humans for pleasure, it just needs to and thus killing humans is a normal thing for it.
>>753232But cows aren't sapient.
>sapient human beings>sapienti don't think that word means what you think it means.
>>753224By that I mean it kills humans the way people kill animals for food. "Oh this thing is a living being but I REALLY gotta kill it if I don't want to starve.">>753240Yeah. Make that "sentient".
Yeah, it's really hard to peg it, but "evil" wouldn't come to mind.
>>753221>a creature who sees intelligent humanoids as no more than cattle will almost certainly never develop the ability to distinguish between a good humanoid and a bad oneWhy not? If it has human intelligence, it can certainly tell an evil person from a good person. It's just that it wouldn't set out to kill one or the other intentionally.
So would this be True HK-47 or True Taft?Or maybe Taftic Samsom?
>>753221>>753270Inevitables end up killing good and evil creatures alike without remorse, and their ethical alignment is Neutral. A Marut is required to kill law-breaking people whether they're good or evil, just as this hypothetical creature kills people whether they're good or evil.
>>753275In D&D, killing without remorse is excusable if the ethical part of your alignment requires it.
Just wondering: is this actually just a "What's the alignment of Rumia?" thread in disguise?
>>753275But most inevitables don't have to kill at all. Even Marut can simply hit you with a geas and a mark of justice and leave it at that if all you've been doing is raising a bunch of corpses.
To humans yes I would agree to it being Neutral Evil. How fast would it take to reproduce? Would reproductive system have cycles or any time it had sex. What would the feasibilty of rape be, and would a complentary Falcon Punch be necesary?
>>753299"Attacking humans is Youkai's job."Rumia's automatically Chaotic Evil. It's more of a "What would be the alignment of a youkai like Rumia if she didn't enjoy killing humans" thread.
>>753303If you've been extending your own lifespan, well... guess what a Marut has to do to solve the problem.
Well, if you ask me of whats the alignment of something that kills humans to survive without discerning between good and evil, I would say Neutral, morality wise.Now, if you ask me the alignment of Rumia...Chaotic Evil.
>>753314I don't think Rumia can eat 3 humans a day. An entire adult human body can probably last her 4 days or so.
>>753011it's sacrificing 3 rights for the sake of 1 daily. unless those are evil, then yes. the creature is evil.
Considering youkai live forever, she alone could kill the entire population of Gensokyo if she was the only youkai around (because everyone else would simply beat the fuck out of her)
>>753336So if eats criminals, it's A-OK?
>>753319But they aren't forced to kill stuff every day in order to live, and there aren't that many ways to extend your life in the basic rules beyond the various "UNSPEAKABLY EVIL ACTS" that turn wizards into various evil creatures.Also, for what it's worth, inevitables are tasked with enforcing the natural laws of the universe. This creature instead is given the glorious job of stuffing its face with human flesh.
>>753357But what if that criminal was wrongfully dubbed as such?
>>753366Saya no Uta... I think.
>>753370This is one messed-up monster on our hands.But needless to say, detect evil can be thwarted.
>>753105>In my third world country we don't often get fed.Fix'd
>>753342Which makes you wonder how the hell she survives in the first place.
>>753342She would be easily exterminated if she were to cause major trouble to the human population.
>>753391I dunno, by acting tough and claiming to eat humans?
>>753403Works for me.
I'm calling it True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. With Evil tendencies, just to be safe.
>>753011If every day the creature slaughters(and eats)3 persons for its commodity (regardless of the actions or alignement of the victims) it´s Evil without doubt
>>753452Derp derp, even if it's necessary for its survival?
>>753011For D&D, most likely yes. The act of killing other sentient beings without provocation, even if if it is for your own survival, is technically evil. It's embracing a selfish motive and destrolying life to attain it.The act in and of itself would be evil. The alignment of the creature, however, would depend on other things, but this is indeed an evil act.
It's kill or die yourself = not a question of morals.So yeah, neutral based on that.
>>753672Thats bullshit. Paladins and shit kill sentient beings unprovoked all the time, for the glory of their religion or whatever. If the thing does it purely for survival, and does not enjoy the act, or even goes as far as detesting it, its not evil.
If you refer to D&D, then yup it's evil.Look guys, you don't need to overthink the alignment system. Man-eating monster? Evil. No need to rationalize or explain or introduce ambiguity.If it's not D&D, then wtf are you doing with an alignment system?
oh, and btw, cattle and chickens are non-intelligent therefore you can't make that same equation of cattle=human.
>>753685Paladins kill teh evil. killing evil isn't evil. Says so right in the rules.
>>753686>>753689You're an idiot in like, 5 different ways.
