What sort of penalties for vegetarian character?

[Pinjata]

So ... we have a player in the group who plays a vegetarian character. He's also vegetarian IRL and I did not mind him playing in such a way, but after thinking it through, I realized, that someone not eating meat (he's playing a fighter), would have no way of remaining healthy or able to pull the weight in the party. So I'm thinking of slowly advancing CR (Con Save) perhaps every week, that will result in one level of exhaustion. It may be a bit harsh, I'm not all that familiar with 5e so far, so I decided to ask here.

Other players are cool and have even cought a boar by rolling good on Survival. Tasty tasty pork all around.

I have never been in front of such a challenge, so any help is much appreciated. Thanks!

[pwykersotz]

Honestly, just let him do it. It's a roleplay thing first and foremost, and there's no need to implement mechanical penalties. I imagine that the Druids might have written manuscripts about how to stay healthy that way that he could have found in a library somewhere.

Any mechanical benefits or penalties should be discussed with and agreed to by the player exclusively in my opinion.

That said, if you DO implement a mechanical penalty, I recommend not scaling it. Just keep it as a static penalty that doesn't change. Such as a -1 Con or the like. But your mechanic will quickly make the character dead, which I doubt the player wants or thinks is reasonable.

[Tehnar]

I don't think you should do it. IRL a adult can get all their dietary needs from a vegitarian diet, so I really see no reason to restrict things in a RPG. Plus its mean towards your friends lifestyle choice.

If anything, roleplaying wise I would make his rations weigh more and make it harder for him to gather food in the wild, using survival. But that depends on how detail oriented you want to get, its not worth it for most games.

[RickAllison]

Unless it is a matter of food itself being scarce, he shouldn't have a problem. Meet was generally a luxury in medieval Europe, so I'm sure he can get by with protein from legumes and other vegetables. He might need to have a higher cost to his daily rations (1 gp vs 5 sp, maybe), there could be problems with RP ("Why you no eat Grokzar's kill? Not good enough for puny man?"), and he could run into issues in a survival situation. Most of the time, there should be no real problems.

[Ace Jackson]

The immediate questions, did you discuss the idea of the penalty existing with the player? Do you tend to 'simulationist' styles in other areas of the game as well? Actually tracking encumbrance, ammo, etc? Will this be perceived as unfairly targeting the player? If the other players aren't also dealing with this, will they group censor the player's desire for his character since it's not pulling it's weight, or you for imposing an un-codified house rule penalty?

From the vegetarian's perspective. Did you check that the pork was cooked properly? Would you ever, under any circumstances, give any of the player character's other food borne parasites or illnesses?

If they acquire a ring of sustenance, would that satisfy both you and your player? Enabling play to continue without issue?

Is this going to increase the enjoyment of the game by all, or at least a majority of the players? Because in the end, it is a game, the goal is to have fun (in so far as it can be assumed that goal of a time of no physical production is enjoyment of time spent, commonly shorthanded as 'fun'), to that end, you've been elected dictator of the game as DM, but only at the player's behest. If they ever feel strongly that you are being capricious and unfair, they may well leave, as is their prerogative.

If you can face this and feel the game will benefit, then go forward with what you propose.

[Fighting_Ferret]

At worst he might have to search a little longer to find sufficient food. Given his survival skill/nature skill he might pick up plants that aren't edible, but I wouldn't outright kill him for it... you might be able to penalize him with a constitution save for minor poison damage, but then again the same could be applied to all characters, because maybe the animal you are eating has some type of disease.

Basically it is a level of realism that doesn't need to be applied. I'd let him be a vegetarian in game with no qualms... I mean... elves don't eat meat typically.

[Kryx]

I realized, that someone not eating meat (he's playing a fighter), would have no way of remaining healthy or able to pull the weight in the party.
This assumption is incorrect. There are plenty of vegetarian and vegan athletes including traditional sports or things like body building.

[Regitnui]

I don't think you should do it. IRL a adult can get all their dietary needs from a vegitarian diet, so I really see no reason to restrict things in a RPG. Plus its mean towards your friends lifestyle choice.

If anything, roleplaying wise I would make his rations weigh more and make it harder for him to gather food in the wild, using survival. But that depends on how detail oriented you want to get, its not worth it for most games.

IRL in the modern world. Most D&D games simulate a medieval to Renaissance time period. It might have been a bit more difficult to maintain a strictly vegetarian diet and remain healthy when you had to mostly rely on food within a day's travel. I'm not by any means saying being a vegetarian is a bad idea, just that it's more difficult without modern amenities.

As for.mechanical penalties, a static penalty to Constitution and Survival checks should be the absolute maximum. You don't want to hurt the player for his lifestyle choices.

[RickAllison]

This assumption is incorrect. There are plenty of vegetarian and vegan athletes including traditional sports or things like body building.

