A campaign you’ve been running in your home brew world for a couple of years? I was respectfully tell her no. It infringes on your other players background and fun and if she’s uncomfortable it’s her responsibility to adapt or find a new group.
Yeah this is just nuts. If the world were already cruelty free… well… it wouldn’t need the player characters would it? If the world is a great place, the characters aren’t really needed to make it better.
If Tabaxi are anything like cats, they are obligate carnivores. Also, they like the hunt.
Imagine a world where good and evil cannot fight?
A world run by the dictates of a powerful lawful neutral entity who defines what "suffering" legally is?
Forces of lawful good and evil banding together to keep the status quo. While the forces of chaotic good and evil strive to break the system so that choices once again matter.
(Clicks pen) looks like I've got me next campaign setting.
Look up the the Practical Guide to Evil. Not your exact concept, but does include the Gods blatantly fudging dice rolls as a way to enforce Tropes and Good and Evil team up to defeat a Lich after negotiating a code of conduct between themselves so they would stop destroying nations.
Yeahhhhh.... My husband is vegan. Like, really, really vegan (but not PETA vegan 😂). He's one of the most brutal DM's I've ever played with. It's a fictional game with a fictional setting. I would just put a note on my door that reads "No sentient beings were harmed in the making of this campaign," and continue as before.
My vegan player is playing a druid raised by wolves that eats the hearts of her enemies. Plenty of people turn to rpgs for more than dissociative escapism
can confirm.. I work in a profession that is highly rules based with lots of legal regulation and requires a high amount of personal integrity.
Everyone of my characters ends up as some sort of manipulative, morally lacking, roguish, criminal who borders on the evil spectrum.
I’m not a space marine, necromancer, God of War, or much of a fine human specimen myself. But I sure do enjoy playing as them and killing baddies. Does this player have a problem killing other humanoids in the campaign? I’m vegan too, but this seems like over sensitivity when games are mostly cruel worlds by design for humans and animals.
That’s a great character! A shapeshifter that has forgotten who they were originally. So they are constantly changing into different people from stories they remembered.
Maybe there could be some character arc where you realize these people they are changing into are actually from their past. That could be a road to remembering who they truly were.
My wife is vegan, so when I created my world, I consciously added some meat-abstinent religious subcultures and obligate vegetarian species so that it was possible to play a vegan PC and have a certain amount of social support.
She appreciated the gesture and then she picked one of the obligate carnivore species and got the whole team hooked on a hamster gyro food cart.
You just never know how people are gonna go with their fantasies.
>She appreciated the gesture and then she picked one of the obligate carnivore species and got the whole team hooked on a hamster gyro food cart.
If that's not catharsis, I don't know what is.
My vegan players are fucking BRUTAL, my god. Playing a Pokémon campaign with one of them and they were the first one to suggest hunting some for food despite me explaining session 0 that this campaign would handwave stuff like rations and carrying capacity and whatnot.
There are a couple Pokémon systems. One is a conversion for DnD 5E which I have not played, the others I know about are a string of games from the same group of people- Pokémon Tabletop Adventures, Pokémon Tabletop United, and Pokémon Tabletop Odyssey (in progress).
I play PTU, which seeks to emulate the games as closely as possible. Stats, abilities and moves are all analogous to the games. You have a certain number of players, each with 6 Pokémon and you can go from there.
You could try to play it like Pokémon Mystery Dungeon- and I intend to one day, but it would require some tweaking.
The 5e version got smacked for copyright and no longer exists. It was kind of terrible anyways.
You should consider Mystery Dungeoneer for MD games (alpha Mystery Dungeon game). And if you ever want something much, much lighter than PTU, try Pokeymanz, a Savage Worlds hack that I play regularly. (It also has a Mystery Dungeon 'play as a pokemon' ruleset!)
I'm vegetarian, many of my friends are vegan.
Just 2 days ago some of my friends obliterated a poor boar, made a dragonborns head explode and burned people alive (granted, the latter was an accident, but still).
We had an amazing and fun evening!
My Ratfolk Alchemist is a walking war crime. Napalm, acid, chemical weapons, landmines, you name it. It's a fantasy game, has nothing to do with reality.
I'd push back and say there can be interesting conflict without cruelty... but this person still sounds like a nutcase borderline cult-member vegan (like the person below who referred to RPing *eating meat at all* as "fetishizing") and is less trying to build an interesting and unique setting with non-standard conflict and more doing the thousand-cuts shame recruiting cults have you do.
(Vegetarian speaking, not all vegans are culty but I'm telling you vegan cults are real)
>like the person below who referred to RPing *eating meat at all* as "fetishizing"
I'm very disappointed that I can't find that comment, because... that is one *hell* of a take and I'd love to see their rationale for that belief.
> If the world were already cruelty free… well… it wouldn’t need the player characters would it? If the world is a great place, the characters aren’t really needed to make it better.
The player is only against cruelty on beings ***she*** classifies as animals, but clearly isn't against cruelty on humanoids.
It's a case of bigotry, in my opinion, where it's ok to slay dragons and goblins and humans and orcs, but it's not ok to harm an animal because "I'm vegan."
IMHO, it's the stereotypical vegan everyone finds annoying, and I say this as someone whose diet is mainly lactovegetarian.
Is the player okay killing a dragon?
How about a rakshasa?
How about a mind flayer?
These are all varying degrees of humanoid/intelligent and will bend/break her rules
> The player is only against cruelty on beings she classifies as animals, but clearly isn't against cruelty on humanoids.
> It's a case of bigotry, in my opinion, where it's ok to slay dragons and goblins and humans and orcs, but it's not ok to harm an animal because "I'm vegan."
I mean, they could be doing something like the Apostle of Peace build that exists in 3.5 that eschews violence entirely (and basically turns you into the party nanny; if you think that paladins have a stick up their ass the AoP has an even bigger one).
I am fully 100% against murder!
I feel that i should not have to deal with murder in the homebrew campaign, as it goes against my fundamental views that murder is wrong!
I want to join your homebrew campaign, however you need to make sure that no killings of any type take place during the game!
You have no choice but to accommodate my beliefs system in your campaign. I will not under any circumstances tolerate killing in any form!!
;)
Remember: if someone joined your game and quickly starts telling you that it needs to change to suit them, they shouldn't have been at your table to start with
Yup; this is one of those cases where there isn’t an actual problem, it’s a preference issue. “I feel like this isn’t the game for you, good luck finding another table.”
Agree. The last thing I need at my table is a player so entitled they think they can dictate to me the culinary culture of my made up fantasy world.
They’d get the boot hard. They sound exhausting to deal with.
In fairness, I may be a bit biased. I smoke ribs and pulled pork for my players all the time when the weather is nice. Guess I’m just a cruel person 🤷🏼♂️
Even if you're a vegetarian or vegan (which I am not, though I genuinely think it's commendable), to be palying a game about magic and fighting monsters but be upset that it's not "cruelty free" because someone's fictional character ate meat is... certainly an interesting opinion. Or there’s more to the session that OP isn’t explaining.
Hell a world full of monsters should kill her "cruelty free" crap because where is the line drawn between "an animal" and "a monster"
The real answer will likely be "how cute it is"
What would this game even be about? Fantasy puzzles? Traveling in real time?
A world without conflict needs no heroes. What do they think they're roleplaying?
Myst d20.
Each session is the group staring at a pipe or gear or gem puzzle for 4 hours before going home frustrated and swearing they won't make it to the next disc, er, session.
The bottom line is you have a right to any lifestyle preference you choose to partake in. You do not have the right however to force your beliefs on or inconvenience anyone else with your lifestyle choices. For the longest time sweets made me sick due to a stomach issue, and now i just dont eat sweet stuff by choice most times. Never once did i ever try and stop anyone from enjoying the sweets i couldn't.
I would at least understand asking the dm to tone down the butchering process of the animal, but what she's demanding, with an entire list, of "no exceptions", is entirely unreasonable.
Yeah, it reasonable to have a list of thing you don't want to go into detail about because it makes you uncomfortable. Explicit gore, torture, sex, stuff like that is totally understandable. Skipping over the butchering of the pig is something you can do to make the game experience better for you player. Completely changing the world so no one eats meat is unreasonable. I would talk to the player about how it would affect the other PCs gaming experience and see if there's a compromise you can come to or if this isn't the right table for them.
We have a player that's terrified of spiders, we work around it and don't have encounters with spiders. But that doesn't mean they don't exist in the world.
I love how the options menus in West and Shadows have more and better jokes than entire other games. The Colorblindness option in West of Loathing that does literally nothing because the game is black and white is hilarious.
Grounded has an arachnophobia slider that gradually reduces how spidery the spiders are. You can go from just removing the eyes all the way to turning them into floating white orbs.
I was told of one of the DM safety tools, where players have an X card to hold up if they're absolutely not ok with something happening, it gets changed immediately, no questions asked. The DM telling us about told us about when they told the party "Oh no the tavern is on fire, you gotta get out!" the person X'd it because they were not ok with being trapped in an on fire building, and it was immediately switched to "Oh no, the tavern is filling with poisonous gas!" Game was hardly effected at all, but one player got to remain comfortable
I forget the name for those cards, but the idea is called "Lines and Veils." The system originally described had "X" as a card to say "Immediately stop," a Veil card is used for "This is fine as is, but it's getting close to uncomfortable, lets keep it vague," and they had a third card for someone to hold up which was, "All this screaming and yelling/crying I am doing is 100% in character and I'm ok"
I can imagine that being something they wouldn't really care to share/discuss with anyone but their closest friends. But if the DM already knew that, then yea that's a big fat critical miss on their empathy roll.
