2015/01/25 [EP 04-03] Food Chain

[ZacAttac21]

I have to wonder, are Beings and Creatures equal in the afterlife? As in, one soul is no more powerful than another? If so, that would make a good argument against Richard's "natural order" reasoning.

And Sheila... wtf this is no time for cliche doodles.

[Scow2]

I have to wonder, are Beings and Creatures equal in the afterlife? As in, one soul is no more powerful than another? If so, that would make a good argument against Richard's "natural order" reasoning.

And Sheila... wtf this is no time for cliche doodles.

I highly doubt they are. 'Cubi, Demon and Angel souls are significantly more powerful than being souls - and also far less numerous. In fact, the "afterlife', such as it is, barring Undeath, is a Project-Future invention... even then, there may be constraints on the 'afterlife', such as requiring something soul-powered to allow it: A tri-wing's clan power could allow Clan Cubi souls to persist after death, for example.. as could, as per my own fanfic I'm not actually writing, an angel's 'soul-sieve'.

Not consuming a dead soul is like not eating a dead body.

Also, as the equivalent of beings ourselves, it's hard to fully understand what it's like to be a 'cubi or demon or angel - Sure, they can persist and survive without consuming souls, but in order to fully access and use their full capabilities, they need to consume the souls of lesser (Or greater) species.

And, playing by 'We're equal to beings!" morality dramatically shifts the racial balance of power into the Being's favor, because they are much shorter-lived and faster-multiplying. By all but the most arbitrary and baseless standards, a being's life is worth significantly less than a 'cubi or Demon's or Angel's.

[MT Hazard]

The important question to ask Richard here would be

"So..if a creature that was more powerful than you decided to kill you, rip your soul out and use it as seasoning, you would quietly walk into its grasp? You won't put up a fuss? After all this is, according to you, the natural order of things. And you family, they would just accept this loss without complaint? Would they just think of it as the natural order of things?"

[Scow2]

The important question to ask Richard here would be

"So..if a creature that was more powerful than you decided to kill you, rip your soul out and use it as seasoning, you would quietly walk into its grasp? You won't put up a fuss? After all this is, according to you, the natural order of things. And you family, they would just accept this loss without complaint? Would they just think of it as the natural order of things?"

Probably not like that, but it's more of a "I guess it sucks to be me, then." They have the right to object. They don't have the right to have their objection noted by the more powerful creature.

No, he wouldn't quietly walk into its grasp. He'd fight it as much as he can (Possibly even try to beg it to spare him because 'we're alike!') - but he'd fail, die, have his soul get eaten, and, well... them's the breaks. Inferior creatures like superior creatures treating them as equals because it's safer for them... and, if they CAN trick a more powerful class of creature into accepting them as equals, then they are free to then marginalize that group of creatures.

[Raskahn]

"What is normal for the spider, is chaos for the fly"

Richard's world view might not be "right" by most standards, it is what he (probably) has been brought up with and one would have to come up with some life changing arguments in order to make him doubt all that he knows.

At least, that's what I think.

[Scow2]

"What is normal for the spider, is chaos for the fly"

Richard's world view might not be "right" by most standards, it is what he (probably) has been brought up with and one would have to come up with some life changing arguments in order to make him doubt all that he knows.

At least, that's what I think.

And it's only not 'right' by "most' standards because 'most' standards are made by Beings, because they're the most populous (Yet individually least) creatures that communicate, so of course their moral standards would be dominant.

It doesn't make them right for 'cubi, though.

[Raskahn]

"What is normal for the spider, is chaos for the fly"

Richard's world view might not be "right" by most standards, it is what he (probably) has been brought up with and one would have to come up with some life changing arguments in order to make him doubt all that he knows.

At least, that's what I think.

And it's only not 'right' by "most' standards because 'most' standards are made by Beings, because they're the most populous (Yet individually least) creatures that communicate, so of course their moral standards would be dominant.

It doesn't make them right for 'cubi, though.

I'm afraid that, if I read your post correctly. You're applying the "voice" of the majority. In our world such a thing might work but, we're dealing with creatures that in Richard's case possess a great sense of superiority over beings.

For him, the general standards of beings and their feelings are not taken into consideration as it serves as much purpose as a butcher asking the cow if it wants to live or die.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Of course, what he hasn't realised, and what the others are trying to explain to him, is what he's dealing with.

*cough* ;-]

[Raskahn]

Of course, what he hasn't realised, and what the others are trying to explain to him, is what he's dealing with.