This. I am very much pro-meat (son of a rancher, grew up on the beef, the works), but it is not necessary if a proper diet is maintained. The biggest weakness of a vegetarian diet is not the lack of a protein, but the lack of complete proteins. The diet has to be more carefully regulated to ensure that a greater variety of vegetable proteins are consumed to re-combine into complete proteins.

The primary example of this is the combination of rice and beans. Alone, they can't sustain a healthy life. Together, they account for the primary source of complete proteins for many impoverished areas of the world.

[Cybren]

Cursory googling indicates that vegetarianism was practiced as early as the 6th century in india sooooooo....

EDIT: in addition, the average medieval villein is probably at least slightly malnourished during very important formative years, so you may as well give a str/con penalty to everyone that doesn't have the noble background if you're going to follow this logic to its conclusion

[kaoskonfety]

There is practically zero reason to apply any penalty.

The characters protein needs can be meet in period without serious issue. D&D minimizes any kind of food book keeping on purpose because it has little to do with killing dragons. This is an RP choice that should have very little fallout mechanically and I'd top out at some RP issues.

If you do insist on something because you've decided you need to eat meat to stay healthy while intensely physically active I'd ask if you feel its worth potentially antagonizing a player over such a tiny detail.
Because if it was my lifestyle choices I was mirroring on my PC and you opted to apply mechanical penalties for my character following them, I'd take that as hostility and intolerance towards said choices.

The cost for a vegetarian diet will generally be lower, weight will vary, availability will be the only occasional challenge if the local culture doesn't have robust production of vegetable proteins or has some cultural insistence on the inclusion of meat in ones diet (as I've seen plenty in North America). I'm not vegetarian but only occasionally eat meat because its pricey and annoying to store.

[Coffee_Dragon]

This will throw your entire campaign out of whack because there's no way a level 14 fighter raised on Plot Broccoli can take on the responsibilities of a level 14 wizard raised on Plot Beef.

[Specter]

Make him track down beans, nuts, milk and eggs as his side quest! :smallbiggrin:

Just kidding, leave the man be.

[famousringo]

This assumption is incorrect. There are plenty of vegetarian and vegan athletes including traditional sports or things like body building.

Even in high level Mixed Martial Arts. If vegetarianism led to a substantial decrease in strength, energy, or durability, those guys would figure it out real fast.

[RulesJD]

Character takes the Goodberry spell. Ends any silly penalty.

[LordVonDerp]

IRL in the modern world. Most D&D games simulate a medieval to Renaissance time period. It might have been a bit more difficult to maintain a strictly vegetarian diet and remain healthy when you had to mostly rely on food within a day's travel. I'm not by any means saying being a vegetarian is a bad idea, just that it's more difficult without modern amenities.



Most medieval people only rarely ate meat, so it's a non-issue.

[Regitnui]

Character takes the Goodberry spell. Ends any silly penalty.

There you go. Vegetarians in D&D.

[Douche]

I fully support imposing penalties on this vegetarian nerd. Every time he gets hit in combat you should make him roll a save to avoid having his bones crumble to dust from a lack of nutrients. And then he can't use that limb until someone gives him a lesser restoration to regrow the bones.

You could also have him regain less health on a long rest, and every time he rolls a hit die to regain hp on a short rest, make him have to spend 2 just to roll 1.

Most importantly, you should have all the NPCs remark on how pallid and unhealthy he looks, ostracize, and berate him. Try to get your players in on it too. Tempt them with rewards such as magic items. This will encourage them to make the vegetarian feel bad about himself.

Yes, I think it is very important to do all these things unerringly to test his resolve. It is important to make anyone who is different from us feel alone and isolated in the world. They should feel bad for being different from us. How dare they deviate from the norm?!? GRAHHGHHH IM SO ANGRY NOW

[Raimun]

I'd say a DC 10 save vs. non-resurrectable death every week would be accurate and realistic but still fair for the player.

He knew the risks when he made that character.

[obryn]

So ... we have a player in the group who plays a vegetarian character. He's also vegetarian IRL and I did not mind him playing in such a way, but after thinking it through, I realized, that someone not eating meat (he's playing a fighter), would have no way of remaining healthy or able to pull the weight in the party. So I'm thinking of slowly advancing CR (Con Save) perhaps every week, that will result in one level of exhaustion. It may be a bit harsh, I'm not all that familiar with 5e so far, so I decided to ask here.

Other players are cool and have even cought a boar by rolling good on Survival. Tasty tasty pork all around.

I have never been in front of such a challenge, so any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
This is one of the worst ideas I've seen put forward on this board, and I've seen a lot of bad ideas.

Implementing penalties for an RP/flavor choice that has zero mechanical impact is commonplace for D&D DMs, but it's still bad DMing. Using your DM mojo to pick a bone about the player's own lifestyle in the same breath is terrible DMing.