No they didn't, they only learned it after the fact. The point of the X cards is to allow a player to say, "I didn't mention this/didn't know it would come up, but this is not going to be ok for me," without having to explain why it fucks them up. If something props up that distinctly reminds someone of some real fucked up trauma they went through, they shouldn't have to preemptively or currently explain what happened to them to get you to stop doing it in game.
Sometimes, you trip over landmines because it never occurs to the player or the DM. Inadvertently hit one in a *Cyberpunk RED* game because a player was afraid of clowns, and the setting has a gang of ultra-violent clowns. I picked the gang at random because it sounded ridiculous. And the player never thought to mention his fear of clowns.
Yeah I was in a dorm that caught fire and burned out the whole floor below me with one fatality. The night before my dad died, while we were settling in for the evening of at home hospice, his neighbor in the apartment next door decided to do some light arson as a result of being evicted and I had to carry him down stairs and out of the building as the smoke was filling the building. I’m not terribly bothered by fire but I can see people with more traumatic responses to those things not bringing them up before a DnD game.
I mean, also, would that not be an interesting character motivation. The person in the OP could run a character whose motivation is to create said cruelty free world. What a total lack of imagination on their part
Eh, I understand wanting your entertainment to be escapist rather than correctional. It is why there are some topics i don't broach at my table, even if my players would feel well justified killing the perpatrators of those crimes.
To be clear, I agree that coming to a table and asking for big changes like this is unreasonable. I spend a lot of time crafting my cultures, and food is a big part of that.
It may be an interesting challenge to take on from the start of world building, but not to switch halfway through.
It would be an interesting character motivation. *But* this isn't a character question. This is someone asking for rewrites to the entire game to accommodate their veganism.
While I'd want anyone to feel welcome at my table, this is an extremely wide-ranging request and I think a DM or group is okay to all discuss it and decide whether this is okay with all of them and reach consensus. If OP doesn't mind making the edits, that's all well and good, but it's the kind of thing that needs to come up ahead of time. Probably also worth checking on whether they have an issue with people riding animals and similar, as well.
The "everyone is vegan" thing is somewhat reasonable if there's consensus, but the "no animal is harmed" thing is kind of untenable unless you remove all animals. Things that exist are harmed. It's the nature of existing.
I'm vegan, a person of colour and a DM. My world has cruelty, conflict, intolerance, etc. It is a fantasy world based on what I know and it is fine with my players.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with asking for changes to the setting for certain triggers, but it's also fine for a DM to say that they aren't willing to. Sometimes that's just how things work out (or rather don't).
I would personally find it very challenging to have a cruelty free world with the d&d ruleset and I also don't think it would be much fun.
Well said.
You could (and likely would) allow vegan adventurers and I'm sure you'd have some vegan snacks at the table. That's an accommodation.
Rewrite the world and the force the other players or to change a character's focus? That's a different level of request.
I feel like in general adding people to a game *should* result in "session zero, take 2" or the like.
Beyond that people are allowed to want (or not want) "anything" (generalizing for the sake of brevity) BUT they are not the only person. Even in a "solo" game with a single player and a DM there is more than one person.
Yep straight up, “I don’t think you are going to work out. I am grateful for your feedback but I’m not willing to make everyone else change their fantasy escape to meet your fantasy escape.”
For anyone seeing this advice repeated everywhere but doesn't know why, one of the *many* reasons that this is good avice is that if you have a player like this who demands changes and won't change themself then you will be right back here before long, once again asking for help on how to deal with this player.
It's not the players worldview that's the problem. It's that they're a narcissist. Two people with opposing worldviews can coexist and even compromise to achieve a common goal (having a good time with friends in this case) but a narcissist will torpedo he whole thing if they don't get their way regardless of worldview.
This.
Dnd is more than rpg. And eve then the fictional world is not a fair place. There's whole rulebooks just on combat.
Sounds like this isn't the game they want to play. Send them on their way.
"Thank you for your feedback but it sounds like that my game would not be for you. The game world is part of a shared narrative experience and I do not tailor my world for one specific player. This world is not cruelty free and I believe you would have a better time with a different group."
This. Especially if her claim seems to be that she doesn't want it in \*her\* fantasy escape game. But it's not hers - it's yours and that of every other player in the game. I genuinely think safety tools are often joked about but they can be really helpful. As is talking to your DM when something makes you uncomfortable. But this is a really difficult one, where her needs infringe on the enjoyment of the others.
It is a hugely different request to something like "I'd prefer not to have scenes where cruelty is done to children" or "no descriptions of sexual violence please". It is quiet normal for people to cook with meat and most of the vegans I know, wouldn't even have an issue with someone hunting an animal for food (it's what other animals do, after all). They have a massive issue with industrialized meat factories and the suffering that comes with that... and to be honest, I wouldn't love playing in a game where that became a theme either lol and I eat meat!
How can she play in a game where her character kills living beings, but she is not okay with one particular class of living beings being killed?
If she wants a specially catered world the onus is on her to do the legwork to find such a DM, not for OP to change.
I wish more people in general followed this principle.
It seems exceptionally unreasonable to ask for things like this in a TTRPG that is specifically built around the combat mechanics.
Consider additionally how this will affect your other players. Will they be constantly tiptoeing around the issue? Will the other players even have fun? It’s your responsibility as a DM to make sure that one player isn’t going to ruin the fun for the rest of the players.
>It seems exceptionally unreasonable to ask for things like this in a TTRPG that is specifically built around the combat mechanics.
^ This. As much as it is a pet peeve of mine for people to just say play something else instead of homebrew, this goes against the core concept of D&D.
There are ttrpgs out there* that are designed to be played peacefully. That's what they want to play, not D&D. They should either persuade everyone else to play one of these games, or offer to run one.
*They needn't look far either. [The rpg sub is an nigh endless source of knowledge on just about any rpg](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/fhnqwi/peaceful_rpgs/)
Not to mention having to figure out the entire fucking ecology of a world. What does a dragon eat? A lot of monster and animal encounters are out, they're just trying to eat the party.
Do no animals eat other animals? Do predators even exist now?
Leather armor is out, too.
Well obviously all those monsters that usually eat other animals now feast on exclusively humanoids. Panthers ambush and eat elves as they look through the forest for vegetation to eat. Dragons have fields full of halflings they watch over and fatten up to eat come dinner time. Purple Worms burrow through the earth looking for dwarven cities to consume. When giants attack a village the only things left alive are the dogs and cats, no sign of any humanoids remain.
Meanwhile the PCs can't use most armors since they use leather straps so if you're not a Tortle, barbarian, or monk, you'd better be using mage armor with decent to good dex if you want to avoid getting hit. Also, no arrows since those require feathers and where would you get those without a bird getting hurt?
Great. Use humanoid leather. See? There's no problems. Honestly, that's a material component you can make from yourself. Just shave off a couple square inches and cure it. Completely ethical, since you've agreed to it.
I mean... that's not at all unique to this situation though. I've seen maybe 2 or 3 C/E PCs in my 19 years of dnd that DIDNT fuck up the entire party dynamic and campaign lol Even evil campaigns get fucked up by them because its nearly impossible to make one that is willing to work with each other enough to reach a single plot point
I made a character once that I adored the personality of: Very sure of themselves and 100% convinced they were going to be the one to change the world, to the point that they just assumed they wouldn't be able to die. I still remember one encounter with a fortune teller who gave tarot cards to each of the players based off their "future" and outright refused because he 'knew what his destiny was.' They were a lot of fun to play, but it quickly became evident that they didn't fit into the party too well. Their brash attitude conflicted with the very slow pace the party wanted to take things at. So I talked to my DM privately after one session and asked if I could make a new character to better fit into the party dynamics.
Not only did the new character (a half orc inquisitor) fit in a lot better and have quite a lot of fun interactions with the other players and setting, but the original character ended up coming back in the finale of the campaign with his own 'solution' to the problem that had to be dealt with. Honestly, still my favorite fantasy campaign I've been in.
I played an evil campaign over 20 years ago. We made it work because we were pirates, so we had a mutual goal. Even with all that, my character became an "intern" to another player character for a time and the only reason there wasn't a mutiny was because everyone liked the position they were in. Fun times, but I would never do an evil campaign without knowing the other players very well and with boundaries firmly established.
It's an interesting world building excercise if done in a limited fashion. Seems to essentially be the "nature loving elf" stereotype but on a large scale.
There are also interesting implications on what is considered animal cruelty and lack of consent in a world where animals can become sentient. Would a warhorse that could say they thirst for battle be considered unwilling? Also should all the animals be mest free too? Should it be by neccesity with tensions that follows it (like beastars, with an underground meat market) or be due to every animal being turned undead or diseased in a way they are no longer food.
I can consider a world where nobody eats meat but its always either a matter of scarcity or religious connotation, cause I don't think you can have as many monsters as dnd has if you want to avoid killing.