*cough* ;-]

Dang, that's a relic of the past

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Dang, that's a relic of the past

Hah. Which is where I'm from, so it's appropriate. :-P

[Scow2]

Of course, what he hasn't realised, and what the others are trying to explain to him, is what he's dealing with.

*cough* ;-]

That just makes getting steak more dangerous. It doesn't make enjoying a big juicy steak morally wrong.

[Scow2]

"What is normal for the spider, is chaos for the fly"

Richard's world view might not be "right" by most standards, it is what he (probably) has been brought up with and one would have to come up with some life changing arguments in order to make him doubt all that he knows.

At least, that's what I think.

And it's only not 'right' by "most' standards because 'most' standards are made by Beings, because they're the most populous (Yet individually least) creatures that communicate, so of course their moral standards would be dominant.

It doesn't make them right for 'cubi, though.

I'm afraid that, if I read your post correctly. You're applying the "voice" of the majority. In our world such a thing might work but, we're dealing with creatures that in Richard's case possess a great sense of superiority over beings.

For him, the general standards of beings and their feelings are not taken into consideration as it serves as much purpose as a butcher asking the cow if it wants to live or die.

I'm talking about what the case would be if the 'cubi and greater creatures DIDN'T have their (well-deserved) great sense of superiority over beings, and gave in to the voice of the majority to determine their morality.

[MT Hazard]

Seeing some 'might makes right' type arguments here. Adopting that concept doesn't really work for humanity does it? Even if a creature is 'better' than a being there is a fair gap between 'consider then equals' and 'quite happy to murder them on a whim'. Richard's attitude is akin to somebody declaring they sometimes torture apes and monkeys to death, because as a higher life form they have that right. Or take it further someone killing the poor, because they have less power than then. Ideally, you want to treat all living entities with decency whenever possible.

Richards 'food chain' way also thinking also falls apart when you consider cubi don't need to kill to feed, there are plenty of others ways they could get their energy.

DMFA comic 343 and 344 neatly illustrate a demons view point. Although is it seem to me that Beings are more likely to to extent 'sentient rights' to demons than demons are to beings

[Gabi]

Seeing some 'might makes right' type arguments here. Adopting that concept doesn't really work for humanity does it? Even if a creature is 'better' than a being there is a fair gap between 'consider then equals' and 'quite happy to murder them on a whim'. Richard's attitude is akin to somebody declaring they sometimes torture apes and monkeys to death, because as a higher life form they have that right. Or take it further someone killing the poor, because they have less power than then. Ideally, you want to treat all living entities with decency whenever possible.

Richards 'food chain' way also thinking also falls apart when you consider cubi don't need to kill to feed, there are plenty of others ways they could get their energy.

DMFA comic 343 and 344 neatly illustrate a demons view point. Although is it seem to me that Beings are more likely to to extent 'sentient rights' to demons than demons are to beings

Indeed.

Umm... Is the Cow Guru from the video trans? Because the song refers to him as 'he', yet he has very visible udders.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Indeed.

Umm... Is the Cow Guru from the video trans? Because the song refers to him as 'he', yet he has very visible udders.

I did wonder that myself. Not only that, a "male cow" technically is a bull, not a cow... although it's an arguable point.

[ZacAttac21]

I think what Richard and most Creatures fail to realize is they are not, in the long run, more powerful than Beings. Sure, on an individual basis, no Being could match a Creature. But then, consider that Beings outnumber Creatures a hundred to one. With the exception of older Demons/Angels, Tri-Wings and possibly certain species of Mythos, a lone Creature or small group of Creatures would probably not be able to defeat an army of Beings. If a Creature is wise, he will see that Beings do have power, in the form of numbers. He may be able to kill a handful here and there, but antagonizing the horde could have disastrous consequences down the road...

[Scow2]

Seeing some 'might makes right' type arguments here. Adopting that concept doesn't really work for humanity does it? Even if a creature is 'better' than a being there is a fair gap between 'consider then equals' and 'quite happy to murder them on a whim'. Richard's attitude is akin to somebody declaring they sometimes torture apes and monkeys to death, because as a higher life form they have that right. Or take it further someone killing the poor, because they have less power than then. Ideally, you want to treat all living entities with decency whenever possible.

Richards 'food chain' way also thinking also falls apart when you consider cubi don't need to kill to feed, there are plenty of others ways they could get their energy.

