Right?!? I’m a vegetarian and a D&D player. I would never expect my DM to get rid of a totally normal thing for the sake of my strange and delicate sensibilities! I’m glad they handled it like adults, but you do wonder how the vegan handles things like other people eating meat. And not wanting meat is very different from having trauma due to nearly drowning. Glad they handled it, but the vegan sounds very irritating. I wouldn’t want to play with her!

I agree with you in the broad sense, but for this particular group they were able to find a compromise, so the vegan wasn't too out of control for them.

I'm a meat eater, but I don't consider vegans or vegetarians to be members of monolithic organizations with shared values and elected representatives. Just because one vegan is comfortable with something doesn't mean all vegans must be too or else they're unreasonable. Some people are vegans because they dislike the meat industry, some are vegan because a family member abused their pets when they were a child so they have ingrained trauma from seeing helpless animals suffer. Demanding that people change to accommodate you is unreasonable, but that's not what happened here; they explained what makes them uncomfortable and asked if accomodations could be made. Nothing about anyone's actions was "out of control".

Characters, I believe you meant, not players. The players are the real people, the characters are on pieces of paper.

Since is not real what is the point of eating?

This comment sums up my thoughts exactly!

I'm not a vegan, but just not wanting to hear about people hurting animals because it's upsetting is perfectly reasonable, and I don't think anyone should get all pissed off about it. I thought this story would be ridiculous when I kept seeing the words "cruelty free world" but they literally didn't even ask for that. They just don't want to hear graphic descriptions of skinning pigs or about mistreating dogs. I'm not upset by stuff like that but they talked to the dm about it because they wanted to be able to have fun without feeling upset, which is totally okay. They didn't freak out and scream at other players for talking about the stuff, they just brought up the discussion so they could have more fun with the game without hurting anyone else's fun or making people feel uncomfortable with playing in ways they like.

Coming up with an entirely cruelty free game actually sounds like a fun challenge. Like maybe you battle cute cartoon forest creatures, and when you drop anvils on them and smash them with comedically oversized hammers, it makes them sad.

I mean really people elves have a stereotype about being vegetarians in some settings. Druids have them in others. Hell If I had a vegetarian player that was never an a*s about it and just practiced what they believed I'd set out a magic item that rejected anyone that had consumed the flesh of a living creature.... or a cursed item that the curse didnt work on anyone who hadn't eaten meat.

In this case, it's more like, if you like women... there's no need to summon up graphic rape imagery during a game where we're all just trying to have fun. It doesn't seem to really be about the veganism in this case, everyone in the comment section is just jumping to that conclusion because they hear that word so often, and they know what that usually means. This person just doesn't want to have to visualize an animal being brutalized when they're trying to relax. They're not arguing whether that's realistic or not. I think using rape as an example works well here, because it shows how some people might be more bothered by it than others, while some might not understand why it's such a big deal at all. But using rape at least illustrates how it's probably not something appropriate to just sit around and glorify during a game. We're not making any political statements by avoiding the topic, it's just that we're trying to have fun right now. In the real world, we all know rape is bad, so we don't have to argue over that. But for this woman, she feels that killing animals is bad in a world where not everybody necessarily agrees with that idea. That probably makes it difficult for her to speak out about it when others have already scattered such a minefield of controversy over the topic. Clearly she's bothered by certain imagery. It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter if she eats meat or not. She asked her friends for help, and they agreed to help her be able to have fun, too. I really think that was all. I'm saying this as someone who loves eating meat, I just also have empathy for humans and their problems.

This comment has been deleted.

1. It wasn't online, they had snacks at the table 2. They were friends with multiple people at the table. If you were DM and just booted them like that two things will happen 1. The campaign ends entirely 2. You lose friends over the inevitable shitstorm that follows Basically it's not hard to write out animals and just ignore the issue of food for the sake of being the bigger man. I want to play again, but i havent had a group in years. I do agree that it's an unreasonable demand though

Sounds like you didn't read, humanoid violence is fine as is fictional creatures, I'd honestly just write animals out of my world and people can buy generic "food". Pretty easy to write a campaign if those are the rules tbh. That said, the request is ridiculous but it's a hard call when everyone is friends and you risk destroying the group. DM and Co handled it maturely.

I don't think it's a matter of value; I think it's a matter of being triggered. I personally have PTSD and one of my triggers is harm coming to pets. So I would probably also be a bit upset if I was playing that game and there was an abused dog! Making it a dragon makes it a little less real, creating some emotional distance, which makes it less triggering.

They were all friends, all that would do is cause fights and end the whole campaign