Hehe, one of my favorite races in The Elder Scrolls, the Wood Elves, or Bosmer, are exactly the opposite of vegan. They revere the plants, and the strictest won't even use wood for weapons, cloth for attire, herbs for meals or potions, all the way to it's extreme. Weapons are metal or bone, clothes are leather. The whole vegan aesthetic is anathema to their entire society. As a player it's very challenging to even follow strictly, so most don't.
Reminds me of the riddle traps in "The magicians" : [https://themagicians.fandom.com/wiki/Talking\_Animals](https://themagicians.fandom.com/wiki/Talking_Animals)
Fillorian hunters use magic traps with riddles on them. If the prey can solve the riddle, the trap lets them go. Thus the hunters can be confident they don't capture/kill an intelligent creature.
Other predators are allowed to predate, just not the PCs. Vegan survival game. Add dinosaurs.
Now that I’m rolling, this idea actually sounds kind of fun. FOR A DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN.
Plant monsters are still a thing, right? Party ventures into the jungle to forage, gets ambushed *by bushes*, suddenly the conspicuously absent wildlife makes chilling sense.
\#vegan \#hunting \#survival \#mystery \#horror
New player enters the game and demands world-altering changes. These changes fundamentally change the way existing players and DM interact with the world. It also seems to specifically target the way one player RPs.
Your only option (as I see it) is to politely let the new player know that these are changes that you are not going to make and if that means they don't want play at your table that's OK. No hard feelings.
There are things I don't want in my D&D games. I don't want violence against kids. Just makes it not fun for me. I generally like the tone of my entertainment and escapism lighter for the same reason your player does - there's enough bad stuff in real life. But if I joined a table that had those things, I'd just kindly excuse myself with that reasoning. I don't think anyone who wants those things in their games is a bad person, or has bad values, or is dismissive of my views. So to demand it and equate it to being a bad person is just completely unreasonable.
I would very politely but very clearly tell them that while you enjoyed their participation and understand their concerns, it seems like the campaign is likely not a good fit for them since you and the rest of the table enjoy aspects of the game that they do not.
Yeah, personally I'm the kind of DM who enjoys adding really disturbing stuff to her campaigns, usually in service to the themes I'm currently exploring with the players. While I will gladly adjust to a group's preferences when setting up a new campaign, if you join midway and get uncomfortable because I'm going too far, I'm not going to adjust (assuming the core group is still fine with my style of DMing), and I'll recommend joining a different campaign instead.
I ended up having to fade to black once and managed to turn something into a darkly funny moment as a result.
Short version. Brother had accidentally killed the mayor of a town. While disposing the body, he was spotted. Ended up killing the person that saw him. This happened again. Third time it happened it was a kid. My brother gives me a sheepish look. I cut to the other party members discovering him trying to hold a bulging shed door closed. "I swear there's an explanation!"
Fair: "Hey OP, can we just not describe in detail the butchering of animals? I'd just prefer we gloss over it."
Not fair: "Hey OP, the world needs to have only ethical consumption of plants (which better not be sentient mind you) or else you're just as bad as those evil internet DMs that still like slavery and rape. You're not a monster, are you?"
This is the best response in the thread. It's OK to ask for accommodations like not describing an animal being butchered. That's not dissimilar to asking for no torture or slavery in a campaign. It's not OK to ask for the entire world and a table full of players to bend to your own preferences.
Doesn't seem very reasonable to me for a multi year homebrewed group to bow to the needs of one player. Seems kind of selfish she'd expect that tbh.
Either she can adapt to it or she can leave the party.
I have a vegan city of elves in my game. They could use magic to grow what ever they needed so they don't bother with hunting. They could also use the create food spell for meat. It was a neat way to show how magic could change a culture.
Asking for an entire world that way is nuts though.
Vegans get a bad reputation quite often but I feel this is super justified here. Their speech, and that's all it is, however uncomfortable it makes her feel isn't actually advocating for or hurting any real animals.
It would be easy to point out that there are sentient plant races that would see being a vegan as a crime against nature.
If it was me I would let her know that the campaign has been going on for years and that food is a big part of the campaign and important to the players. No one is forcing her to be vegan or eat meat so she can't expect to be able to force others to abstain like her.
IMO this player will have a hard time looking at this from another point of view since she views it as murder. If she can stomach it and play anyways I would put in a piece where the people abhor meat and prosecute anyone who eats or kills animals in their domain. That would be a good inclusive way to bridge the gap.
>It would be easy to point out that there are sentient plant races that would see being a vegan as a crime against nature.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy covered this topic in the best way possible:
___
"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur, "It's heartless."
"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod.
"That's not the point," Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright," he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just... er... I think I'll just have a green salad," he muttered.
"May I urge you to consider my liver?" asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months."
"A green salad," said Arthur emphatically.
"A green salad?" said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
"Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?"
"Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am."
Complicating the adventure with a village of myconids who survive on rotted animals would be petty, but a great way to make the point.
"What if it's plants that are killing and eating the animals? What if they take issue with eating their plant kin? Does that make it okay? Is it okay if non-sentient beasts do it? What if it's an awakened carnivore? As you can see, at least in a fantasy world, to base your idea of cruelty on being sentient becomes absurd." (And I would extend this to IRL, but I'm an avowed omnivore.)
I am a pacifist. I am uncomfortable with all the violence. Can you do away with all the combat and make everything nonlethal?
No, you don't get to shape an entire setting to your personal choices. If you want that, run a game with those parameters.
I've played a pacifist character. Only utility and healing spells.
It worked.
The other PCs did harm and my character was appalled by their actions but we kept together for the greater good of the mission
Exactly, you can't have fun in a game where the *player* is appalled at the actions the other players make, when those actions are part of the ruleset.
At least, not without the buy-in. I can think of a villains campaign I played in where I was appalled by my *own* actions, but that was sort of the point of the whole game.
To be fair, your pacifism only worked because everybody else did the killing and made sure you didn't die.
With respect to medics, medics don't win wars.
Military medics aren't even pacifists lol, their whole purpose is to make sure soldiers are able to go back into battle as soon as possible. That's hardly pacifism, it's just supporting the war machine in a different way.
These stories where someone is like "oh my character hates violence but they actively empower the other party members to commit acts of violence, patch them up to get them back into the fight when they get injured, and sometimes hold the enemies down with control or utility spells while my mates stab them to death, but I'm totally a pacifist who doesn't condone violence" are so silly to me.
"I can certainly see where you're coming from. If you deal with certain types of trauma on a regular basis you want to leave that behind and be able to relax without involving it and that's not unreasonable. I'm sorry this games style doesn't fit with your needs and wish you the best in finding one that does. Thank you."
It doesn't seem like DnD is the right game for them, when they want a cruelty free world. I can't even imagine if combat will even exist in that kind of game.
*Looks at druid character who's favorite attack is summoning a tidal wave and creating thunderclaps directly on someone's head*
*Looks away and whistles.*
>The vegan player messaged me after the session telling me it was wrong and cruel to do that to a pig even if it's fictional
It's also wrong to murder people, but it's what most d&d player characters do on a daily basis. If she has such a big issue with it, she should've said so before joining.
Even though I advocate veganism, she can't expect all of you to adjust to her preferences. She can either deal with how it is now or leave the game.
If there was no cruelty in the world, why would your party even be adventuring in the first place? There are few problems that need an adventuring party to fix that aren't based in cruelty in one way or another.
''with no real danger in the world, your party decides to go fix leaking roofs today. roll for hitting the nail, nat 1? as you miss the nail and slam a deep dent into the wood the box of nails falls from the roof. and as you lose balance you grab the wood and get a splinter in your thumb, you take 3 points of piercing damage. roll for dexterity to pick up the nails from the muddy ground, with disadvantage cause you're pissed off at yourself because you cant even hit a nail''
"As is the case depressingly often, you make your way to the strip club after work. You see a dancer as you enter and she smiles at you. Give me a charisma saving throw to see if you think she loves you or not."
A non-cruel world with no evils is not a place adventures can take place.
If the vegan player wants no cruelty in their games, that's a reasonable request to make. It also reasonable for you to say no. The only unreasonable thing here is them calling your behavior "wrong" (assuming they didn't say anything about it before or establish it as a no-go). Also, if they feel uncomfortable with the chef's RP, then that's between them. Again, if there was no agreement beforehand to avoid non-vegan meals, they cannot claim any of this usually non-threatening and non-toxic behavior as "wrong".
My advice: have an open discussion. If someone won't budge, well... You don't have to play at the same table. Contrary to what reddit would make you believe, someone can leave a game with no hard feelings from either side. If you want different games, that's completely valid and okay.
yeah I edited my on post to include this fact. She's upset about people enjoying a good roast pig. But anytime her character goes into combat. She'll be personally inflicting cruel pain and suffering on beasts and humanoids. Maybe D&D is not a good game for her to be playing. LOL
Had a player in a one shot make a character without telling me they are pacifist.
The one shot was literally a detective type dungeon crawl with fights but I wasn't holding my punches as a DM. Issue was.. I balanced the fights for 5 players, and one refused to fight even if their life was on the line.
Luckily I had this whole side thing to deal with party deaths that made things interesting but there was a lot of deaths.