DMFA comic 343 and 344 neatly illustrate a demons view point. Although is it seem to me that Beings are more likely to to extent 'sentient rights' to demons than demons are to beings

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think what Richard and most Creatures fail to realize is they are not, in the long run, more powerful than Beings. Sure, on an individual basis, no Being could match a Creature. But then, consider that Beings outnumber Creatures a hundred to one. With the exception of older Demons/Angels, Tri-Wings and possibly certain species of Mythos, a lone Creature or small group of Creatures would probably not be able to defeat an army of Beings. If a Creature is wise, he will see that Beings do have power, in the form of numbers. He may be able to kill a handful here and there, but antagonizing the horde could have disastrous consequences down the road...

If a creature is wise, it sees that Beings as a collective have power - and try to minimize that power so they can't achieve greater collective power than their own race (At which point, their race becomes marginalized). You're arguing all the more reason for creatures to use their greater individual superiority over beings to keep Being populations in check. The more that creatures debase and reduce their value to that of beings, the greater power Beings have over them.

Richard's attitude is more like someone who claims to eat beef, and enjoys chasing chickens around. And... no, living things do not have any 'inherent right to have their lives respected." Cockroaches shall fear the might of my can of RAID. Beings are not comparable to 'apes and monkeys'.

Also of course Beings are likely to think of themselves as individually equal to Demons - it doesn't make them any less wrong.

[Tapewolf]

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think you'll find that soul eating is actually quite rare.  The main reason folks go for it is to extend their lives and/or prevent themselves from ageing.

http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1246.php

http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php/topic,9330.msg368870.html#msg368870

I can't find the reference now, it may even have been a private conversation, but I seem to remember that 'Cubi start slowly ageing again around the 1000 year mark.  There are ways to keep yourself young, but they require an increasing amount of energy as time goes on.  Eventually it goes beyond your natural mana pool and starts chewing into your life force instead, i.e. if you let yourself age normally you'd have a longer life than if you tried to keep your body young.  However, you can short-circuit this by using someone's soul as a top-up.  But you'll need an increasing number of souls...

Ah, this is part of it:
http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php/topic,9783.msg375452.html#msg375452

[Scow2]

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think you'll find that soul eating is actually quite rare.  The main reason folks go for it is to extend their lives and/or prevent themselves from ageing.

In other words - stop themselves from dying by Soul Starvation.

[Raskahn]

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think you'll find that soul eating is actually quite rare.  The main reason folks go for it is to extend their lives and/or prevent themselves from ageing.

In other words - stop themselves from dying by Soul Starvation.

Extending your life or preventing yourself from aging does not imply immortality. But to achieve that, we'd be talking about something of a level Richard will (hopefully) never reach.

[Tapewolf]

In other words - stop themselves from dying by Soul Starvation.

If they have put themselves into a state that requires it, yes.  But it is self-imposed.

[ZacAttac21]

If a creature is wise, it sees that Beings as a collective have power - and try to minimize that power so they can't achieve greater collective power than their own race (At which point, their race becomes marginalized). You're arguing all the more reason for creatures to use their greater individual superiority over beings to keep Being populations in check. The more that creatures debase and reduce their value to that of beings, the greater power Beings have over them.

It's not even that simple though. It really doesn't take much to kill the average Creature; small groups of adventurers do it all the time. You're right that Creatures would have an edge if they could keep Being populations in check, but in reality they can't, at least not in the larger picture. There's just too many of them.

It seems to me that Creatures are not actually superior to Beings. If might makes right, then what happens when that might is surpassed by the collective might of a mere two or three "inferior" beings?

[Scow2]

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think you'll find that soul eating is actually quite rare.  The main reason folks go for it is to extend their lives and/or prevent themselves from ageing.

In other words - stop themselves from dying by Soul Starvation.

Extending your life or preventing yourself from aging does not imply immortality. But to achieve that, we'd be talking about something of a level Richard will (hopefully) never reach.

Not Aging is the default state of the Big 5 Creatures (Fey, Dragons, Angels, Demons, 'Cubi). However, Demons, Angels, and 'Cubi need to consume the souls of lesser creatures to maintain their immortality. From the viewpoint of Beings, Creatures are "Extending their lives"... but beings are just as 'guilty' of extending their lives to the same degree whenever they get routine medical care or any other form of self-maintenance that allows them to not die of cancer, heart disease, or bowel failure by age 50. Creatures just have another process they need to use to maintain their bodies.