>>753693Make that 8.
>>753011does it eat just humans? or other intelligent humanoid speicies?
>The act of killing other sentient beings without provocation, even if if it is for your own survival, is technically evil.Animals (such as cows) are sentient. At the very least, they can feel pain.
>>753685A palidan who just rares back and cuts the head off of ANY creature short of a Demon or Devil has, in my eyes, commited an evil act. Demons and Devils are an exception in that, they are by thier very nature, the essense of thier beings, always evil. And I never said the CREATURE was evil. I said the ACT was evil. The creature, depending on how it reacted to having to live this way and what steps it took to approach flesh would be either Neutral or Evil most likely.Unless this was a curse or a recent affliction, then I could not see this creature being good, regardless of what it was devouring... and the longer it continued to live that like the less good it would become over time.
>>753707Any sort of humanoid or monstrous humanoid species.
>>753714Instinctive action in social or herd animals for survival - crying out in pain alerts others neraby to danger.
>>753714Don't start that shit on me.For the purposes of gagueing morality, when I *sentient* I mean *sentient and intelligent, of at leas an order apporximating that of a human* the same as any first year philosphy student.Don't be a semantics dick.
>>753727But semantics dicketry is the foundation of the intertubes!
>>753765'dicketry' is not a word.
The fact of the matter is, the creature is neutral. The aspect of the creature is the fact of human reaction for self defense. Humans will fight back to prevent being eaten.In the same way one would fight off a lion, this creature would be fended off and eventually be defeated.It is a once it starts killing for the sake of killing it is evil, but it is not evil by nature. However, it is an enemy to mankind, even though it is not evil.
Hey guys, i think we're all forgetting there's a precedent here.You could pretty much replace "eat" with "drink blood" and OP's creature is a vampire. Vampires IIRC are automatically evil in D&D.
It'd be evil if it didn't kill itself.
Lets get away from the morality and get to the possiblity of how it mates now.
I would have to say no. Everything has to kill something to live. Of course, it wouldn't be evil for humans and other sentient creatures to hunt down and kill this thing either; as its a predator.Basically I don't think alignment comes into play at all unless the creature takes 'pleasure' from it. I don't mean "mm... that's good eatin' " pleasure either - I'm talking about sadism and whatnot.
>>753011All depends on evil TO WHO?cows might think humans are evil. humans would think this thing is evil, another being might think it isnt. the D&D style of alignment makes no real sense.
>>753820All undead in the Monster Manual are Always Evil, with the exception of ghosts.
>>753820Hey guys, i think we're all forgetting there's a precedent here.You could pretty much replace "eat flesh" with "eat brains" and OP's creature is a mind flayer. Illithids IIRC are automatically evil in D&D.
>>753820Vampires aren't exactly natural or born into their tastes, their whole evil is more on a "corruption of nature and morality"-level than the whole "born to kill"-bit.
Rumia is Chaotic Evil (though fortunatly for everyone else, a bit stupid and a Grade-F mook to boot), youkai in general are... actually mostly also evil, OP's theoretical breakdown of youkai is basically neutral (but try telling that to humans)
>>753888Yeah, but illithids are right cunts about the whole affair. And then there's their various experimentations/tortures on anything non-illithid, their slavery, their genocidal plans, etc etc
>>753888Hey guys, i think we're all forgetting there's a precedent here.You could pretty much replace "eat flesh" with "eat grass" and OP's creature is a goat. Goats IIRC are automatically neutral in D&D.
Even Good creatures would break their own morals if it was a life or death situation. All living things constantly follow a role of self preservation. True Taft.
>>753903Goats are in D&D?
>>753903But plants are LIVING THINGS! Hurting them is EVIL!
>>753915I should hope so.
If this creature is sentient and not made/powered by some extraplanar, it's alignment is based on something aside from the fact that it must eat human flesh (It cannot be blamed for it's digestive track). If it is not sentient or mindless, it's true neutral.
Doing anything is neutral if the cause is to survive. Survival is the most basic instinct of all living things and it trumps everything.Only when survival is off the table, can morality even be considered to exist.
>>753721just capture a bunch of orks, and feed it to them. They should keep em going for a long time
>>753888right, I was gonna mention that but figured that Vampires covered it.>>753903goats don't eat people. Besides, they are non-intelligent creatures and thus automatically neutral. Not a good comparison for OP's creature.
>Due to the creature's unnatural physiology, it requires the meat of at least three humanoids every day or it will perish from starvation.Oh sure, it's three now, but sooner or later it'll cave in and kill one more as a "snack". Then it'll slaughter five a day and save some for later. 10 to perfect the art, 15 for sport. Pretty soon, it's up to 50 a day, every day.