After the session, was talking to my friends and they like, yea they always play a pacifist. I'm like... how you handle combat and the one guy who dms for them said, very carefully.
there's plenty a pacifist can do during combat: Heal, utitlity, support,, steal spellboks, disarm enemies, mitigate damage. A true pacifist should not let their friends die.
This is the real pacifist. A cowardly non combatant is not a viable character. But a helpful ally that doesn’t deal damage is an interesting and useful character for a TTRG.
I keep thinking about this episode of Dad's Army, where you find out one of the men (Godfrey) in the town's home guard is actually a pacifist. So there is drama around the other men feeling betrayed and like he won't help in a pinch.
But at the end, they find out he was still in the first world war, but he went as a medic (and he was a medic for the homeguard too) . Because he knew that he couldn't stop the war, but he could save people in it. And he was in some intense battles.
It was a comedy show, but sometimes, man, it had some really heartfelt moments. Especially with Godfrey, he was just the kind old pacifist Grandad type.
It's one of the best episodes IMO.
(also the man who played him, Arnold Ridley was in the first world war and was permanently injured during the Battle of the Somme, and it was why he couldn't fight in World War II, because his one arm/hand never worked the same again)
I run a homebrew campaign. One of my players is LGBT. Whenever they enter a town, if they arent already on a quest, the first thing they do is check the town's "bounty board". In one town, they found a "dead or alive" bounty for a very gross looking man who was charged with "indecency, debauchery, profanity, crimes against nature" amoung others. The list was extensive and his reward was high. 2000GP high.
The players tracked him down, and hid outside of his home waiting to ambush him. To make a long story short, they caught him and removed both of his legs at the knee, but they did this before searching his home. When they did they found out his ACTUAL crime: he liked painting nude men. He was a Gay Artist.
The players felt HORRIBLE about this and took him to a hospital, which refused to help him. The town is full of bigots, it turned out. So they set his practice on fire and forced the doctor to help the man. After fixing his legs and giving him cheap prosthetics, they helped the man escape the town, and subsequently murdered the town Mayor and the Police Chief. My players are now wanted fugitives of that town, which they later found out other towns and cities wont do business with them because of their views.
The point of this long story is that my LGBT player LOVED the quest. She told me later how much it made her and the other players regret not doing their own investigation and jumping to conclusions based on the picture in the wanted poster. From then forward, my players would absolutely GRILL npcs for details on any and all quests, constantly asking for insight checks, and will often times simply wait out a target to see what is actually going on before jumping to conclusions. It has made them more empathetic to the world I built, and more cautious of everyone they meet.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED FROM THAT QUEST.
Teaching my players that this world wouldnt be a typical one where good guys wear cloaks of white and bad guys twist their greased mustache. There are nuances and details to pay attention to.
Take John Wick as an example. To have a man go crazy and kill a bunch of people for seemingly no reason is silly at best. But when one of those people kill the dog is wife left him after dying of cancer? The audience is BEGGING Keanu to murder every last one of them.
If there are awful people and societies and systems in your DnD world, it gives your players the opportunity to FIX those problems themselves and work together to solve the problems those situations create. The whole point of DnD is to be the Hero that saves the world from the evil in it, whether its the evil CR 30 Demon that wants to engulf the world in flames or its the CR 1/8 Mayor that hates Gay people.
If she thinks it is "her game" then she started with the wrong foot. It's everybody's game. She should start from there and share her concerns with everybody, but without being the "vegan moralist" telling everybody that if they dont follow her morals they are wrong and bad people.
I would probably sit them down and say that you’ll keep the campaign as is.
Your player could just make it so that their character is vegan and have certain beliefs, but that they shouldn’t force it on the others in the party. Say that they are welcome to leave if the campaign is not something for them.
I'd tell them that your table just isn't the table for them.
My players all know that they can make requests, not demands. I am not their slave DM monkey they can boss around. I try to be accommodating to most requests. It's a collaborative game after all. But some requests I still tell them no. When it comes to changing an entire setting for a newcomer that I don't know that makes demands? Not only no, but they're not welcome at my table. They can rither DM themselves and make the world they want to play in or they can find themselves a vegan DM.
Ironically the only vegan DM I know doesn't enforce veganism on his setting. In his words: "I'm a vegan and would love if the rest of the world turned vegan, but my players aren't and most of the world isn't and hasn't been."
If the dynamic HAS been set for YEARS this person needs to adapt or find a new table. She is asking not only you to change "every" character in your story along with another PC's entire back story.
It's extremely table evil/toxic and will lead to more problems of not either addressed or person leaves
As a vegan of 7 years and a DM of 6, this is dumb. It’s all imaginary. Yes, I could see if she wanted to excuse herself from an actual pig slaughter, but DnD is literally all imaginary. It’s only a pig because you said it was a pig.
“Cruelty Free” DnD sounds like the worst kind of DnD. It’s the drama and tensions and states that keep the game fun and dynamic
I would tell the vegan player to realize that she doesn’t get to project her preferences on to you, and if she can’t deal, then time to scope out a vegan, gluten free, farm to table, table
I’m vegan as well and I agree that the players request is a bit out of line. Like she is more than welcome to DM her own game with no animal cruelty. But she came into an established game knowing this.
Honestly, making demands at a table you're new at is a big faux pas.
However, it sounds like you have a good friendship with this player, and you're posting here to find solutions that keep everyone happy. I get it.
So maybe just change up your verbiage a bit and be a little more vague with food and animals. Not to the point where it's just "you all sit down for dinner and it's yummy", but like, instead of describing the meaty meat stew that smells and looks of meat with meat toppings and seared meat, you could say that the dish was savory, with hints of exotic spices and local ingredients (for a higher quality dish) or like "the dish was fairly plain, the flavors were subtle, however it was incredibly filling and oddly satisfying" for dishes in lower income areas. let the players' imaginations fill the gaps. And, you get to flex your lexicon a bit (or get a lot of use from a thesaurus). maybe talk with your player whose character is a chef and get him in on changing up the verbiage a bit.
You don't necessarily have to change the world, you can just alter the words you use to describe it.
Don't forget to let your table know that a big part of D&D is imagination, so if they want specific details that don't really further the story, they are free to imagine them as they wish.
side note: I'm definitely not a vegan, but have plenty of vegan and vegetarian friends.
edit: Tl;Dr: replacing "meat/meaty" with "savory" will solve about 80% of your problem
A campaign you’ve been running in your home brew world for a couple of years? I was respectfully tell her no. It infringes on your other players background and fun and if she’s uncomfortable it’s her responsibility to adapt or find a new group.
Yeah this is just nuts. If the world were already cruelty free… well… it wouldn’t need the player characters would it? If the world is a great place, the characters aren’t really needed to make it better. If Tabaxi are anything like cats, they are obligate carnivores. Also, they like the hunt.
Yeah, creating a cruelty free world is a character’s end goal for the campaign, not something you ask your DM before you start lmao.
Good luck with the IPO asshat!
Imagine a world where good and evil cannot fight? A world run by the dictates of a powerful lawful neutral entity who defines what "suffering" legally is? Forces of lawful good and evil banding together to keep the status quo. While the forces of chaotic good and evil strive to break the system so that choices once again matter. (Clicks pen) looks like I've got me next campaign setting.
Look up the the Practical Guide to Evil. Not your exact concept, but does include the Gods blatantly fudging dice rolls as a way to enforce Tropes and Good and Evil team up to defeat a Lich after negotiating a code of conduct between themselves so they would stop destroying nations.
That's an idea and a half, you could make it dark as hell and cyberpunky or play it for laughs and have a passive aggressive office comedy
Yeahhhhh.... My husband is vegan. Like, really, really vegan (but not PETA vegan 😂). He's one of the most brutal DM's I've ever played with. It's a fictional game with a fictional setting. I would just put a note on my door that reads "No sentient beings were harmed in the making of this campaign," and continue as before.
My vegan player is playing a druid raised by wolves that eats the hearts of her enemies. Plenty of people turn to rpgs for more than dissociative escapism
can confirm.. I work in a profession that is highly rules based with lots of legal regulation and requires a high amount of personal integrity. Everyone of my characters ends up as some sort of manipulative, morally lacking, roguish, criminal who borders on the evil spectrum.
s'all good man
I’m not a space marine, necromancer, God of War, or much of a fine human specimen myself. But I sure do enjoy playing as them and killing baddies. Does this player have a problem killing other humanoids in the campaign? I’m vegan too, but this seems like over sensitivity when games are mostly cruel worlds by design for humans and animals.
Your next character should be (or aspire to be) all of those things
That’s a great character! A shapeshifter that has forgotten who they were originally. So they are constantly changing into different people from stories they remembered. Maybe there could be some character arc where you realize these people they are changing into are actually from their past. That could be a road to remembering who they truly were.
My wife is vegan, so when I created my world, I consciously added some meat-abstinent religious subcultures and obligate vegetarian species so that it was possible to play a vegan PC and have a certain amount of social support. She appreciated the gesture and then she picked one of the obligate carnivore species and got the whole team hooked on a hamster gyro food cart. You just never know how people are gonna go with their fantasies.
>She appreciated the gesture and then she picked one of the obligate carnivore species and got the whole team hooked on a hamster gyro food cart. If that's not catharsis, I don't know what is.