[Kryx]

Yes, I think it is very important to do all these things unerringly to test his resolve. It is important to make anyone who is different from us feel alone and isolated in the world. They should feel bad for being different from us. How dare they deviate from the norm?!? GRAHHGHHH IM SO ANGRY NOW
Exactly. This line of thinking (especially talking about the tasty tasty pork) is out of line. As a Veg person I get these kind of comments enough in real life - no need to bring the ignorance and insults to D&D.

[eastmabl]

Disadvantage on all Charisma checks, because you don't make friends with salad.

All joking aside, this is a roleplaying decision. Anything mechanical penalty would harken back to the bad old days of AD&D where female characters had bonuses/penalties due to their gender.

RP-wise, some NPCs might be surprised that he doesn't eat meat ("we also don't eat meat.... often"), or maybe an NPC butcher would be upset that he doesn't eat meat. Other than that, it's a non-issue.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that every character I've ever played was a vegetarian. Why? Because I don't believe that I've ever described my diet - it just gets handwaved.

[Mr.Moron]

There is no reason to do this. It doesn't make sense from a game perspective or an in-universe perspective. The only context I can think of where this sort of thing is justified in a survival type game with Oregon trail style supply management where we care about which varieties and how much of each variety of food the players have access to.

In standard D&D this reeks of little more than a "You don't make friends with salad" style mockery I would have found really funny when I was 14 and hearing it from maddox (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor). Seriously, what point would this serve?

[Temperjoke]

This will throw your entire campaign out of whack because there's no way a level 14 fighter raised on Plot Broccoli can take on the responsibilities of a level 14 wizard raised on Plot Beef.

I see what you did there, and I respect you for it.


On the topic, I'd say it wouldn't be a problem, I mean it wouldn't be a hard concept that while they were hunting that boar, using your example, they happened to gather some berries and other edible plants, nuts if they're in season, mushrooms, etc. It would be a bigger issue if the player attempted to force the issue with the other players. As it stands, unless resource management is going to intentionally be a player concern (long trip through a desert for example), then worrying about the details like what particular food they eat is just an extra headache. Just handwave it and move on.

As a matter of fact, having a player not eating certain foods actually could be beneficial to your narrative. It gives you opportunities for this player to shine; such as a feast that has been tampered with by an enemy, or a group of monks impressed with the player's discipline decide to aid the team a little more, or even a god of nature giving some sort of blessing to the player!

[obryn]

Anything mechanical penalty would harken back to the bad old days of AD&D where female characters had bonuses/penalties due to their gender.
Not quite accurate. In AD&D 1e, female characters had limits on their Strength scores - but no 'penalties' as such, so if you rolled a 13, you kept your 13. And no bonuses whatsoever, compared to male PCs. Ability score max/min varied by race, too, so female halflings (14 Str max) and gnomes (15 Str max) had it even worse.

It's still terrible, don't get me wrong, but if you can't be pedantic on an RPG board, where can you be pedantic? :smallsmile:

If you want actual bonuses/penalties, you can look to games like Avalon Hill's wacky Powers and Perils (http://powersandperils.org), a deeply flawed RPG that I still love with all my heart.

[Falcon X]

While a fighter would require more protein than other people, a vegetarian can still get plenty of it from beans, nuts, seeds, fungus, and other plant-based food. Many D&D species such as the drow and other elves eat these things and little to no meat. Of course, many of those tend to be DEX over STR based races...

The point is, so long as they are getting enough calories from their vegetarian foods, and not having to only eat bread and potatoes, they should be getting the nourishment they need to pull the weight of a fighter.

[edit] Of course, if this is a survival situation where food is scarce, exhaustion is very appropriate and given in the rulebook.

[warty goblin]

The only place I could see imposing such a penalty making any sense is if for some reason you're running a game set in the high arctic. Where, unless you're chewing on a moose*, you're gonna starve to death. So long as your players are running around a temperate area where agriculture is possible though, it's not a deal. But in the arctic? Yeah, not so much.


*Or, if you want to gross out your carnivorous players as well, eating insect larvae extracted from the back fat of that caribou they just killed. Bonus XP for the players who know what squab is!

[raspin]

If you go to the medieval city of Canterbury in England you may notice that lots of the doors on the houses seem very short. This is because people were shorter pre - wide spread availability of meat and balanced diets.

If his character has always been a vegetarian I'd maybe make him be a bit shorter than average. I'd have thought his choice opened up some roleplay options more than anything. He goes off hunting for mushrooms while the others eat boar and discovers some medicinal / hullucinagentic /poison ones. Maybe npcs keep offering him meat.

Mechanics wise I think you might be over thinking it.

[Slipperychicken]

Just don't do it.