It seems to me that Creatures are not actually superior to Beings. If might makes right, then what happens when that might is surpassed by the collective might of a mere two or three "inferior" beings?

There's a reason 'Cubi have clans.

I think that if Beings start killing creatures in an appreciable number, they'll learn their populations are NOT as mighty as they believed them to be. Wolves used to be extremely populous in the world before humans got sick of being annoyed by them killing livestock and too many lone individuals.

[Raskahn]

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think you'll find that soul eating is actually quite rare.  The main reason folks go for it is to extend their lives and/or prevent themselves from ageing.

In other words - stop themselves from dying by Soul Starvation.

Extending your life or preventing yourself from aging does not imply immortality. But to achieve that, we'd be talking about something of a level Richard will (hopefully) never reach.

Not Aging is the default state of the Big 5 Creatures (Fey, Dragons, Angels, Demons, 'Cubi). However, Demons, Angels, and 'Cubi need to consume the souls of lesser creatures to maintain their immortality. From the viewpoint of Beings, Creatures are "Extending their lives"... but beings are just as 'guilty' of extending their lives to the same degree whenever they get routine medical care or any other form of self-maintenance that allows them to not die of cancer, heart disease, or bowel failure by age 50. Creatures just have another process they need to use to maintain their bodies.

It seems to me that Creatures are not actually superior to Beings. If might makes right, then what happens when that might is surpassed by the collective might of a mere two or three "inferior" beings?

There's a reason 'Cubi have clans.

I think that if Beings start killing creatures in an appreciable number, they'll learn their populations are NOT as mighty as they believed them to be. Wolves used to be extremely populous in the world before humans got sick of being annoyed by them killing livestock and too many lone individuals.

I'm sure there was a point to be made in the beginning of this thread but it seems, at least to me, you're getting lost in your own arguement.

There have been several dubious statements on your end that I'm not going to recall here but as much as I gathered from the above comments,  your stance on soul stealing is that it is a bad thing.

[Kuzma Volkov]

They could always use soul eating as a form of capital punishment in them red state/areas. 
Those cases of false imprisonment would have interesting consequences though..

[Scow2]

'cubi don't need to kill to feed in what way? Sure, not to persist on emotions... but they DO need to kill in order to access their abilities enhanced and granted from eating souls. You could say that they don't 'need' such abilities - but a human doesn't really 'need' a voice, eyesight, ambition, or anything else.

I think you'll find that soul eating is actually quite rare.  The main reason folks go for it is to extend their lives and/or prevent themselves from ageing.

In other words - stop themselves from dying by Soul Starvation.

Extending your life or preventing yourself from aging does not imply immortality. But to achieve that, we'd be talking about something of a level Richard will (hopefully) never reach.

Not Aging is the default state of the Big 5 Creatures (Fey, Dragons, Angels, Demons, 'Cubi). However, Demons, Angels, and 'Cubi need to consume the souls of lesser creatures to maintain their immortality. From the viewpoint of Beings, Creatures are "Extending their lives"... but beings are just as 'guilty' of extending their lives to the same degree whenever they get routine medical care or any other form of self-maintenance that allows them to not die of cancer, heart disease, or bowel failure by age 50. Creatures just have another process they need to use to maintain their bodies.

It seems to me that Creatures are not actually superior to Beings. If might makes right, then what happens when that might is surpassed by the collective might of a mere two or three "inferior" beings?

There's a reason 'Cubi have clans.

I think that if Beings start killing creatures in an appreciable number, they'll learn their populations are NOT as mighty as they believed them to be. Wolves used to be extremely populous in the world before humans got sick of being annoyed by them killing livestock and too many lone individuals.

I'm sure there was a point to be made in the beginning of this thread but it seems, at least to me, you're getting lost in your own arguement.

There have been several dubious statements on your end that I'm not going to recall here but as much as I gathered from the above comments,  your stance on soul stealing is that it is a bad thing.

Soul stealing of peers is a bad thing, since it's cannibalism. Consuming souls of lesser beings is simple predation. And, given how critical soul-munching is for the long-term health and maintenance of Creatures, it cannot be a Bad Thing.

Of course, like being killed and eaten, it really sucks to be you if you're on the receiving end. But it doesn't make it wrong.


As for the current one: No, there really isn't a difference between a fox and a person. Sentience/Sapience is an illusion, and scale.

[Merlin]

Soul stealing of peers is a bad thing, since it's cannibalism. Consuming souls of lesser beings is simple predation. And, given how critical soul-munching is for the long-term health and maintenance of Creatures, it cannot be a Bad Thing.