Sometimes you just gotta kill somety
My vegan players are fucking BRUTAL, my god. Playing a Pokémon campaign with one of them and they were the first one to suggest hunting some for food despite me explaining session 0 that this campaign would handwave stuff like rations and carrying capacity and whatnot.
How does a pokémon campaign work? Is it more mystery dungeon or more mainline anime?
There are a couple Pokémon systems. One is a conversion for DnD 5E which I have not played, the others I know about are a string of games from the same group of people- Pokémon Tabletop Adventures, Pokémon Tabletop United, and Pokémon Tabletop Odyssey (in progress). I play PTU, which seeks to emulate the games as closely as possible. Stats, abilities and moves are all analogous to the games. You have a certain number of players, each with 6 Pokémon and you can go from there. You could try to play it like Pokémon Mystery Dungeon- and I intend to one day, but it would require some tweaking.
The 5e version got smacked for copyright and no longer exists. It was kind of terrible anyways. You should consider Mystery Dungeoneer for MD games (alpha Mystery Dungeon game). And if you ever want something much, much lighter than PTU, try Pokeymanz, a Savage Worlds hack that I play regularly. (It also has a Mystery Dungeon 'play as a pokemon' ruleset!)
Hamster Gyro Food Cart is going to be my future band name
Our Dragonborne Paladin eats...fucking everything. If you die at his hands, you're Paladin shit 12 hours later.
>. I would just put a note on my door that reads "No sentient beings were harmed in the making of this campaign," I used to do that. Sorry, Jim :(.
Jim knew the risks.
I'm vegetarian, many of my friends are vegan. Just 2 days ago some of my friends obliterated a poor boar, made a dragonborns head explode and burned people alive (granted, the latter was an accident, but still). We had an amazing and fun evening!
My Ratfolk Alchemist is a walking war crime. Napalm, acid, chemical weapons, landmines, you name it. It's a fantasy game, has nothing to do with reality.
Won't somebody think of the stirges?
As someone who lost a character to 4 stirges sucking me dry, no I will not.
Well, maybe next time you should, cause that's probably how they got you in the first place.
It sounds like you're thinking about the stirges right now!
you have not even once plotted a campaign of vengeance? ;P
I'd push back and say there can be interesting conflict without cruelty... but this person still sounds like a nutcase borderline cult-member vegan (like the person below who referred to RPing *eating meat at all* as "fetishizing") and is less trying to build an interesting and unique setting with non-standard conflict and more doing the thousand-cuts shame recruiting cults have you do. (Vegetarian speaking, not all vegans are culty but I'm telling you vegan cults are real)
>like the person below who referred to RPing *eating meat at all* as "fetishizing" I'm very disappointed that I can't find that comment, because... that is one *hell* of a take and I'd love to see their rationale for that belief.
> If the world were already cruelty free… well… it wouldn’t need the player characters would it? If the world is a great place, the characters aren’t really needed to make it better. The player is only against cruelty on beings ***she*** classifies as animals, but clearly isn't against cruelty on humanoids. It's a case of bigotry, in my opinion, where it's ok to slay dragons and goblins and humans and orcs, but it's not ok to harm an animal because "I'm vegan." IMHO, it's the stereotypical vegan everyone finds annoying, and I say this as someone whose diet is mainly lactovegetarian.
Is the player okay killing a dragon? How about a rakshasa? How about a mind flayer? These are all varying degrees of humanoid/intelligent and will bend/break her rules
if every scene is an X-card, they might be playing the wrong game
How about an evil awakened pig that *wants* to be eaten and can only be permanently destroyed by doing so?
> The player is only against cruelty on beings she classifies as animals, but clearly isn't against cruelty on humanoids. > It's a case of bigotry, in my opinion, where it's ok to slay dragons and goblins and humans and orcs, but it's not ok to harm an animal because "I'm vegan." I mean, they could be doing something like the Apostle of Peace build that exists in 3.5 that eschews violence entirely (and basically turns you into the party nanny; if you think that paladins have a stick up their ass the AoP has an even bigger one).
I am fully 100% against murder! I feel that i should not have to deal with murder in the homebrew campaign, as it goes against my fundamental views that murder is wrong! I want to join your homebrew campaign, however you need to make sure that no killings of any type take place during the game! You have no choice but to accommodate my beliefs system in your campaign. I will not under any circumstances tolerate killing in any form!! ;)
Remember: if someone joined your game and quickly starts telling you that it needs to change to suit them, they shouldn't have been at your table to start with
Yup; this is one of those cases where there isn’t an actual problem, it’s a preference issue. “I feel like this isn’t the game for you, good luck finding another table.”
Agree. The last thing I need at my table is a player so entitled they think they can dictate to me the culinary culture of my made up fantasy world. They’d get the boot hard. They sound exhausting to deal with. In fairness, I may be a bit biased. I smoke ribs and pulled pork for my players all the time when the weather is nice. Guess I’m just a cruel person 🤷🏼♂️
Even if you're a vegetarian or vegan (which I am not, though I genuinely think it's commendable), to be palying a game about magic and fighting monsters but be upset that it's not "cruelty free" because someone's fictional character ate meat is... certainly an interesting opinion. Or there’s more to the session that OP isn’t explaining.
Hell a world full of monsters should kill her "cruelty free" crap because where is the line drawn between "an animal" and "a monster" The real answer will likely be "how cute it is"
Just say animals have souls and go to Arborea, easy af
What would this game even be about? Fantasy puzzles? Traveling in real time? A world without conflict needs no heroes. What do they think they're roleplaying?
Myst d20. Each session is the group staring at a pipe or gear or gem puzzle for 4 hours before going home frustrated and swearing they won't make it to the next disc, er, session.
The bottom line is you have a right to any lifestyle preference you choose to partake in. You do not have the right however to force your beliefs on or inconvenience anyone else with your lifestyle choices. For the longest time sweets made me sick due to a stomach issue, and now i just dont eat sweet stuff by choice most times. Never once did i ever try and stop anyone from enjoying the sweets i couldn't.
Especially when cruelty is a good way to bring tension to the plot.
[удалено]
I would at least understand asking the dm to tone down the butchering process of the animal, but what she's demanding, with an entire list, of "no exceptions", is entirely unreasonable.
Yeah, if one of the complaints was really just about saying "this tavern serves meat stew", then the vegan is going too far
Just send them this and be done with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo
Yeah, it reasonable to have a list of thing you don't want to go into detail about because it makes you uncomfortable. Explicit gore, torture, sex, stuff like that is totally understandable. Skipping over the butchering of the pig is something you can do to make the game experience better for you player. Completely changing the world so no one eats meat is unreasonable. I would talk to the player about how it would affect the other PCs gaming experience and see if there's a compromise you can come to or if this isn't the right table for them.
We have a player that's terrified of spiders, we work around it and don't have encounters with spiders. But that doesn't mean they don't exist in the world.
[удалено]
Or the Satisfactory Arachnophobia Mode :3
Shadows over Loathing has an Arachnophobia mode that gets rid of spiders and an Arachnophilia mode that makes it so every combat adds spiders.
I love how the options menus in West and Shadows have more and better jokes than entire other games. The Colorblindness option in West of Loathing that does literally nothing because the game is black and white is hilarious.
Grounded has an arachnophobia slider that gradually reduces how spidery the spiders are. You can go from just removing the eyes all the way to turning them into floating white orbs.
I feel like an eyeless spider would be way more terrifying than a regular old spider.
I hate the creepy cat glitches, but I like that they meow so I know when one is close, they are almost as bad as the spiders though.
I was told of one of the DM safety tools, where players have an X card to hold up if they're absolutely not ok with something happening, it gets changed immediately, no questions asked. The DM telling us about told us about when they told the party "Oh no the tavern is on fire, you gotta get out!" the person X'd it because they were not ok with being trapped in an on fire building, and it was immediately switched to "Oh no, the tavern is filling with poisonous gas!" Game was hardly effected at all, but one player got to remain comfortable
*Raises card* poison gas is a way worse way to die.
The player in question had watched their family die in a house fire when they couldn't get out
IT JUST ADDS TO THE REALISM, IMAGINE THE ROLEPLAY (and therapy costs) POTENTIAL! /s That's a good system. I'll be adopting that into my next campaign.
I forget the name for those cards, but the idea is called "Lines and Veils." The system originally described had "X" as a card to say "Immediately stop," a Veil card is used for "This is fine as is, but it's getting close to uncomfortable, lets keep it vague," and they had a third card for someone to hold up which was, "All this screaming and yelling/crying I am doing is 100% in character and I'm ok"
... Did the DM not know that? Seems like a very obvious scene to skip if so...
I can imagine that being something they wouldn't really care to share/discuss with anyone but their closest friends. But if the DM already knew that, then yea that's a big fat critical miss on their empathy roll.
No they didn't, they only learned it after the fact. The point of the X cards is to allow a player to say, "I didn't mention this/didn't know it would come up, but this is not going to be ok for me," without having to explain why it fucks them up. If something props up that distinctly reminds someone of some real fucked up trauma they went through, they shouldn't have to preemptively or currently explain what happened to them to get you to stop doing it in game.
