[quote]That aside, I'm sorry but I really need more, namely an explanation as to why they don't have afterlives. Even if you have a cultural reason for it (one that I do not necessarily agree with; it seems like your del-korm would have no moral compass with the way they work, meaning that their pursuit of "carving one's legacy into the fabric of time" could just as easily (or more easily, even) be accomplished by acts of cruelty as it could by acts of glory) (to say that a "treasured afterlife awaits" would probably also be a grossly mistaken assumption for any mortal dweller of the Planes to make, since if they are judged as more good than evil then yes, they will be able to go to the Upper Plane, but if not they go to the Lower Plane, which is essentially a fate that means either being eternally hunted and tormented or allowing one's self to be erased), this is a high fantasy setting which I painstalkingly designed so that almost everything has a reason for being the way they are. Mortals have afterlives, other beings don't; if the del-korm are to be the only exception from this rule, there needs to be a good IC reason for that. I'm trying to be as accomodating with these new ideas as I can, but there really does need to be a mechanical justification to cram something operating on remarkably different principles than other beings into the world.[/quote]

Being unnecessarily cruel is typically reserved for an enemy that has wronged you in a very specific way. They're not an 'evil' people by nature (I [i]really[/i] dislike it when people pin that overused and ill-defined word to some of my species), but their more extreme 'base instincts' typically disregard moral compasses. This really comes into play when starvation looms, which may demand unguarded young to be consumed in a desperate effort to retain's one strength, which is needed to ward off potential challengers or other predatory animals. The former example is seen as abhorrent to the mother of those deceased children--and for good reason too; she is in a deep state of mourning, and has lost her family to a seemingly uncaring stranger that she probably did not know. 

But, to other starving del-korm, it would be seen as a method of ensuring one's longevity. If that one del-korm did not eat those children, he probably would have become prey to a healthier and stronger predator--perhaps another example of his own kind, or maybe even a member of one of the other carnivorous species native to Malkor-Kurz. Or, if his luck was especially poor later on, those same children he would have eaten once they came of age. 

This example, I feel, only reinforces Shien's previous statement regarding the exceptionally grey nature of morality, because morality is really only given one of its many definitions through the strong observance of a third party. Who was right in this instance? The starving individual that only wanted to live? Or the saddened mother who lost her children to a person who is uncaring? Who is right and who is wrong? Do not think like a human, but think like a native of Malkor-Kurz. 

In the wild, can an action such as that [i]really[/i] be considered evil? To a human or elf perhaps, but keep in mind, del-korm do not have access to farms, castles, suits of armor, or weapons. While meager tool use is indeed prevalent, the technological feats humans are famous for are out of the del-korm's reach. Humans, by comparison, live [i]incredibly[/i] lavish lives when compared to them. A human being that can provide adequate amounts of food for himself and his family does not need to worry about whether or not a meal can be claimed next week. These are the sort of things that go on in Malkor-Kurz. These are the sort of tough decisions people in Malkor-Kurz [i]have[/i] to make on a day-to-day basis. 

If you want to call del-korm cruel, then you might as well throw your average lion, tiger or even human being in this general category as well, because all three of those creatures are more than capable of being perceived as cruel by an outside viewer. 

To conclude: del-korm do indeed have a moral compass, but it is not uniform with the established norm on account of the decisions and actions their homeland demands of them. How they naturally think also has much to do with it as well. 

For the question on afterlives: What sorts of creatures don't have them? What are the prerequisites that need to be met in order to not have one?

EDIT: The response to Shien made most of this post notably pointless, but it's still a point I feel needs to be made.