Of course, like being killed and eaten, it really sucks to be you if you're on the receiving end. But it doesn't make it wrong.


As for the current one: No, there really isn't a difference between a fox and a person. Sentience/Sapience is an illusion, and scale.

Ah, the "if it's good for you how can it be bad" defence. For one, I was under the impression that soul-eating did cause damage to one's own soul long-term if you ate a lot of them. And for another, I'm not sure that just because something is in some way necessary doesn't mean it can't be a Bad Thing.

Your argument is as compelling as Rich's own. I like it, but disagree with you. You're arguing that all other things being equal the untimely death of a being isn't a wrong, yeah? I'd respectfully disagree. Not sure beings count as a lesser form of life anyway, it's a different form of life, but lesser?

I am one of those vegetarians Rich was talking about though

[Tapewolf]

Your argument is as compelling as Rich's own. I like it, but disagree with you. You're arguing that all other things being equal the untimely death of a being isn't a wrong, yeah? I'd respectfully disagree. Not sure beings count as a lesser form of life anyway, it's a different form of life, but lesser?

I think some of it is rooted in the axiom that there is no afterlife and the soul would just be wasted if it was allowed to go free.  Zezzuva believes this, but it is only her belief, not a literal fact (I checked).  Personally I suspect she's wrong, given that Fae are different and strange because they don't have one.

The afterlife stuff mentioned in PF are my own extensions and written before the 7 month limit was known about.  I have a couple of backup plans anyway but I don't intend to use them unless the actual mechanics of dying are outlined in DMFA proper.

[Scow2]

Soul stealing of peers is a bad thing, since it's cannibalism. Consuming souls of lesser beings is simple predation. And, given how critical soul-munching is for the long-term health and maintenance of Creatures, it cannot be a Bad Thing.

Of course, like being killed and eaten, it really sucks to be you if you're on the receiving end. But it doesn't make it wrong.


As for the current one: No, there really isn't a difference between a fox and a person. Sentience/Sapience is an illusion, and scale.

Ah, the "if it's good for you how can it be bad" defence. For one, I was under the impression that soul-eating did cause damage to one's own soul long-term if you ate a lot of them. And for another, I'm not sure that just because something is in some way necessary doesn't mean it can't be a Bad Thing.

Your argument is as compelling as Rich's own. I like it, but disagree with you. You're arguing that all other things being equal the untimely death of a being isn't a wrong, yeah? I'd respectfully disagree. Not sure beings count as a lesser form of life anyway, it's a different form of life, but lesser?

I am one of those vegetarians Rich was talking about though

Yes, lesser - They do not default to immortality, have relatively very short lifespans even to Creatures that forsake immortality, do not have the inherent ability to consume souls of lesser beings,  and as a species on average lack a lot of raw power. And sure, eating too many souls is damaging to your own soul's health, just like any other form of excess.

But if morality labels something critical to survival as a 'bad thing', then it's a useless moral code.

Your argument is as compelling as Rich's own. I like it, but disagree with you. You're arguing that all other things being equal the untimely death of a being isn't a wrong, yeah? I'd respectfully disagree. Not sure beings count as a lesser form of life anyway, it's a different form of life, but lesser?

I think some of it is rooted in the axiom that there is no afterlife and the soul would just be wasted if it was allowed to go free.  Zezzuva believes this, but it is only her belief, not a literal fact (I checked).  Personally I suspect she's wrong, given that Fae are different and strange because they don't have one.

Fae are strange for a LOT of reasons, and "They don't have an afterlife" is  a quirk and dramatic misrepresentation of a Fae's soul. A Fae has no afterlife because their entire NORMAL life is qualitatively like what other creatures would consider an afterlife to be - and they only 'die' if they get sick of existing (I'm not sure what happens if they successfully get sacrificed to bring back a dark god)

[Merlin]

Yes, lesser - They do not default to immortality, have relatively very short lifespans even to Creatures that forsake immortality, do not have the inherent ability to consume souls of lesser beings,  and as a species on average lack a lot of raw power. And sure, eating too many souls is damaging to your own soul's health, just like any other form of excess.

But if morality labels something critical to survival as a 'bad thing', then it's a useless moral code.

A useless moral code? Everything isn't black and white, but at any rate I don't think we're arguing in good faith any more, so I won't ask anything further.

And Sheila... wtf this is no time for cliche doodles.

It's never not the time for cliché doodles!