>>753211So would I>>753063This post made me hard. In fact this whole thread made me hard. Mm.... vore...
What would it be if its intelligence was so great that humans were as dumb as cattle in comparison? Could it then legitimately claim that humans are roughly equivalent to cattle? In that instance, you either have to become a vegetarian, or admit very intelligent creatures have the right to kill and eat people.
>>753952So you're saying cannibalism is like developing a pack-a-day habit?Also, I think we're all forgetting there's a precedent here.You could pretty much replace "eat flesh" with "suck cock" and OP's creature is a succubus. Succubi IIRC are automatically evil in D&D.
It should start a religion in which sacrificing humans is a lawful good act.
>>753999Sacrificing humans can't ever be good.
>>754006Mind Flayers have INT 19. An IQ of 190 isn't exactly enough to make humans seem dumb as cattle.
>>754018INT doesn't work that way.
>>754021Each point of INT is equivalent to 10 points of IQ.
>>754030NO IT DOESN'T
>>754033Official D&D FAQ says that "ten points of IQ per point of Intelligence is a good rule of thumb".
>>754034Skip the Sage.
>>754011No, sacrificing humans is totally good. The Bible of Cthulhu says so. If you don't feed the creature, it will starve to death. THAT would be wrong.
>>753872>cows might think humans are evil.Sorry, but cows can't reach that level of thought. They really ARE that dumb.>>753991>>What would it be if its intelligence was so great that humans were as dumb as cattle in comparison? Could it then legitimately claim that humans are roughly equivalent to cattle?That would just make it really, really smart, and the actual intelligence of the predator is irrelevant to the question, what is critical is the intelligence of the PREY. It's not evil to kill a cow for food because the cow is as dumb as a rock, it's because the cow can't appreciate or understand the concept of death, or life, due to its lack of higher thought. It is, more or less, a squishy meat automaton. For the most part, people don't fall under that category (read: non intelligent, non sentient).
Morality is always seen from the most popular view. And unless there are millions of these fuckers, humanity is the majority.It's an evil motherfucker. Kill it.
>>754262ITT the slow descent into moral relativism and objectivism.
We all agree that when a wolf rends apart a child, it's not being evil; it's merely being a wolf. The key question seems to be whether the trigger for classifying violence as innocent is the need for survival, the lack of mental faculties, or both.Certainly we humans kill lesser creatures mostly just to amuse ourselves (we don't really _need_ any meat in our diet as we know for a fact that plants would keep us alive just fine - meat simply tastes better).
It's not evil for an unthinking beast to kill a human for food. It's not evil for a human to kill an unthinking beast for food. It is evil for a self-aware creature to kill another creature it knows to be self-aware for food. So, if it's not self aware your monster isn't evil. That doesn't mean humans shouldn't destroy it at every turn. Polio was just such a monster and it's destruction save for a few samples in a lab has been widely celebrated.
>>754287>amuse>we don't really _need_ any meat in our diet as we know for a fact that plants would keep us alive just fine - meat simply tastes betterDon't go there.
>>754287It's just because the wolf isn't sentient.
>>754284Remember that you're working with the DnD alignment system. It's built to see Black, White, and only the gray-ist Gray.Don't strain yourself over this.
Morality has nothing to do with it. Either we kill it and survive or it will kill us. But speaking as a human and potential prey I'd consider it evil in that in wants to take away my existence.
>>754310this is what I keep saying.
When people say a cow is a mindless flesh automata, they hardly consider how seriously intelligent a cow is in comparison to a fly. A super intelligent being could say, for instance, that a human has no right to life, as he doesn't even know the meaning of it, and he can't even consider questiions more complex than that.Therefore, he makes a tasty and ethically acceptable burger.
Moral alignment has no relationship with reality. Reality, like interesting fiction, is not predicated upon the naive generalizations known as moral principles. It simply does not WORK THAT WAY.
Relevant to our interests!
>>754414And that's why you annihilate that entire human-eating race. Completely and utterly. Down to the last cell.And doing so is a morally neutral act, if not a good one.
>>754284ITT fucktards who think that morality IRL should be determined by something other than the people who are "bound" by its rules.
Saying "it kills em like cattle" doesn't give a really good answer.Some of these creatures might enjoy it, some may not but accept it as an inevtibility.But honestly, 3 wole human-exclusive people a day? Over the entire human population, sure, it's no biggie. But the creature would have to travel from place to place, successfully avoiding crap, and travel to said locations.Sure, it kills everyone in village A, but then it has to be in village B, and unless he knows exactly where that is and how to get there, that could take days or weeks.That, and even a 100 of them would run into severe issues concerning food supply.And no civilization is going to stand idly by while critters eat entire villages, even the msot evil will get pissed their gold/soul/whatever quota is going down.
