I find it a bit amusing that the weird amoral thing Van does that is perhaps least defensible, eating his enemies, is just kind of glossed over as almost completely normal. I hope they mention to Talos later that they were eating his nephew.
To be fair, they were eating their enemies long before these happened. This have been going on since he met the Ghouls, eating Bugogan and the likes. Speaking of which, since all the animals (minus the monsters) on Lambda originate from the beast kings so wouldn't that make hunting and eating them the same either way? Also, some of our tribe do practice cannibalism on our dead as a rite of passing so maybe it is not that weird to them but yeah it would be interesting to have some more info on this.
I'm not bothered by it. I just find it funny that they're like "We have vanquished our enemy, I wonder how he tastes with ketchup?"
“HEATHEN!!!! The TRUE condiment can only be Mayonnaise!!!!!!!!” Heard from the ether and uttered by a former alcoholic zombie giant.
Without spoiling too much actually they will ask about using parts of dead gods and get the answer back: "If I'm still able to help my people after death then it's perfectly ok to use my corpse." Granted it's normally enemies Van and co eat so they likely wouldn't be happy about it, but the gods themselves are ok with it.
There's a scene in the radio version (I forget if it properly survived to the novel) of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where they encounter the Restaurant's "Dish of the day". The paraphrased story goes something like this: After much debate over the ethics of killing and eating animals who would likely be unhappy with the whole situation, an enterprising company decided to settle the matter for giid by genetically engineering a cow that could not only consent to being eaten but also possessed the ability to convey that information to people. Thus, having been seated, their cow comes over to have a quick chat about how he'd been force feeding himself all week. He expressed that he was very happy to be eaten and started recommending which bits he thought would taste best, then after they had ordered he left saying he'd nip out back and shoot himself. Arthur, being a pretty typical human, was absolutely horrified at the whole thing, protesting that they couldn't just eat the animal they'd just talked to. It had thoughts, feelings, it was clearly an intelligent being. Ford and Zaphod countered by pointing out that the cow had wanted and asked them to eat it, that that was the cow's goal in life to be eaten, and that the steaks had arrived so the cow was now dead and not eating them was an insult to the cow's death. It's one of Douglas Adams's usual mixes of philosophy wrapped in dark and/or absurd humour. I bring it up because it shows the weird contradiction that we can say we object to animal products because they can't consent but we'd object far stronger if they could consent. We don't exactly like it when we hear that people were killed and eaten by some predator or other but it's usually not because they're eating people in general... they're predators and humans happened to be the prey, and people can sorta accept that once it sinks in. Humans have some pretty odd opinions on what it is and isn't ok to kill. I'll gloss over the whole "orcs are just bigger smarter pigs" trope... Van seems to have a traditional hunter's policy, he generally doesn't kill things for the fun of it but when he has to kill something he often tries to use the remains for something positive. If a bit can be cooked and eaten then he'll try that, useful crafting materials are collected, so on. Which is least disrespectful to the fallen enemy: disposing of the remains and pretending nothing changed, leaving the remains to rot, or collecting and using the resources? Thoughts?
That did make it into the books, yes. And I think you make a fair point. I just think it's kind of funny that the story is all "Van is crazy because he killed an attacking army" even though it makes perfect sense but when he's like "I will kill and eat the gods now because they taste great with soy sauce" the story is just like Ha ha such a silly billy.
If you want to read novel with common sense, then don't read Death Mage. I mean from the first part of this series our MC, Vandalieu, already did something insanw, make his mother to become undead.
