Cannibalism (not a joke this time)

[TheEndIsNigh]

ok, I have a question: could you eat yourself?

I know that sounds weird but what happens if you have a meat effigy somewhere? Will your body just be lying there with your stuff? can you eat it? Will it disappear if you had a meat effigy? 

[vizibl3]

I feel that there should be some wait to at least resurrect someone using some really hard to get resources. Imagine playing with your friends and getting to day 248 and you guys are just rocking everything and you go off to fight a giant. One of your friends is lost in the battle and there is nothing you can do but burry him or eat him. you have been playing on this world for a month working your way slowly to the top of the food chain and now it is all lost. You can never again play with that friend unless you start a new game and lose everything you have done for a entire MONTH. Sure there should be consequences for dying but i think they shouldn't be "Perm-Death."

[J20hawkz]

ok, I have a question: could you eat yourself?

I know that sounds weird but what happens if you have a meat effigy somewhere? Will your body just be lying there with your stuff? can you eat it? Will it disappear if you had a meat effigy?

In RoG you leave a skeleton behind when you die. I believe the same may happen in DST.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

ok, I have a question: could you eat yourself?

I know that sounds weird but what happens if you have a meat effigy somewhere? Will your body just be lying there with your stuff? can you eat it? Will it disappear if you had a meat effigy? 

When you resurrect, your body is a skeleton. Makes sense, because it involves magic.

[N00bF00]

I think players should drop 1 meat, maybe a "funny" meat with like -50 sanity tied to it than can be jerkied down to like -10 monster style. Put in a crock to negate it entirely. Or maybe they should just drop a normal or a monster meat. It means getting to the body of a dead player always has value, even if they had no gear.

 

As far as tone, Wendy says "That would be an easy way out," when she inspects a rope. You can eat pigmen, who aren't that much less articulate than Wolfgang(who might not be speaking his native tongue). It would definitely be a little on the darker side of the spectrum for DS, but not out of line. Maybe there can be a little cannibalism toggle?

[J20hawkz]

I think players should drop 1 meat, maybe a "funny" meat with like -50 sanity tied to it than can be jerkied down to like -10 monster style. Put in a crock to negate it entirely. Or maybe they should just drop a normal or a monster meat. It means getting to the body of a dead player always has value, even if they had no gear.

 

As far as tone, Wendy says "That would be an easy way out," when she inspects a rope. You can eat pigmen, who aren't that much less articulate than Wolfgang(who might not be speaking his native tongue). It would definitely be a little on the darker side of the spectrum for DS, but not out of line. Maybe there can be a little cannibalism toggle?

Characters can't drop Monster Meat. They aren't monsters.

The rest all depends on how revival will work. If Klei has implemented a system that doesn't involve permadeath, then killing yourself can become exploitable if we work on your assumption that "dying must be worth something". Everyone will just die so as to leave "food" behind for others or themselves to profit.

If skeletons are left behind on death, Bone Shards will become easier to obtain. Unless of course permadeath is in DST, then none of this will be a problem, then again Touch Stones, Meat Effigy, Life Giving Amulet can be used to bring back a dead character.

So should we really drop things upon death and should we have the ability to eat another Character for hunger boosting stats, knowing fully well we can bring them back and eat them or loot their resources for more benefits?

It all depends on how Klei keep or change the Don’t Starve way of dying.

[rsrs]

You can eat pigmen, who aren't that much less articulate than Wolfgang(who might not be speaking his native tongue). It would definitely be a little on the darker side of the spectrum for DS, but not out of line. Maybe there can be a little cannibalism toggle?

Pigmen are much less articulate than characters, as they only have about 15 different phrases. Wolfgang, in comparison, has hundreds of phrases and he is not even speaking his native language. If you judge the intelligence of an animal just by the complexity of the phrase they can say, you can say that some parrots who learned to repeat complex phrases are more intelligent than some non-native speakers, which is not true.

[1Nicolino]

I think cannibalism is some acceptable ( not kidding), but the human meat can't:

 

* Be cooked 

 

* Be used for any recipe

 

* Just be used wen your hungry is on 10 or minus.

 

Or the gov and the pope gonna ban us game.

[PlusFiveCharisma]

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this but, wouldn't that be extremely exploitable? In "Together" One person could repeatedly die to feed the other members of the group. They would need to carefully balance it so that it couldn't break the game. I guess it would be interesting to see a group of three turn against one of the other members and eat him/her out of sheer necessity. Whelp, I seem to have convinced myself that this is a good idea. Let's get with the people eatin'.  

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I think cannibalism is some acceptable ( not kidding), but the human meat can't:

 

* Be cooked 

 

* Be used for any recipe

 

* Just be used wen your hungry is on 10 or minus.

 

Or the gov and the pope gonna ban us game.

Actually, I kind of want it to be used for recipes. That way, you can make Meatballs and then feed it to your friends without them knowing. Once they´re finished, you can tell them: "You just ate George, you ate him! He´s inside of you! Can you feel him? You´re a monster! You´re going to hell cannibal! 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this but, wouldn't that be extremely exploitable? In "Together" One person could repeatedly die to feed the other members of the group. They would need to carefully balance it so that it couldn't break the game. I guess it would be interesting to see a group of three turn against one of the other members and eat him/her out of sheer necessity. Whelp, I seem to have convinced myself that this is a good idea. Let's get with the people eatin'.

Well, if you are resurrected, you leave a skeleton instead. 

[1Nicolino]

I fear this topic, but this point is interesting... probable Klei dont gonna make his real ( PROCESSS!!! ) but for science... you monsters.