>It feels the same way about slaughtering humans as we do about killing cattle and chickens for food.This is the sentence that makes this thing evil.It has a total disregard to the pain and suffering it causes. Because it is intelligent, it does realize that what it is doing is hurtful to others.EVIL
>>754542So the only way for it to redeem itself is to become an hero for the good of mankind? I don't think so.
>>754562I do think so.
>>754562I think his idea was that the very THOUGHT of regarding sentient beings as "cattle" is evil. If it felt bad about eating humans, it could eat as many as it needed to survive and remain Neutral.
>>754573>it could eat as many as it needed to survive and remain Neutral.That's exactly what it does, idort.
>>754562watching some shitty zombie flick on tv today, and the answer is pretty much yeah. Whenever one of the good heroes gets bit, he always sucks it up and puts a round in his own skull. When the jackass that nobody likes gets bit, he whines, turns and proceeds to fuck shit up for everyone.Moral of the story, if your choice is between doing evil and becoming an hero, try not to leave a mess.
>>754562Yeah, that's it. Or at least that's the only way for it to be Good.
>>754581But does it feel bad about it? Yes->NeutralNo->Evil
>>754581Read the whole sentence, idort. What the creature DOES doesn't matter. What it THINKS determines whether it's good or evil. The evil act here isn't killing humans: the evil act here is not feeling guilt for it.
>>754581You aren't focusing on the creature's attitude.It is an unrepentant killer. It doesn't sympathize with its victims, even though the people it kills are its equals.If the creature was described as apologetic or reluctant to eat to survive, it would be neutral.Instead, it views the people it eats as nothing more than food, despite the intelligence and feelings of its prey.
>>754562There is a name for the logical fallacy you're participating in, but I don't recall. You're making it so the discussion in question has no choice but to go in your favor, because of the perameters of the discussion the OP set up
If it is an emotionless and pitiless thing that extracts no joy from said acts, True Neutral. Running on instinct.If it enjoys doing what it does, evil. Period.
>>754606No, if it was apologetic then it would be Good. Even though people are its equal, they are its one and only food source. Normal organisms are required to survive and, while it doesn't try to only eat evil individuals or the willing, repenting for something it has to do by its nature as an organism is a good characteristc.If it was neutral it would accept that it must eat to survive and all things must die. It would not over eat or take pleasure in it, but it would not think it was doing wrong by eating.The creature would only be evil if it relished eating people, sought out specific people for no other reason than it wanted to eat them specifically, or inflicted undue pain or torture while eating them.
>>754287>(we don't really _need_ any meat in our diet as we know for a fact that plants would keep us alive just fine - meat simply tastes better)Lol. Plants alone didn't help us get where we are, the protein in red meat and fish is an essential part of our diet. Plants can't substitute for the meat, and vise versa. Both are needed, Humans are OMNIVORES.On topic:NE the creature is. While eating cows is not evil because they have an intelligence of 1. Anything more than 2 (AKA 3+) is sentient and if you need to feed on these sentients you're evil. No matter how smart the creature maybe, its evil to eat another sentient.
>>754622tl;dr:Repentant and remorseful, willing to become an hero over it = GoodUncaring and just sees it as regular survival = NeutralKills for pleasure = EvilThat's the general consensus I'm getting from this thread.
Can anyone think of a reason that a creature would only be able to survive on human flesh anyhow? Like scientifically?
>>754679Constant cellular decay, humanoids just so happen to have the right stuff/the beastie was made as a population limiter/it's a a different take on biological weapons
>>754693Perhaps the creature needs to absorb adult human stem cells in order to counteract cellular breakdown of it's own cells (which are similar to the biological makeup of humans)?In that case, could it just eat pigs or something?
>>754679The scientific reason is then the moralfags would say that they could get around it if we didn't hamfist it in there
>>754732At least they still live. Or not.
Killing humans is equal to killing cows or vegetables. HURR HURR
>>753011Y'all miss the point. It doesn't matter what moral qualities the creature has. It doesn't *matter* whether it's Good or Evil, sentient or not, nor what its opinions are.It's Dangerous. That's reason enough to annihilate it.
>>754756>Y'all miss the point.>Y'all miss>Y'allREDNECK ALERTREDNECK ALERTWHITE TRASH DETECTED IN POST >>754756REDNECK ALERT
>>754764>REDNECK ALERT>REDNECK ALERT>WHITE TREASURE DETECTED IN POST >>754756>REDNECK ALERTfix'd
>>754736/thread.Food is food, no matter how you get it. Your own survival is on top of everything else.