Maybe have him spend a little more time or money looking for the right foods. At most, you might charge 25% more for him to buy or make protein-rich vegetarian rations. Anything beyond that borders on sadistic.

Personally, I wouldn't even consider mechanical penalty for dietary restriction unless we were playing some kind of Dungeon Meshi campaign.

[rhouck]

Being a vegetarian in real life is enough of a penalty, no need to penalize his character as well. :smallwink:

[Cheshire Goat]

I'm with the rest, here. I think that imposing some sort of penalty to a vegetarian character is silly, and may be taken as a sort of attack on the player's lifestyle.

I think that the antagonism towards vegetarians by some people is strange, but deep seated. Vegetarianism is often an ethical choice, and the very nature of that choice causes non-vegetarians to become defensive around vegetarians sometimes.

No penalty - I don't think it will help your game in any way, and will likely make it worse. Let the person roleplay.

[YCombinator]

Definitely don't apply a mechanical penalty for a few reasons.

1) It's inaccurate. The fact that a vegetarian, even in medieval times, could not be healthy enough to be a fighter is false.

2) It discourages good role playing. Your player has set themselves up to have an ideal. It is an ideal that is both a benefit and a flaw depending on the culture and situations you put them in. Don't discourage this.

Players should be made to feel that, ideally, all of their character choices are meaningful. Be they mechanical like spells they picked and didn't pick. Let the player sit outside of the fire circle grumpy when everyone is eating their freshly killed boar they hunted and are happy. Let weeks go by where all they find are berries and the vegetarian is used to it but the others are longing for meat. Have NPCs make fun of him. Have NPCs think he's very noble and kind.

But definitely don't implement a rule that says vegetarianism is objectively wrong. Especially when it negatively affects character balance for your player with no gain.

This doesn't mean you can't put vegetarianism into the mechanics though. I'm very much in favor or rewarding strong roleplaying choices. I might consider the following changes that give both a benefit and a detriment to the character.

1) -1 CON, +1 CHA : The player is a little less well fed like you said. Ignoring that this is inaccurate we'll accept. But also the character is more well liked by people because they see the virtue. Also not really accurate especially in medieval times.

2) - 2 to survival, + 2 to animal handling : He has a harder time finding food, this is accurate. But the fact that he grew up vegetarian is an indication that there's some involvement with animals in his past.

3) Create a vegetarian background:

Skill Proficiencies: Survival, Animal Handling.
Tool Proficiencies: Herbalism Kit
Languages: One of your choice
Equipment: An adventurer's kit, a pet rat, an herbalism kit, a belt pouch containing 10 gp, 50' hemp rope, a letter of recommendation from your guild
Feature: Guild membership (chef). Treat as the guild member feature but make it about food preparation.

Notice, yes, I did give vegetarians a handicap in survival in my second option and a bonus to survival in my third. I believe it can go either way. You've studied finding food so much because you couldn't ever share the food that others were providing the group. Learning to fend for yourself you are an expert in finding food. Or... you're just as good at finding food but a lot of it you just won't eat. Thus you have a harder time finding food.

Personally, if it were me, I'd make it a background. But really you don't have to do anything mechanically. Also these should all be options you give to your player that he is in no way obligated to accept. Maybe he really wants that Sailor background and can't afford the one I made, even if it does fit.

[Toadkiller]

Simple. If there is enough good available for the boar, an omnivore sure but mostly eating vegetable matter, then there is enough food for the vegetarian. While the player can't really eat grass, if there is biomass to allow for pigs, raccoons, bears, etc then they are fine too.

If we *really* want to get down to the gritty details most of what a survival roll would get one would be plant based. Tubers, nuts, berries, leafy greens, etc. They are easier to find, easier to prepare and to eat than trying to find, kill and cook a large animal.

In fact the absolute last thing I would want to go after would be a large animal like a boar*. Hard to find, hard to kill, pain to dress and you're going to waste most of the food. Small animals/birds are a much better hunting target.


*I'm not a pig hunter, but know people who are. Large males pigs aka boars are generally regarded as unpalatable, parasite filled meat sources. One would want to hit the small, young pigs in the herd for meat.

[Segev]

Two cents: there's no reason to inflict such penalties mechanically; let him have his fun. You wouldn't want your personal preferences penalized in a game you're playing for fun, either, if those preferences didn't give you mechanical advantage that needs balancing out.

[krugaan]

Being a vegetarian in real life is enough of a penalty, no need to penalize his character as well. :smallwink:

For serious. Real torture would be to eat plateloads of bacon in front of him while you play.

Bacon is enough of a reason to eat meat. Although steak, duck, and chicken are also awesome. My friend is a chef, and he makes us food every weekend before DnD.

I need to go consume flesh now.