[RalphKastro]

Actually, I kind of want it to be used for recipes. That way, you can make Meatballs and then feed it to your friends without them knowing. Once they´re finished, you can tell them: "You just ate George, you ate him! He´s inside of you! Can you feel him? You´re a monster! You´re going to hell cannibal! 

seems funny, but it would also make it possible to just skip the problems that this meat might cause(kinda like making honey ham with monster meat)

this is something that should be avoided for balance reasons(also, cooking it doesn't seem to be a problem, it should just deal a bit less of damage)

[N00bF00]

That's a good point J20. I'm going off the idea that dying is still a very big deal, and that killing yourself for 1 food item, is a bad trade for the person who dies. If you just get summoned back to a portal that acts effectively as an infinite use res stone. Then any remains have to be of marginal value if any.

 

rs they do have less used phrases than Wolfgang. But as npcs they don't have mechanical reason to use more. They also have a king, soldiers, and villages. Which are indeed better evidence then how they communicate by itself. But my point still stands, they're not just dumb animals. I get people being okay with one and not the other, I'm just saying that eating pigmen might be taboo in real life.

[rsrs]

rs they do have less used phrases than Wolfgang. But as npcs they don't have mechanical reason to use more. They also have a king, soldiers, and villages. Which are indeed better evidence then how they communicate by itself. But my point still stands, they're not just dumb animals. I get people being okay with one and not the other, I'm just saying that eating pigmen might be taboo in real life.

 

For example, bees in real life also have a queen, soldiers and villages (hives) but this still does not prevent people from killing them. Almost every real life animal species has a form of communication, even bacteria often have forms of communication (quorum sensing). It is impossible to think that a species does not communicate when it does not communicate in human language. For example, spiders in DS also communicate with each other, as all the spiders from a den will react when you attack one of them. It is very difficult to assess the intelligence of an animal, as the majority of criteria the people use are anthropocentric criteria. Yes, the pigmen are definitely semi-intelligent (Wickerbottom's examination quote), but many animals in DS may also be similarly intelligent, but the player just does not have a chance to see it. Eating pigmen in real life would be highly likely forbidden in some communities, but in DS, it does not cause any sanity or health problems. Cannibalism, on the other hand, can cause spread of lethal diseases and every empathetic person will certainly have ethical problems with cannibalism.

[GalloViking]

Dude, you serious? How can you add cannibalism in a game without a single drop of blood?

[Snob]

Dude, you serious? How can you add cannibalism in a game without a single drop of blood?

Dunno. I'm pretty sure there was some kind of gore when you killed something in the game, before they changed it because people really disliked it. The memory is really fuzzy.

[NikMik]

Pigmen eat pigskin and meat dropped by other pigs. Spiders eat monster meat dropped by spiders. Hounds eat monster meat dropped by hounds.

 

This may be because I see human beings as nothing more than other animals who happen to have larger brains (and thumbs) and stop people from killing giant spiders because they have just as much a right to live as we do, but I don't see the problem.

 

Real life: chickens eat other chickens (Seriously, my grandma's chickens go crazy over it), birds eat other birds. Animals eat other animals to survive. A human eating another human is no different.

 

I see no reason not to add this other than some reasons I disagree with and have reasons to do so. 

[GalloViking]

I'm not against. It's just weird, that's all. Just don't forget that kids play Don't Starve.

[rsrs]

Real life: chickens eat other chickens (Seriously, my grandma's chickens go crazy over it), birds eat other birds. Animals eat other animals to survive. A human eating another human is no different.

 

If it wasn't different, then people will be eating other people in real life all the time. The fact that they are not doing it but they are eating e.g. chicken all the time shows that there is a difference.

[NikMik]

If it wasn't different, then people will be eating other people in real life all the time. The fact that they are not doing it but they are eating e.g. chicken all the time shows that there is a difference.

Well, we have laws. I'm sure other intelligent animals and insects would not club their friend over the head and eat them because they were a tad peckish. We are social animals, so we try to work together and have made rules to help that.

[DeadpanQuinkan]

If it wasn't different, then people will be eating other people in real life all the time. The fact that they are not doing it but they are eating e.g. chicken all the time shows that there is a difference.

The way our world works is different to the world of DS.  It's all about the struggles of survival.  A literal dog eat dog world.  

[rsrs]

Well, we have laws. I'm sure other intelligent animals and insects would not club their friend over the head and eat them because they were a tad peckish. We are social animals, so we try to work together and have made rules to help that.

 

Exactly this shows that there is a difference between eating a human and eating an animal. If there was no difference, there will be no laws banning killing of humans (or there will also be laws banning eating of animals).

[RalphKastro]

Exactly this shows that there is a difference between eating a human and eating an animal. If there was no difference, there will be no laws banning killing of humans (or there will also be laws banning eating of animals).

but they're so tasty

I know it's antiethical to eat human meat, but with the amount of times people eat meat coming from semi-human creatures(pigs and bunnymen), I think we left ethics a long time ago

also, the remorse caused by eating another human could also be considered another side-efect to eating it(which, believe counts)

[Asztrik]

As many others said this could be exploited, but let's say that the multiplayer will not have pvp, we could still have cannibalism, other players don't necessary have to kill each other, just let's say you run across a decaying corpse (still fresh .. uh what a wierd thing to say) and you can just simply devour it that way and all the other things mentioned. This could be exploited also, but at least it doesn't involves pvp and players won't became bloodthirsty barbarians.

PS.: I really liked the Gobbler part:D