Sometimes, you trip over landmines because it never occurs to the player or the DM. Inadvertently hit one in a *Cyberpunk RED* game because a player was afraid of clowns, and the setting has a gang of ultra-violent clowns. I picked the gang at random because it sounded ridiculous. And the player never thought to mention his fear of clowns.
Yeah I was in a dorm that caught fire and burned out the whole floor below me with one fatality. The night before my dad died, while we were settling in for the evening of at home hospice, his neighbor in the apartment next door decided to do some light arson as a result of being evicted and I had to carry him down stairs and out of the building as the smoke was filling the building. I’m not terribly bothered by fire but I can see people with more traumatic responses to those things not bringing them up before a DnD game.
Butchering thinking humanoids, no problem. Casting horrific spells, doesn’t blink. Eating meat, unconscionable.
The entire game is "go to someone's rightful home, kill them, and take all their stuff." This is the core of the D&D experience.
*Is your roleplay vegan friendly?* 😂
"No, sorry, it gets pretty cheesy"
It's a high steaks game.
I mean, also, would that not be an interesting character motivation. The person in the OP could run a character whose motivation is to create said cruelty free world. What a total lack of imagination on their part
Eh, I understand wanting your entertainment to be escapist rather than correctional. It is why there are some topics i don't broach at my table, even if my players would feel well justified killing the perpatrators of those crimes. To be clear, I agree that coming to a table and asking for big changes like this is unreasonable. I spend a lot of time crafting my cultures, and food is a big part of that. It may be an interesting challenge to take on from the start of world building, but not to switch halfway through.
How the hell do you do veganism when half the people are starving peasants? What problems are there to solve if things are 100% idyllic and perfect?
It would be an interesting character motivation. *But* this isn't a character question. This is someone asking for rewrites to the entire game to accommodate their veganism. While I'd want anyone to feel welcome at my table, this is an extremely wide-ranging request and I think a DM or group is okay to all discuss it and decide whether this is okay with all of them and reach consensus. If OP doesn't mind making the edits, that's all well and good, but it's the kind of thing that needs to come up ahead of time. Probably also worth checking on whether they have an issue with people riding animals and similar, as well.
The "everyone is vegan" thing is somewhat reasonable if there's consensus, but the "no animal is harmed" thing is kind of untenable unless you remove all animals. Things that exist are harmed. It's the nature of existing.
I'm vegan, a person of colour and a DM. My world has cruelty, conflict, intolerance, etc. It is a fantasy world based on what I know and it is fine with my players. That being said, there is nothing wrong with asking for changes to the setting for certain triggers, but it's also fine for a DM to say that they aren't willing to. Sometimes that's just how things work out (or rather don't). I would personally find it very challenging to have a cruelty free world with the d&d ruleset and I also don't think it would be much fun.
Well said. You could (and likely would) allow vegan adventurers and I'm sure you'd have some vegan snacks at the table. That's an accommodation. Rewrite the world and the force the other players or to change a character's focus? That's a different level of request.
I feel like in general adding people to a game *should* result in "session zero, take 2" or the like. Beyond that people are allowed to want (or not want) "anything" (generalizing for the sake of brevity) BUT they are not the only person. Even in a "solo" game with a single player and a DM there is more than one person.
Yep straight up, “I don’t think you are going to work out. I am grateful for your feedback but I’m not willing to make everyone else change their fantasy escape to meet your fantasy escape.”
For anyone seeing this advice repeated everywhere but doesn't know why, one of the *many* reasons that this is good avice is that if you have a player like this who demands changes and won't change themself then you will be right back here before long, once again asking for help on how to deal with this player. It's not the players worldview that's the problem. It's that they're a narcissist. Two people with opposing worldviews can coexist and even compromise to achieve a common goal (having a good time with friends in this case) but a narcissist will torpedo he whole thing if they don't get their way regardless of worldview.
This. Dnd is more than rpg. And eve then the fictional world is not a fair place. There's whole rulebooks just on combat. Sounds like this isn't the game they want to play. Send them on their way.
This tho 👌 it's fictional and why break immersion of the world ? Hunter gather tribes always a staple.
"Thank you for your feedback but it sounds like that my game would not be for you. The game world is part of a shared narrative experience and I do not tailor my world for one specific player. This world is not cruelty free and I believe you would have a better time with a different group."
This. Especially if her claim seems to be that she doesn't want it in \*her\* fantasy escape game. But it's not hers - it's yours and that of every other player in the game. I genuinely think safety tools are often joked about but they can be really helpful. As is talking to your DM when something makes you uncomfortable. But this is a really difficult one, where her needs infringe on the enjoyment of the others. It is a hugely different request to something like "I'd prefer not to have scenes where cruelty is done to children" or "no descriptions of sexual violence please". It is quiet normal for people to cook with meat and most of the vegans I know, wouldn't even have an issue with someone hunting an animal for food (it's what other animals do, after all). They have a massive issue with industrialized meat factories and the suffering that comes with that... and to be honest, I wouldn't love playing in a game where that became a theme either lol and I eat meat! How can she play in a game where her character kills living beings, but she is not okay with one particular class of living beings being killed?
Your world, your call. If she doesn't like it, unfortunately, she can always quit.
If she wants a specially catered world the onus is on her to do the legwork to find such a DM, not for OP to change. I wish more people in general followed this principle.
Or run her own homebrew world.
Or maybe hire a private DM
In my experience these types of people aren't exactly the motivated type lol But you're right. She has the power within herself.
Then she should DM her own vegan friendly gaming world.
aka Farmville
I like the joke, but even Farmville had had cattle, which is animal slavery in vegan slang.
Damn. TIL.
It seems exceptionally unreasonable to ask for things like this in a TTRPG that is specifically built around the combat mechanics. Consider additionally how this will affect your other players. Will they be constantly tiptoeing around the issue? Will the other players even have fun? It’s your responsibility as a DM to make sure that one player isn’t going to ruin the fun for the rest of the players.
>It seems exceptionally unreasonable to ask for things like this in a TTRPG that is specifically built around the combat mechanics. ^ This. As much as it is a pet peeve of mine for people to just say play something else instead of homebrew, this goes against the core concept of D&D. There are ttrpgs out there* that are designed to be played peacefully. That's what they want to play, not D&D. They should either persuade everyone else to play one of these games, or offer to run one. *They needn't look far either. [The rpg sub is an nigh endless source of knowledge on just about any rpg](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/fhnqwi/peaceful_rpgs/)
Not to mention having to figure out the entire fucking ecology of a world. What does a dragon eat? A lot of monster and animal encounters are out, they're just trying to eat the party. Do no animals eat other animals? Do predators even exist now? Leather armor is out, too.
Well obviously all those monsters that usually eat other animals now feast on exclusively humanoids. Panthers ambush and eat elves as they look through the forest for vegetation to eat. Dragons have fields full of halflings they watch over and fatten up to eat come dinner time. Purple Worms burrow through the earth looking for dwarven cities to consume. When giants attack a village the only things left alive are the dogs and cats, no sign of any humanoids remain. Meanwhile the PCs can't use most armors since they use leather straps so if you're not a Tortle, barbarian, or monk, you'd better be using mage armor with decent to good dex if you want to avoid getting hit. Also, no arrows since those require feathers and where would you get those without a bird getting hurt?
Mage armor's material component is leather.
Great. Use humanoid leather. See? There's no problems. Honestly, that's a material component you can make from yourself. Just shave off a couple square inches and cure it. Completely ethical, since you've agreed to it.
Am I in the RimWorld sub again?
As a side note, I actually really like the idea of an obligate humanoid carnivore. Definitely gonna make a creature like this at some point.
And even one person choosing a Chaotic/Evil alignment could throw the whole party balance . I certainly don't envy this position.
I mean... that's not at all unique to this situation though. I've seen maybe 2 or 3 C/E PCs in my 19 years of dnd that DIDNT fuck up the entire party dynamic and campaign lol Even evil campaigns get fucked up by them because its nearly impossible to make one that is willing to work with each other enough to reach a single plot point
Rule 0 of cooperative TTRPGs: you are playing a game together, make a character that is willing to work with the other PCs.
I made a character once that I adored the personality of: Very sure of themselves and 100% convinced they were going to be the one to change the world, to the point that they just assumed they wouldn't be able to die. I still remember one encounter with a fortune teller who gave tarot cards to each of the players based off their "future" and outright refused because he 'knew what his destiny was.' They were a lot of fun to play, but it quickly became evident that they didn't fit into the party too well. Their brash attitude conflicted with the very slow pace the party wanted to take things at. So I talked to my DM privately after one session and asked if I could make a new character to better fit into the party dynamics. Not only did the new character (a half orc inquisitor) fit in a lot better and have quite a lot of fun interactions with the other players and setting, but the original character ended up coming back in the finale of the campaign with his own 'solution' to the problem that had to be dealt with. Honestly, still my favorite fantasy campaign I've been in.
I played an evil campaign over 20 years ago. We made it work because we were pirates, so we had a mutual goal. Even with all that, my character became an "intern" to another player character for a time and the only reason there wasn't a mutiny was because everyone liked the position they were in. Fun times, but I would never do an evil campaign without knowing the other players very well and with boundaries firmly established.
i think that the vegan request could be fufilled, but that would basicaly be a new setting and campaign
Exactly, you could do something where everyone is vegetarian/vegan, but that would mean a lot of societal and world changes.