[Ruslan]

So ... we have a player in the group who plays a vegetarian character. He's also vegetarian IRL and I did not mind him playing in such a way, but after thinking it through, I realized, that someone not eating meat (he's playing a fighter), would have no way of remaining healthy or able to pull the weight in the party. So I'm thinking of slowly advancing CR (Con Save) perhaps every week, that will result in one level of exhaustion. It may be a bit harsh, I'm not all that familiar with 5e so far, so I decided to ask here.

Other players are cool and have even cought a boar by rolling good on Survival. Tasty tasty pork all around.

I have never been in front of such a challenge, so any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
The race for Worst Idea of the Month has just become more interesting!

Seriously, such a penalty would be a terrible idea. Petty antagonism in the service of nebulous faux-realism, is what it is. Don't do it. Let the player play his little harmless quirk with no mechanical penalty. If you really insist on having the vegetarianism have ingame effects, add in-character difficulties. Not of the number-crunching variety, but of the roleplaying variety. Like, they are dining with a Barbarian Chieftain, and boar is served. How will the vegetarian PC deal with the situation? Refuse the meat, possibly insulting the chief? Eat some, just to keep the chief happy? Offer to share his own rice with the barbarians?

Don't do that too often (in fact, once is enough), otherwise the player will (justifiably) feel unfairly targeted.

[raspin]

Playing devils advocate, even to my own post, you might argue roleplay is already a bit compromised when a character is vegetarian because the player is....cos rl choices and beliefs define an individual so much they must remind everyone of them even when playing some other person in a fantasy world. Is he a vegetarian or a person who happens to be vegetarian?

I'm an agnostic lefty so all my characters are socialist Non - believers (even my clerics). It's a fantasy roleplay game, why would you want to play the person your are irl? Is his characters name the same as his? Id be less worried about mechanics and more about an abject lack of creativity.

Joking aside, each to their own and maybe lots of people only ever roleplay themselves, who knows..

[warty goblin]

2) - 2 to survival, + 2 to animal handling : He has a harder time finding food, this is accurate. But the fact that he grew up vegetarian is an indication that there's some involvement with animals in his past.

3) Create a vegetarian background:

Skill Proficiencies: Survival, Animal Handling.
Tool Proficiencies: Herbalism Kit
Languages: One of your choice
Equipment: An adventurer's kit, a pet rat, an herbalism kit, a belt pouch containing 10 gp, 50' hemp rope, a letter of recommendation from your guild
Feature: Guild membership (chef). Treat as the guild member feature but make it about food preparation.


Bonuses to animal handling make no sense. People learn to handle animals by working with them, the primary reason one works with a lot of animals is to keep them healthy and breeding long enough for you to then kill and eat them. Somebody who doesn't eat meat has vastly less reason to have this knowledge than somebody who does.

[Cybren]

Playing devils advocate, even to my own post, you might argue roleplay is already a bit compromised when a character is vegetarian because the player is....cos rl choices and beliefs define an individual so much they must remind everyone of them even when playing some other person in a fantasy world. Is he a vegetarian or a person who happens to be vegetarian?

I'm an agnostic lefty so all my characters are socialist Non - believers (even my clerics). It's a fantasy roleplay game, why would you want to play the person your are irl? Is his characters name the same as his? Id be less worried about mechanics and more about an abject lack of creativity.

Joking aside, each to their own and maybe lots of people only ever roleplay themselves, who knows..

I find if I am going to successfully play a character for long periods of time (that is, years), that character will have at least some aspects of my own personality in there. It won't be me, but there will be elements of me, otherwise after 3 or 4 sessions I'll have lost interest in the character

[Sigreid]

So, it is true that in extreme survival situations where energy expenditure is high and food is hard to come by meat is pretty much required to survive. That being said, this is a game. Just let the guy play the character he wants to play and assume that he has no problems acquiring what he needs.

[raspin]

So down the rabbit hole....why is the character vegetarian? If it's because of the horrific practices in industrial farming chances are that doesn't exist if you're in a medieval setting. Is hunted meat ok? Meat that is born free? Is it just killing for food that the character objects to. At least make him work a bit to flesh...er....round it out IC so he is thinking about his characters motivations rather than his own. Maybe his father was killed by a butcher or he once witnessed something so gruesome the thought of eatting meat churns his stomach.

[SethoMarkus]

Bonuses to animal handling make no sense. People learn to handle animals by working with them, the primary reason one works with a lot of animals is to keep them healthy and breeding long enough for you to then kill and eat them. Somebody who doesn't eat meat has vastly less reason to have this knowledge than somebody who does.

Unless their background started off in such a position of a rancher or swineherd, and the gruesome nature of the job's end result has caused the character to lose their palate for meat?

Or if the character is an "animal friend" style archetype. If he/she sees animals as fellows rather than as lesser beings, working with them regularly, it may be difficult to then eat them. You wouldn't eat your pet, would you? Or what about your neighbor?

