FA+
Shop
Anthros and "Cannibalism"
11 years ago
"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."
-William Shakespeare First off, no, this has nothing to do with vore, or at least not my definition of it. Second, I would really, really appreciate and and all feedback on this matter. You see, I've been developing a new character for a while who has evolved numerous times with a few constants. Those of you may remember Karina, from a now non-canon piece I submitted into my scraps. She began as a vorish character that later dropped the vore element when it began to take away from her appeal, in my eyes. However, with what had been developed up to that point, removing that cog kinda made the other parts not quite fit together too well, like most machines do if you remove a component.
So, here's where the title comes in. Karina is something of a fantasy adventurer, and her escapades include hunting down bandits, brigands, and outlaws. Oftentimes, she kills these people for their transgressions, as law is kind of loose with not a lot of shades of grey out on the frontier, much like how the Wild West is fictionally portrayed I suppose. However, a key component of her personality I'm looking to keep is her adamant belief in not letting things go to waste if it can be helped. Killing someone leaves a dead body. Natural predators may claim it, or scavengers, but it could also just rot and decompose, and Karina feels that a body can be put to much better use (and she doesn't burn or bury because she never had the value of "respect for the dead" instilled in her). When I brought this up with a friend of mine, he offered the simplest and most straightforward solution that fit; as a carnivore, she eats the body, or at least what she can, and saves the rest to be eaten later, sold as meat product, or converted into alchemical reagent.
Now, I'm looking to build her as something of a moral grey area character, where there are things she does and beliefs she holds that are perhaps morally and ethically questionable, but you can still get behind her. Cannibalism, at the time it was suggested, I had thought was too far. But now I'm not so sure. In an anthro society, where you have defined carnivores and herbivore, how much of a stigma might cannibalism actually hold? Would you, as the reader or viewer, view an anthro character who consumes another anthro in a non-vorish manner be crossing lines as someone you couldn't call a "good" person? When the character is as much animal as person, is cannibalism even still a thing, or is it that once you have sentient mind eating was was once a living sentient being, it's cannibalism regardless of species? Is a character who partakes in what may well be seen as cannibalism too dark for people to empathize with, or does it depend on the circumstances?
Again, I would really appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this subject, as it could go a long way in defining who this character becomes.
So, here's where the title comes in. Karina is something of a fantasy adventurer, and her escapades include hunting down bandits, brigands, and outlaws. Oftentimes, she kills these people for their transgressions, as law is kind of loose with not a lot of shades of grey out on the frontier, much like how the Wild West is fictionally portrayed I suppose. However, a key component of her personality I'm looking to keep is her adamant belief in not letting things go to waste if it can be helped. Killing someone leaves a dead body. Natural predators may claim it, or scavengers, but it could also just rot and decompose, and Karina feels that a body can be put to much better use (and she doesn't burn or bury because she never had the value of "respect for the dead" instilled in her). When I brought this up with a friend of mine, he offered the simplest and most straightforward solution that fit; as a carnivore, she eats the body, or at least what she can, and saves the rest to be eaten later, sold as meat product, or converted into alchemical reagent.
Now, I'm looking to build her as something of a moral grey area character, where there are things she does and beliefs she holds that are perhaps morally and ethically questionable, but you can still get behind her. Cannibalism, at the time it was suggested, I had thought was too far. But now I'm not so sure. In an anthro society, where you have defined carnivores and herbivore, how much of a stigma might cannibalism actually hold? Would you, as the reader or viewer, view an anthro character who consumes another anthro in a non-vorish manner be crossing lines as someone you couldn't call a "good" person? When the character is as much animal as person, is cannibalism even still a thing, or is it that once you have sentient mind eating was was once a living sentient being, it's cannibalism regardless of species? Is a character who partakes in what may well be seen as cannibalism too dark for people to empathize with, or does it depend on the circumstances?
Again, I would really appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this subject, as it could go a long way in defining who this character becomes.
The character itself sounds really cool, too!
And hey, nothing wrong with bias. I'm just trying to test the waters and get something of a sample group anyway. When asking for personal options, the responses are kinda bound to be more objective than subjective, though I'll take both.
Man, I know for me, an RP where any of my characters are killed and eaten would be really awkward. Then again, I'm generally awkward with freeform RP to begin with, much as I've been trying to get into it with people I've come to know.
But back on topic, I say do it.
One can not properly judge characters on actions alone. We need reasons. An anthro society can still suffer and most likely will suffer the exact same problems of their counterparts. Calling a feline anthro "evil" because she must feed on anthro mice or such to survive or feed her family is simply daft. It is tragic, but not necessarily malevolent.
"Character A points a gun at Character B and blows his head off after a heated confrontation". Most people would probably either instantly demonize character A or ask....why? Why did character A do what he did. After which you can reply "Because Character B was threatening the life Character A's only child during that confrontation ".
Would that necessarily make Character A, good again? Probably not, but the justifications for Character A's actions would probably take them out of the "bad" or evil categories for most, with a small niche insisting that Character A would still be some heartless monster, even with justification. Characters don't necessarily need to be "good" to be likeable, but they are just the easiest to draw liking too.
In your case, since I'm not aware of the spectrum of "transgressions" that warrant a sort of death penalty, as it stands I wouldn't personally consider her to be much a good person at all, but certainly not cruel or black hearted seeing as she values the life of another at least to the point of ensuring that even after death, that they may provide use.
What I was mostly concerned about is if it would likely be enough to put her too close to "evil" classification, and so far it seems as though the general response is either "no" or "context dependent". Thank you for the thought out response, the analytic approach is appreciated feedback.
If she runs around eating people because they steal knick knacks from appliance stores....she probably won't be getting much in the way of any sympathy even in a wild west setting. But say the brigands disrupt trade. They steal goods such as food and medicine and often re sell it to nearby provinces at a premium, which in turns limit these goods and services to the people themselves. This is profit motive, no family no nothing, they're getting rich and are going to die trying.
While she won't be much of a role model, if there is no other alternative, and she takes it upon her own life to hunt down said brigands and eventually dispose of them, her action isn't good, but now you can look at the fact that the nearby provinces no longer pay the brigands, medicine and goods can freely flow again, ensuring the hungry are fed, the sick are healed and the towns themselves don't fall into economic disarray, which would in all likelyhood lead to even greater loss of life than that of the now deceased brigands.
She in the end would get fed, and potentially secure a reward for herself if she so chooses.