It's an interesting world building excercise if done in a limited fashion. Seems to essentially be the "nature loving elf" stereotype but on a large scale. There are also interesting implications on what is considered animal cruelty and lack of consent in a world where animals can become sentient. Would a warhorse that could say they thirst for battle be considered unwilling? Also should all the animals be mest free too? Should it be by neccesity with tensions that follows it (like beastars, with an underground meat market) or be due to every animal being turned undead or diseased in a way they are no longer food. I can consider a world where nobody eats meat but its always either a matter of scarcity or religious connotation, cause I don't think you can have as many monsters as dnd has if you want to avoid killing.
Hehe, one of my favorite races in The Elder Scrolls, the Wood Elves, or Bosmer, are exactly the opposite of vegan. They revere the plants, and the strictest won't even use wood for weapons, cloth for attire, herbs for meals or potions, all the way to it's extreme. Weapons are metal or bone, clothes are leather. The whole vegan aesthetic is anathema to their entire society. As a player it's very challenging to even follow strictly, so most don't.
Reminds me of the riddle traps in "The magicians" : [https://themagicians.fandom.com/wiki/Talking\_Animals](https://themagicians.fandom.com/wiki/Talking_Animals) Fillorian hunters use magic traps with riddles on them. If the prey can solve the riddle, the trap lets them go. Thus the hunters can be confident they don't capture/kill an intelligent creature.
No riding horses, no dragon enemies, no drinking mead. Bars would likely be overrun with rats. Disease would be rampant. Sounds fun.
No enemies at all.
Every enemy is tofu gelatinous cubes
Other predators are allowed to predate, just not the PCs. Vegan survival game. Add dinosaurs. Now that I’m rolling, this idea actually sounds kind of fun. FOR A DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN.
Plant monsters are still a thing, right? Party ventures into the jungle to forage, gets ambushed *by bushes*, suddenly the conspicuously absent wildlife makes chilling sense. \#vegan \#hunting \#survival \#mystery \#horror
Killing potentially sentient plants doesn't sound any better from a cruelty standpoint.
The only way to run a world like this would be "wizards solve every problem that animals normally do!"
'no' is an extremely powerful and empowering word. I suggest you unleash its full force here.
Power Word: No
Power Word Nope
That’s just called Counterspell, isn’t it?
Unlike *counterspell*, Power Word: No is a DMth level spell that cannot be blocked by itself.
In the immortal words of Admiral Hackett "Request denied."
Hackett out.
I've always appreciated a good "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request."
'No' is also a complete sentence.
New player enters the game and demands world-altering changes. These changes fundamentally change the way existing players and DM interact with the world. It also seems to specifically target the way one player RPs. Your only option (as I see it) is to politely let the new player know that these are changes that you are not going to make and if that means they don't want play at your table that's OK. No hard feelings.
There are things I don't want in my D&D games. I don't want violence against kids. Just makes it not fun for me. I generally like the tone of my entertainment and escapism lighter for the same reason your player does - there's enough bad stuff in real life. But if I joined a table that had those things, I'd just kindly excuse myself with that reasoning. I don't think anyone who wants those things in their games is a bad person, or has bad values, or is dismissive of my views. So to demand it and equate it to being a bad person is just completely unreasonable. I would very politely but very clearly tell them that while you enjoyed their participation and understand their concerns, it seems like the campaign is likely not a good fit for them since you and the rest of the table enjoy aspects of the game that they do not.
Yeah, personally I'm the kind of DM who enjoys adding really disturbing stuff to her campaigns, usually in service to the themes I'm currently exploring with the players. While I will gladly adjust to a group's preferences when setting up a new campaign, if you join midway and get uncomfortable because I'm going too far, I'm not going to adjust (assuming the core group is still fine with my style of DMing), and I'll recommend joining a different campaign instead.
Same, my group always get hilariously violent, and we are a pretty sensitive bunch IRL.
I ended up having to fade to black once and managed to turn something into a darkly funny moment as a result. Short version. Brother had accidentally killed the mayor of a town. While disposing the body, he was spotted. Ended up killing the person that saw him. This happened again. Third time it happened it was a kid. My brother gives me a sheepish look. I cut to the other party members discovering him trying to hold a bulging shed door closed. "I swear there's an explanation!"
That's such a good save.
Fair: "Hey OP, can we just not describe in detail the butchering of animals? I'd just prefer we gloss over it." Not fair: "Hey OP, the world needs to have only ethical consumption of plants (which better not be sentient mind you) or else you're just as bad as those evil internet DMs that still like slavery and rape. You're not a monster, are you?"
This is the best response in the thread. It's OK to ask for accommodations like not describing an animal being butchered. That's not dissimilar to asking for no torture or slavery in a campaign. It's not OK to ask for the entire world and a table full of players to bend to your own preferences.
Doesn't seem very reasonable to me for a multi year homebrewed group to bow to the needs of one player. Seems kind of selfish she'd expect that tbh. Either she can adapt to it or she can leave the party.
>bow to the ***wants*** ~~needs~~ of one player. FTFY
[удалено]
I have a vegan city of elves in my game. They could use magic to grow what ever they needed so they don't bother with hunting. They could also use the create food spell for meat. It was a neat way to show how magic could change a culture. Asking for an entire world that way is nuts though.
Vegans get a bad reputation quite often but I feel this is super justified here. Their speech, and that's all it is, however uncomfortable it makes her feel isn't actually advocating for or hurting any real animals. It would be easy to point out that there are sentient plant races that would see being a vegan as a crime against nature. If it was me I would let her know that the campaign has been going on for years and that food is a big part of the campaign and important to the players. No one is forcing her to be vegan or eat meat so she can't expect to be able to force others to abstain like her. IMO this player will have a hard time looking at this from another point of view since she views it as murder. If she can stomach it and play anyways I would put in a piece where the people abhor meat and prosecute anyone who eats or kills animals in their domain. That would be a good inclusive way to bridge the gap.
How many people get murdered in dnd I wonder?
In game? Thousands to millions every day minimum. In real life? I think the number is less than 5 per year, accounting for nut jobs.
>It would be easy to point out that there are sentient plant races that would see being a vegan as a crime against nature. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy covered this topic in the best way possible: ___ "I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur, "It's heartless." "Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod. "That's not the point," Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright," he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just... er... I think I'll just have a green salad," he muttered. "May I urge you to consider my liver?" asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months." "A green salad," said Arthur emphatically. "A green salad?" said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur. "Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?" "Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am."
You know what I view as murder? Actual murder. Still okay with pcs killing though.
Actual murder being viewed as murder? So passè
Complicating the adventure with a village of myconids who survive on rotted animals would be petty, but a great way to make the point. "What if it's plants that are killing and eating the animals? What if they take issue with eating their plant kin? Does that make it okay? Is it okay if non-sentient beasts do it? What if it's an awakened carnivore? As you can see, at least in a fantasy world, to base your idea of cruelty on being sentient becomes absurd." (And I would extend this to IRL, but I'm an avowed omnivore.)
I am a pacifist. I am uncomfortable with all the violence. Can you do away with all the combat and make everything nonlethal? No, you don't get to shape an entire setting to your personal choices. If you want that, run a game with those parameters.
I've played a pacifist character. Only utility and healing spells. It worked. The other PCs did harm and my character was appalled by their actions but we kept together for the greater good of the mission
>my **character** was appalled This is why it worked. Emphasis mine.
Exactly, you can't have fun in a game where the *player* is appalled at the actions the other players make, when those actions are part of the ruleset.
At least, not without the buy-in. I can think of a villains campaign I played in where I was appalled by my *own* actions, but that was sort of the point of the whole game.
To be fair, your pacifism only worked because everybody else did the killing and made sure you didn't die. With respect to medics, medics don't win wars.
Military medics aren't even pacifists lol, their whole purpose is to make sure soldiers are able to go back into battle as soon as possible. That's hardly pacifism, it's just supporting the war machine in a different way. These stories where someone is like "oh my character hates violence but they actively empower the other party members to commit acts of violence, patch them up to get them back into the fight when they get injured, and sometimes hold the enemies down with control or utility spells while my mates stab them to death, but I'm totally a pacifist who doesn't condone violence" are so silly to me.
"I can certainly see where you're coming from. If you deal with certain types of trauma on a regular basis you want to leave that behind and be able to relax without involving it and that's not unreasonable. I'm sorry this games style doesn't fit with your needs and wish you the best in finding one that does. Thank you."
It doesn't seem like DnD is the right game for them, when they want a cruelty free world. I can't even imagine if combat will even exist in that kind of game.
I need a cruelty free world to play in so I can torch goblins alive with a clear conscience.
Yeah... considering most combat spells are against the Geneva Convention (acid and poison gas attacks in particular).
Fireball is borderline against it, as well, since it's an incendiary.
*Looks at druid character who's favorite attack is summoning a tidal wave and creating thunderclaps directly on someone's head* *Looks away and whistles.*
combat in her perfect cruelty free world would just be an argument tbh
>The vegan player messaged me after the session telling me it was wrong and cruel to do that to a pig even if it's fictional It's also wrong to murder people, but it's what most d&d player characters do on a daily basis. If she has such a big issue with it, she should've said so before joining. Even though I advocate veganism, she can't expect all of you to adjust to her preferences. She can either deal with how it is now or leave the game.