Nutrition more has to do with having a balanced diet than it does with consuming animal product. Actually, if the vegetarian diet includes milk, eggs, and or fish (pescetarian, etc) they most likely would have a healthier diet than an individual who's diet consisted of soley tubers, pork, and beef. That's how you get gout :smallannoyed: But don't get me wrong, a pure plant-based diet wouldn't be harmful even in that time period (especially in D&D with magic, Elves, and dragons about).

Speaking of Elves, aren't they supposed to be vegetarian? Even if you bring up the argument that they have a different physiology it's still similar enough to interbreed with, so I don't see any reason why their diet wouldn't be nutritious enough for a human...

[Segev]

Speaking of Elves, aren't they supposed to be vegetarian? Even if you bring up the argument that they have a different physiology it's still similar enough to interbreed with, so I don't see any reason why their diet wouldn't be nutritious enough for a human...

Nonsense. Lembas are actually McDonald's hamburgers, and don't let them try to trick you into thinking otherwise.

[Sigreid]

I'm with the rest, here. I think that imposing some sort of penalty to a vegetarian character is silly, and may be taken as a sort of attack on the player's lifestyle.

I think that the antagonism towards vegetarians by some people is strange, but deep seated. Vegetarianism is often an ethical choice, and the very nature of that choice causes non-vegetarians to become defensive around vegetarians sometimes.

No penalty - I don't think it will help your game in any way, and will likely make it worse. Let the person roleplay.

Do be fair, there's a small number of vegetarians that think their lifestyle choice does make them superior and set about making a bad stereotype for the others. Which makes them pretty much like any other group. A small but loud segment of obnoxious members gets them all painted with a bad brush.

[Sigreid]

Speaking of Elves, aren't they supposed to be vegetarian? Even if you bring up the argument that they have a different physiology it's still similar enough to interbreed with, so I don't see any reason why their diet wouldn't be nutritious enough for a human...

Depends on the setting really. Elder Scrolls has elves that are strict carnivores as their religion forbids them eating plants.

[hymer]

Nonsense. Lembas are actually McDonald's hamburgers, and don't let them try to trick you into thinking otherwise.

Because they don't change noticeably from being lugged around for weeks?

[krugaan]

Do be fair, there's a small number of vegetarians that think their lifestyle choice does make them superior and set about making a bad stereotype for the others. Which makes them pretty much like any other group. A small but loud segment of obnoxious members gets them all painted with a bad brush.

I find their lack of bacon disturbing.

[Segev]

Because they don't change noticeably from being lugged around for weeks?

That's just propaganda. They have an excellent delivery service run by ninjaburger.

[warty goblin]

Unless their background started off in such a position of a rancher or swineherd, and the gruesome nature of the job's end result has caused the character to lose their palate for meat?

In which case they're good with animals because they grew up working with animals, not because they don't eat animals.


Or if the character is an "animal friend" style archetype. If he/she sees animals as fellows rather than as lesser beings, working with them regularly, it may be difficult to then eat them. You wouldn't eat your pet, would you? Or what about your neighbor?
Neighbors no, they're generally quiet and well behaved. That guy junior year who kept playing beer pong directly outside my door at 2:00 AM on the other hand...

I'm not saying a vegetarian can't be good with animals, or attacking vegetarians here - I'm damn near vegetarian, and will be pretty much entirely just as soon as I find an adequate pepperoni substitute. But there's nothing about not eating animals that makes a person better at working with animals. I'm much more comfortable working with and around animals than a fair number of vegetarians that I've met, and I'm totally happy to shoot a pig in the head, then disembowel and roast it. In particular, I'm better with animals than this group of vegetarians because I grew up around them and know how to act around them.

(My non-meat eating is an environmental position, I have no objection to killing and eating things. Things eat each other - to live means something else isn't no matter where you get your calories - raised right livestock can have excellent lives, the occasional bit of animal slaughter is good clean work, and frankly the last pig I killed died better than I expect society will allow me to.)

[Regitnui]

Depends on the setting really. Elder Scrolls has elves that are strict carnivores as their religion forbids them eating plants.

(A little more detail) The bosmer, or 'wild elves', are indebted to the Lord of the Forest Y'ffre (perhaps an archfey in D&D) who gave them their solid humanoid shapes. As such, they refuse to harm any trees, whether this be for food, building material, or even fuel. This makes them strict carnivores, though the prohibitions seem to be relaxed in other lands/countries, so a bosmer visiting Cyrodiil (a human country) can rest in a wooden home and eat the food grown in Cyrodiilian soil. This also lets them import wood from other countries to build with.

[RickAllison]

On my campus, we have plenty of vegetarians. If I walked up to them and asked them to help calm down a horse, how effective do you think they will be? Highly effective? Detrimental? You don't know because it has absolutely nothing to do with Animal Handling.