How many vegetarians are in this thread?
Alignment ought to be determined by motivation. If it's just doing it to survive and is not taking care to make the process as painful as possible then the action is neutral. I suppose for game considerations it would be considered evil but objectively viewed it is neither an evil or good act.
Evil if doesn't feel remorse for taking a sentient life, neutral otherwise.
>>The creature... is fully aware that it needs to slay people with their own lives and families in order to survive.Thus it knows that it is causing emotional pain to people. And it continues to do this.Therefore, evil. Kill it with fire.
>>754871But what if it made a conscious decision to only eat convicted felons who were sentenced to death by hanging the next day?
>>754893It would either need a large enough range to encompass the entire world, or the community would have to have very liberal (well.... conservative in a political sense) application of capital punishment.
>>754893Guess what fucktard, it HASN'T MADE THAT DECISION.Shut the hell up with your hypothetical events.We are analyzing the OPs post and only the OPs post to determine its alignment.
>>754893You aren't tricking me into discussing morality for your Vampire: The Masquerade LARP. NEVER AGAIN!
>>754908They would probably be found in large cities, and if able to take human form, most likely work as executioners, torturers, or battlefield medics who 'take care' of downed but not yet dead enemy combatants.
>>754893Granted, if it's eating random people off the street, that's evil.If it's eating people who themselves have caused harm to other humans... now you're going into an argument about capital punishment.
>>753078>>753050Still enough to depopulate a town in a Medieval era setting.
>>753011If it's not human and it's only doing it to survive, I'd put it straight at Neutral with whatever classification of Lawfulness it warrants.It's only an immoral act if 1) The creature is human (you've said it's not) and/or 2)The creature doesn't need human flesh to survive but eats it anyway through an utter hatred of humankind and the ideals it stands for, or if it's overtly cruel in its methods
>>754925We're talking executing 3 people in a city each day, every day of the year. Thats 1095 convicts sentenced to capital punishment a year. Here's a chart:Most Executions carried out in 2006 1. China (at least 1,010 but sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000) 2. Iran (177) 3. Pakistan (82) 4. Iraq (at least 65) 5. Sudan (at least 65) 6. United States (53)
>>755055In an oppressive society where political dissenters were executed and most crimes received capital punishment, I could see the creature in the OP being used as a method. Provided this creature had something very beneficial to provide this government, that is.
>>755087Yes, but the logic behind the "eat only for capital punishment" is that the people being eaten are evil: ie murders and not political dissenters who are being killed because of corruption.
>>755096Is the executioner evil for doing his job? Should the executioner refuse to execute the condemned because he doesn't personally agree with the law of the land? It's an unsavory occupation, but someone needs to do it.
To properly analyze this, let's go back to the basic definition of the good-evil alignments.From the d20SRD website:>"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.>"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.>People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.So we have hereGood = Concern for sentient life, personal sacrifices [but not barred from all killing]Neutral = Compunctions against killing "innocents" [but not barred from killing]Evil = Kills for convinence, sport, or duty to a pure form of evil. Hurting and oppression are also implied.
The digestive track of the creature itself isn't part of the equation here, it's the attitudes it has towards the necessity of a diet of sentinent beings with regards towards the act itself. Killing itself, while not a good act, does not automatically mean it is evil (or even morally significant), it's the manner and the attitude this creature carries out the act. Does the creature specifically take pleasure in the pain and suffering it causes to its victim and those around the victim? Is infact, the feeding *less* about its physical sustinance and *more* about the mental relish of causing pain? Then yes, the act's quite evil. Otherwise it isn't. Evil with respect to D&D is a positively aquired trait.As far as the creature's overall alignment, that requires more actions...how does this creature view sentinent beings when it's *not* OM NOM NOM'ing? Does it take strides to help them? (Regardless if this is guilt induced, that doesn't matter here. It most likely is, but at the same time, farmers who eat their livestock have the option to do what they can to help it grow and live happily.) Does it generally ignore and leave them alone? If it didn't take pleasure from the suffering, I'd say Good in the former case, Neutral in the latter case. (And if it did take pleasure, I'd say CN former, your choice of Evil in the latter).
D&D in general usually doesn't deal with this because most sentinent creatures that eat people are evil because of some *other* thing that makes them evil, and eating people is a side effect of such a cause. Vampires are undead and powered by negative energy, innately evil magic, deals with dark gods, etc. Illithads are racisist bastards who treat *nothing* with respect. Etc.