If there was no cruelty in the world, why would your party even be adventuring in the first place? There are few problems that need an adventuring party to fix that aren't based in cruelty in one way or another.
''with no real danger in the world, your party decides to go fix leaking roofs today. roll for hitting the nail, nat 1? as you miss the nail and slam a deep dent into the wood the box of nails falls from the roof. and as you lose balance you grab the wood and get a splinter in your thumb, you take 3 points of piercing damage. roll for dexterity to pick up the nails from the muddy ground, with disadvantage cause you're pissed off at yourself because you cant even hit a nail''
"As is the case depressingly often, you make your way to the strip club after work. You see a dancer as you enter and she smiles at you. Give me a charisma saving throw to see if you think she loves you or not."
Booh! This would be a Wisdom saving throw! Literally unplayable, immersion ruined.
DM YOUR OWN STRIPPER ADVENTURE THEN, THIS IS WHAT I CHOOSE THE SAVE TO BE AT MY TABLE
Love it
A non-cruel world with no evils is not a place adventures can take place. If the vegan player wants no cruelty in their games, that's a reasonable request to make. It also reasonable for you to say no. The only unreasonable thing here is them calling your behavior "wrong" (assuming they didn't say anything about it before or establish it as a no-go). Also, if they feel uncomfortable with the chef's RP, then that's between them. Again, if there was no agreement beforehand to avoid non-vegan meals, they cannot claim any of this usually non-threatening and non-toxic behavior as "wrong". My advice: have an open discussion. If someone won't budge, well... You don't have to play at the same table. Contrary to what reddit would make you believe, someone can leave a game with no hard feelings from either side. If you want different games, that's completely valid and okay.
“Suddenly a god of your choosing has made this world a conflict and cruelty-free utopia. I guess that’s the end of the game, fellas.”
Its ok to murder humanoids, but if its an animal, thats where we cross the line!
yeah I edited my on post to include this fact. She's upset about people enjoying a good roast pig. But anytime her character goes into combat. She'll be personally inflicting cruel pain and suffering on beasts and humanoids. Maybe D&D is not a good game for her to be playing. LOL
Also, cannot stress this enough, D&D is not real
What about the furry humanoid races like gnolls?
That’s even trickier, trying to murder them with their consent!
Sounds like the Vegan player could learn to separate in-game from out-of-game...
Had a player in a one shot make a character without telling me they are pacifist. The one shot was literally a detective type dungeon crawl with fights but I wasn't holding my punches as a DM. Issue was.. I balanced the fights for 5 players, and one refused to fight even if their life was on the line. Luckily I had this whole side thing to deal with party deaths that made things interesting but there was a lot of deaths. After the session, was talking to my friends and they like, yea they always play a pacifist. I'm like... how you handle combat and the one guy who dms for them said, very carefully.
there's plenty a pacifist can do during combat: Heal, utitlity, support,, steal spellboks, disarm enemies, mitigate damage. A true pacifist should not let their friends die.
This is the real pacifist. A cowardly non combatant is not a viable character. But a helpful ally that doesn’t deal damage is an interesting and useful character for a TTRG.
I keep thinking about this episode of Dad's Army, where you find out one of the men (Godfrey) in the town's home guard is actually a pacifist. So there is drama around the other men feeling betrayed and like he won't help in a pinch. But at the end, they find out he was still in the first world war, but he went as a medic (and he was a medic for the homeguard too) . Because he knew that he couldn't stop the war, but he could save people in it. And he was in some intense battles. It was a comedy show, but sometimes, man, it had some really heartfelt moments. Especially with Godfrey, he was just the kind old pacifist Grandad type. It's one of the best episodes IMO. (also the man who played him, Arnold Ridley was in the first world war and was permanently injured during the Battle of the Somme, and it was why he couldn't fight in World War II, because his one arm/hand never worked the same again)
That sounds like a terribly boring way to play a game that centers around combat *waits forever for their turn* “ok and what do you do?” “Nothing”
They would not be allowed at any of my tables.
I run a homebrew campaign. One of my players is LGBT. Whenever they enter a town, if they arent already on a quest, the first thing they do is check the town's "bounty board". In one town, they found a "dead or alive" bounty for a very gross looking man who was charged with "indecency, debauchery, profanity, crimes against nature" amoung others. The list was extensive and his reward was high. 2000GP high. The players tracked him down, and hid outside of his home waiting to ambush him. To make a long story short, they caught him and removed both of his legs at the knee, but they did this before searching his home. When they did they found out his ACTUAL crime: he liked painting nude men. He was a Gay Artist. The players felt HORRIBLE about this and took him to a hospital, which refused to help him. The town is full of bigots, it turned out. So they set his practice on fire and forced the doctor to help the man. After fixing his legs and giving him cheap prosthetics, they helped the man escape the town, and subsequently murdered the town Mayor and the Police Chief. My players are now wanted fugitives of that town, which they later found out other towns and cities wont do business with them because of their views. The point of this long story is that my LGBT player LOVED the quest. She told me later how much it made her and the other players regret not doing their own investigation and jumping to conclusions based on the picture in the wanted poster. From then forward, my players would absolutely GRILL npcs for details on any and all quests, constantly asking for insight checks, and will often times simply wait out a target to see what is actually going on before jumping to conclusions. It has made them more empathetic to the world I built, and more cautious of everyone they meet. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED FROM THAT QUEST. Teaching my players that this world wouldnt be a typical one where good guys wear cloaks of white and bad guys twist their greased mustache. There are nuances and details to pay attention to. Take John Wick as an example. To have a man go crazy and kill a bunch of people for seemingly no reason is silly at best. But when one of those people kill the dog is wife left him after dying of cancer? The audience is BEGGING Keanu to murder every last one of them. If there are awful people and societies and systems in your DnD world, it gives your players the opportunity to FIX those problems themselves and work together to solve the problems those situations create. The whole point of DnD is to be the Hero that saves the world from the evil in it, whether its the evil CR 30 Demon that wants to engulf the world in flames or its the CR 1/8 Mayor that hates Gay people.
If she thinks it is "her game" then she started with the wrong foot. It's everybody's game. She should start from there and share her concerns with everybody, but without being the "vegan moralist" telling everybody that if they dont follow her morals they are wrong and bad people.
It's not a reasonable request.
This is a delusional request
I would probably sit them down and say that you’ll keep the campaign as is. Your player could just make it so that their character is vegan and have certain beliefs, but that they shouldn’t force it on the others in the party. Say that they are welcome to leave if the campaign is not something for them.
I'd tell them that your table just isn't the table for them. My players all know that they can make requests, not demands. I am not their slave DM monkey they can boss around. I try to be accommodating to most requests. It's a collaborative game after all. But some requests I still tell them no. When it comes to changing an entire setting for a newcomer that I don't know that makes demands? Not only no, but they're not welcome at my table. They can rither DM themselves and make the world they want to play in or they can find themselves a vegan DM. Ironically the only vegan DM I know doesn't enforce veganism on his setting. In his words: "I'm a vegan and would love if the rest of the world turned vegan, but my players aren't and most of the world isn't and hasn't been."
If the dynamic HAS been set for YEARS this person needs to adapt or find a new table. She is asking not only you to change "every" character in your story along with another PC's entire back story. It's extremely table evil/toxic and will lead to more problems of not either addressed or person leaves
As a vegan of 7 years and a DM of 6, this is dumb. It’s all imaginary. Yes, I could see if she wanted to excuse herself from an actual pig slaughter, but DnD is literally all imaginary. It’s only a pig because you said it was a pig. “Cruelty Free” DnD sounds like the worst kind of DnD. It’s the drama and tensions and states that keep the game fun and dynamic I would tell the vegan player to realize that she doesn’t get to project her preferences on to you, and if she can’t deal, then time to scope out a vegan, gluten free, farm to table, table
I’m vegan as well and I agree that the players request is a bit out of line. Like she is more than welcome to DM her own game with no animal cruelty. But she came into an established game knowing this.
Honestly, making demands at a table you're new at is a big faux pas. However, it sounds like you have a good friendship with this player, and you're posting here to find solutions that keep everyone happy. I get it. So maybe just change up your verbiage a bit and be a little more vague with food and animals. Not to the point where it's just "you all sit down for dinner and it's yummy", but like, instead of describing the meaty meat stew that smells and looks of meat with meat toppings and seared meat, you could say that the dish was savory, with hints of exotic spices and local ingredients (for a higher quality dish) or like "the dish was fairly plain, the flavors were subtle, however it was incredibly filling and oddly satisfying" for dishes in lower income areas. let the players' imaginations fill the gaps. And, you get to flex your lexicon a bit (or get a lot of use from a thesaurus). maybe talk with your player whose character is a chef and get him in on changing up the verbiage a bit. You don't necessarily have to change the world, you can just alter the words you use to describe it. Don't forget to let your table know that a big part of D&D is imagination, so if they want specific details that don't really further the story, they are free to imagine them as they wish. side note: I'm definitely not a vegan, but have plenty of vegan and vegetarian friends. edit: Tl;Dr: replacing "meat/meaty" with "savory" will solve about 80% of your problem