Eating colossus or elder dragon i not cannibalism, because none of Van group is colossus or elder dragon. Cannibalism is not then you eat intelligent life form, but because you eat same species. To Van cannibalism would be if he eat dhampir. For undead? Here are no cannibalism, because they don't have species. Undead human is not human and undead is not a name for species. Cows and pigs are human enemies and humans eat them everyday. Hunters also hunt bears and other predators who are enemies to humans and they eat them and use they parts. So, to criticize Van for eating his enemy is as stupid as stupid it can get. Kaithar wrote very good example too. His example are also is related to euthanasia. Here are many people who wants to have euthanasia and for what they even travel to different country where euthanasia is legal. Some people say they want to die others say "we will not let you die, we will torture you as long as possible, we even attach you to life support systems to torture you as long as possible, because it is inhuman to let you die without suffering a lot". And that is insane here? Even today here are many people attached to life support systems to prolong they life. Even if here are no they to save them. Van did the same. Attached his mother to his life support system.
No he didn't. Darcia was never at any point an undead. He prevented her from passing on by binding her spirit to her own remains, but a spirit is not an undead.
This can be argued both ways by semantics. A disembodied spirit is a ghost. By most people's definitions ghosts are undead. In Deathmage ghosts can also be monsters, evolving through the system. If Darcia never leveled past base form, is she not undead?
Sigh~ Then I'll change my sentence. Vandalieu forcing Darcia's soul in that world when Darcia want go to reincarnation syatem. And then mind-control (aka charm) his mother to make his mother's stay in that worldd even when he know that Darcia's soul can be corrupted because of that.
You're actually incorrect in this case. While in general spirits and ghosts tend to be fairly synonamous in this series there is a clearly defiend difference. It's specifically stated that ghosts are spirits transformed into monsters. Meaning they were not monsters before. Another important distinction is spirits can still enter their bodies if still alive or can be tseudo reincarnated into monsters like with the Trent monsters. But Ghosts cannot as they have "bodies" that can become intangible. He was actually fairly careful to make sure his mother wasn't corrupted or affected by him holding her back from passing on. He does aknowledge the risk as far as I remember. So he certainly wasn't ignorant of it but he does take measures to prevent it. Using her own remains as a medium was part of that as I think it was stated they made a better vessel for binding her soul without letting it become a ghost. As for the charm that's passive and he really can't do anything about it.
The van thing is more, I kill out of necessity, that he feels pleasure for that is a secondary issue. look for example at fitun/hajime, he was going to kill him yes or yes, discovering that he smells very good was a bonus that I take very well. and believe me, to say this I had to consider analogies with animals, because both what Van does and the rest of lambda do is very far from my beliefs, but it can be understood. The evil gods thing is the easiest thing, they are basically predators inserted into the ecosystem, most of whom do not seek not only association with local species or groups, but also directly do not tolerate the ecosystem itself, and without having a world to return to , and being one not to send them to others at the risk of repeating the problem, keeping them in captivity or killing them becomes more or less a viable option. The thing about the gods of this battle is more associated with the influence that this world has had, living with the ghouls changed it, it was during that time that he made the leap from eating animals to eating other intelligent organisms that he killed in combat, and That is the question, whether they invade or the one who does it, there is always a fight involved and a legitimate reason. Already with humans it is another matter, there if Van is a predator similar to other vampires from other stories both in fiction and mythology, that having alternatives, usually goes for certain specific groups, be your perception of the treatment of those groups one or the other another, a fact is that robcorte only had to eliminate he did not need to remove the context of moments like They are eating and hiding the corpses of thugs, yes or if it would be frowned upon by most people, and there enters another dilemma about legal issues and human rights that even in our world are discussed.
There isn't really any need to defend or justify it, I'm not actually attacking the series on this point. I legitimately just find it amusing.
nah just like everyone else, I just saw your joke, I thought about it too much and ended up walking for 30 years making analogies and luckily I decided to leave it there.
let's recap, pete gets to eat an entire dragon god by himself. What is Van trying to make him become? Why don't they tunnel to Botin and work on the seal from underground? The irony would be the seal recognizing the "Main body" and joining Van increasing his skills and mana value.
Pete eating the dragon by himself is just because Pete has bonus damage vs dragons and Pete is pretty big too. Also the strat they're using to get to botin hasn't been fully revealed yet. It's not just hit and run tactics on the demigods there's going to be more to it.