I love my homegrown steaks while my older sister primarily consumes veggies (I do too, but meat is my primary protein source). I am great with animals because I spent my time herding, wrestling, and caring for cattle. My sister? She can barely tell how the dogs are feeling, much less how to tell that a horse is unruly due to a burr under her saddle rather than a snake in the brush.

Basically, this is an RP decision and the primary effects of it should be RP. Survival checks might have a higher DC, but the mechanical effects should be minimal.

[Sigreid]

(A little more detail) The bosmer, or 'wild elves', are indebted to the Lord of the Forest Y'ffre (perhaps an archfey in D&D) who gave them their solid humanoid shapes. As such, they refuse to harm any trees, whether this be for food, building material, or even fuel. This makes them strict carnivores, though the prohibitions seem to be relaxed in other lands/countries, so a bosmer visiting Cyrodiil (a human country) can rest in a wooden home and eat the food grown in Cyrodiilian soil. This also lets them import wood from other countries to build with.

I can't believe you went into that much detail without mentioning that within their forest home they are bound to eat every part of what they kill, whether it's an animal killed in a hunt or a person killed in warfare. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Not only is this a horrible idea in any edition, it's especially horrible in 5e where Bounded Accuracy means small penalties stay a big deal throughout your career.

But yeah, if you must tie this to mechanics in some way, Goodberry takes an environmentally-friendly dump all over it.

[Sigreid]

Not only is this a horrible idea in any edition, it's especially horrible in 5e where Bounded Accuracy means small penalties stay a big deal throughout your career.

But yeah, if you must tie this to mechanics in some way, Goodberry takes an environmentally-friendly dump all over it.

create food and water does as well. Or any other magically conjured vittles.

[Temperjoke]

I'm not saying a vegetarian can't be good with animals, or attacking vegetarians here - I'm damn near vegetarian, and will be pretty much entirely just as soon as I find an adequate pepperoni substitute.

Pepperoni is a perfectly acceptable reason for an asterisk on your vegetarian title, at least to me. :)


Frankly, a character's food choice should just be relegated to an character RP situation rather than anything that makes a major game impact. I do think though that mechanics and penalties for a vegetarian can be an issue in a game situation where food options are extremely limited, one person mentioned an arctic environment earlier. It could also negatively affect social situations too, for example, it could be considered insulting if the character refused an offer of food.

[krugaan]

Not only is this a horrible idea in any edition, it's especially horrible in 5e where Bounded Accuracy means small penalties stay a big deal throughout your career.

But yeah, if you must tie this to mechanics in some way, Goodberry takes an environmentally-friendly dump all over it.

But, but ... all this magically created food is going to eventually upset the carbon cycle of the world!

[Regitnui]

I can't believe you went into that much detail without mentioning that within their forest home they are bound to eat every part of what they kill, whether it's an animal killed in a hunt or a person killed in warfare. :smalltongue:

Kinda forgot about that. Shouldn't have, since my bosmer thief in Skyrim took the Ring of Namira very early on.

[SethoMarkus]

I would like to clarify I was not advocating for a vegetarian to have a bonus in Handle Animal, I was just attempting to show that the two (vegetarianism and good with animals) are not mutually exclusive through a counter-argument to the quote in my post.

[Hrugner]

I'd use the same random table I use for casters who don't use organic locally sourced non-GMO reagents. Also, if the character shape shifts or adopts other forums I, of course, would require them to vomit steadily till their mass had gone down to avoid the consumption of animal flesh.

Or maybe I'd do nothing because I've never wasted time on specific diet choices before and doing so would seem boring to me as either a player or a DM.

[Safety Sword]

It should be a Charisma penalty because they have to tell everyone in every social interaction ever that they don't eat meat. Also, the disapproving looks when people describe the steak they had last night.

They should also get Disadvantage on their CON (Bacon breakfast) rolls

[warty goblin]

It should be a Charisma penalty because they have to tell everyone in every social interaction ever that they don't eat meat. Also, the disapproving looks when people describe the steak they had last night.

They should also get Disadvantage on their CON (Bacon breakfast) rolls

All valid suggestions. However there's one further point that needs clarified.

If a character has the opportunity to indicate their vegetarian preference on a banquet menu prior to a banquet, instead says they want the chicken, but then suddenly remembers their vegetarianness upon seeing their friend's vegetarian entree and forces the kitchen staff to cook an extra vegetarian entree in the middle of serving a 300 person event for which they have been preparing all week, then the slaying of said character by said kitchen staff counts as a good dead.


Really, this is the only time vegetarians - or people who suddenly decide they prefer pasta to pork - are seriously annoying. The vegetarians who fill out their damn menu card correctly ahead of time are just fine, but the sneaky bastards who suddenly change their minds deserve to get sent to bed without supper. And possibly a good kick up the backside.

