This could probably go in Theology but it seemed to fit here too.

I have several evil animals in my world. I already have specific evil creatures that are often hunted but I wasn't sure about this point. Should evil beasts be eaten? I'm not sure where to start with this so I'd love your thoughts.

I wouldn't. Much like Eomer and his Eored of Rohirrim, I'd burn it and leave it.

My characters would probably do the same thing, just because if it's truly evil, they wouldn't be sure if it was cursed or not to eat it.

Yes I can understand the way it was in Middle Earth for two reasons. One, they're sentient beings. Two, evil is a physical characteristic of orcs. I had an interesting discussion with Brendan about this but I'm not even sure if the evil animals should taste bad based on their decided animal nature. Obviously if they eat humans or are toxic in some way they are exempt, but because of the way my world is that doesn't mean it applies to their physical body. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Hmmm... Are they sentient?

Personally, I would never eat the flesh of a truly evil creature unless I was starving. Why? I don't know. Because it's evil, I guess?

They're not sentient. One evil beast is heavily hunted (but seldom killed) for it's fur and horns. I figured the body was still as efficient as any animal, if not more so, so once the evil mind and nature is departed why not use it?

Well, I think if parts of the evil creature are already being used and people are hunting them for it, that's different to me. If, say, an evil creature renowned for its thick pelt or something jumps out at me, I would probably eat it if I was hungry. And if there wasn't evilness flowing through it.

Also, if they're not sentient, how exactly are they defined as 'evil?' Just wondering.

Some of them are the illegitimate children of an evil sentient creature and some of them just have tainted natures... I'm still working on that bit... *thinks about the Bible* I think, as long as the blood isn't consumed it should be pretty safe... I think I shall create a horrible disease for those who eat the blood.

Now that idea I like! That's the beauty of being your own world-builder.

eru

Ooh. I love that idea.

Thanks for the brainstorm guys. It really helped.

Well, the way I see it comes from two perspectives:

1. Biblically I see no precedent when under Grace to be worried about being contaminated by eating "evil" beings. Admittedly, in a created world anything is allowed. But I don't think it's too big a deal. Just me though. I like the disease idea, maybe make it such that it comes from not the evil but the health of the creature.
2. Part of me likes this idea but does it play a role in the plot?

The reason the Israelites were forbidden to eat the blood of a creature was because it was considered the life force of the animal. That's where the idea of vampires come from. It's perfectly normal for an animal to eat the blood of it's prey but the evil life force of an evil creature would probably have side affects, health aside.

I agree with that however there is no evidence thereof in the modern day. But its fantasy so whatever is not normal is game.

It's not just fantasy, I want it to have a strong Biblical base. I've just been through Deuteronomy again and if an ox even trampled someone it wasn't supposed to be eaten. Also it would be logical for an evil creature's blood to be toxic.

See I think under the New Testament creatures are clean.

Ordinary creatures yes, creatures that are evil or kill? Not so much. Plus my world is currently Pre-Messianic.

Makes sense. I like it then.

Ooh! Another pre-Messianic world.

eru

Yes, ish, I'll get into that later... It's ... complicated.

I...I just wouldn't eat an evil creature. Not really for any physical reason - after all, they may be safe to eat. But...it being an evil creature, I just couldn't down it. Like the Fell Beasts in Lord of the Rings. Even if they're not harmful to eat, they're disgusting.

(Sorry, I'm somewhat of a pedant; since I have other comments to make on this topic, I feel somewhat compelled to address these.) It wasn't just the Israelites (the Bible tells us) who were forbidden to eat blood; I believe the ban on eating blood dates to the Noahic expansion of the diet to include animals, which is why the Council of Jerusalem laid abstention from blood as one of the only obligations on Gentile Christians. Also, my reading of "the life is in the blood" isn't so much that the blood was considered to be the "life force" of the animal, but that it contained it, so that by spilling blood one was taking life. As the giving and taking of life was God's sole prerogative, it took a divine grant to permit us to shed the blood of animals, and consuming it (to try to lengthen our own lives) or shedding human blood continued to be forbidden.
I'm somewhat doubtful about this being the origin of the idea of vampires, since "the life is in the blood" and the prohibition on eating blood dates to (like I said) Noah, while I seem to recall reading something about the origin of the vampire legend being somewhere in Europe in the medieval era at the earliest.

The thing is, for something to be truly evil in itself---as opposed to the tool of evil or "an evil" to punish covenant-breakers (I've been reading Deuteronomy recently; being overrun by wild animals is one of the covenant curses that God promised would come if they failed to keep the covenant)---it seems to me it has to be intelligent, at least an "apex predator" if not human-level with a moral sense. And many cultures (I'm not sure precisely what the Old Testament law had to say) forbade the eating of any predator.
Also, evil is often associated with corruption (a recently-popular, particularly egregious example is zombies); people usually want to avoid eating anything that's even slightly tainted by corruption (such as mold or rot). Just as you might eat slightly moldy bread if you had nothing else to eat, an evil creature might serve as food as a last resort, but it'd be something you'd really want to avoid.
I also note (for comparison, as "how this author handled a related point") that (if I recall correctly) in The Lord of the Rings nothing grew from the place where they buried or burned (whichever it was ...) the Nazgûl's winged mount.

The point still stands that the blood ought not be consumed. The Lord of the Rings example was stated earlier but the point was that his creatures were allegorically evil, both physically and spiritually.

Thanks for your thoughts Milly! I just created a religious denomination that agrees with you!

One of the beauties of being a fantasy writer!

(I'd like to hear more about this pre-Messianic world - got any threads about it? )

eru

Not just yet, I may go start one in my sub-forum soon though. Just for you.

A religious denomination that agrees with me? Okay...you're welcome!

*sits in subforum and waits*

(By the way, I have to say - this thread title cracks me up every time I read it )

eru

It's part of my exercise to be able to have people hooked on what I write with the fewest possible words.

I find it hard to believe in a pre-Messianic world they wouldn't consider "evil" animals unclean. But I could see the truth being that the animal would not be poisonous except for the blood, I just have trouble with the society being alright with eating an evil animal, if they knew it was evil.

Well, a lot is dependent on the society itself, too.

Andrew

I don't think that evil creatures are so evil if they can be killed...and also, it would be cool if someone eats an evil creature and gets a curse.