[Knaight]

Playing devils advocate, even to my own post, you might argue roleplay is already a bit compromised when a character is vegetarian because the player is....cos rl choices and beliefs define an individual so much they must remind everyone of them even when playing some other person in a fantasy world. Is he a vegetarian or a person who happens to be vegetarian?

So, is the roleplay compromised when someone who eats meat plays a character who eats meat? The exact same argument works, right up to the "choices and beliefs define an individual so much that they must remind everyone of them even when playing some other person in a fantasy world" bit.

[Safety Sword]

All valid suggestions. However there's one further point that needs clarified.

If a character has the opportunity to indicate their vegetarian preference on a banquet menu prior to a banquet, instead says they want the chicken, but then suddenly remembers their vegetarianness upon seeing their friend's vegetarian entree and forces the kitchen staff to cook an extra vegetarian entree in the middle of serving a 300 person event for which they have been preparing all week, then the slaying of said character by said kitchen staff counts as a good dead.


Really, this is the only time vegetarians - or people who suddenly decide they prefer pasta to pork - are seriously annoying. The vegetarians who fill out their damn menu card correctly ahead of time are just fine, but the sneaky bastards who suddenly change their minds deserve to get sent to bed without supper. And possibly a good kick up the backside.

I feel your pain. This is why most kitchen staff are Rogue Assassins. You know,to take out the last minute vegetarians with various exotic poisons.

[Temperjoke]

All valid suggestions. However there's one further point that needs clarified.

If a character has the opportunity to indicate their vegetarian preference on a banquet menu prior to a banquet, instead says they want the chicken, but then suddenly remembers their vegetarianness upon seeing their friend's vegetarian entree and forces the kitchen staff to cook an extra vegetarian entree in the middle of serving a 300 person event for which they have been preparing all week, then the slaying of said character by said kitchen staff counts as a good dead.


Really, this is the only time vegetarians - or people who suddenly decide they prefer pasta to pork - are seriously annoying. The vegetarians who fill out their damn menu card correctly ahead of time are just fine, but the sneaky bastards who suddenly change their minds deserve to get sent to bed without supper. And possibly a good kick up the backside.

My senses tell me there's a story here...

[Thrudd]

No penalties. It's irrelevant. A vegetarian character would know how get the food they need to be at full strength as much as any other character does.

[raspin]

So, is the roleplay compromised when someone who eats meat plays a character who eats meat? The exact same argument works, right up to the "choices and beliefs define an individual so much that they must remind everyone of them even when playing some other person in a fantasy world" bit.

I see your point but I don't think most characters/players would bother to state a preference unless it was interesting. Now if a meat eater decided their character was a veggie cos he hates the smell of meat, particularly cooked, after his family died in a fire started by an orc raiding party that he could not save them from? that seems interesting. "I eat veg so my character eats veg cos...well...he just does cos in real life I don't like meat/agree with animal slaughter" seems less roleplay and more bringing OOC stuff IC.

It's not hard to come up with a roleplay reason is it. "My character is an half-orc who hates the taste of meat and his tribe mock him but he thinks they are idiots" except maybe because the player has projected something personal into a game he may get sensitive about it being gamed or trivialised by other players/the dm which begs the question why use OOC rl stuff for you character if it's something you don't want explored. If I was bald and I was sensitive about it then playing a bald character would be an odd choice if I was very hurt by IC bald jokes.

Maybe I'm not making my point well but, yes, veggie fighter doesn't need mechanics but for me it does need some IC explanation, like the bosmer example, as well as the player being ok with it being explored.

How stupid would it be to give your character a trait in a roleplay game that was off limits for discussion because it might upset you?

[Knaight]

I see your point but I don't think most characters/players would bother to state a preference unless it was interesting. Now if a meat eater decided their character was a veggie cos he hates the smell of meat, particularly cooked, after his family died in a fire started by an orc raiding party that he could not save them from? that seems interesting. "I eat veg so my character eats veg cos...well...he just does cos in real life I don't like meat/agree with animal slaughter" seems less roleplay and more bringing OOC stuff IC. It's not hard to come up with a roleplay reason is it. "My character is an half-orc who hates the taste of meat and his tribe mock him but he thinks they are idiots" except maybe because the player has projected something personal into a game he may get sensitive about it being gamed or trivialised by other players/the dm which begs the question why use OOC rl stuff for you character if it's something you don't want explored. If I was bald and I was sensitive about it then playing a bald character would be an odd choice if I was very hurt by IC bald jokes. Maybe I'm not making my point well but, yes, veggie fighter doesn't need mechanics but for me it does need some IC explanation like the bosmer example as well as the player being ok with it being explored. How stupid would it be to give your character a trait in a roleplay game that was off limits for discussion?

It's a minor dietary constraint; some dramatic backstory reason for it is probably overkill. Also, nobody is suggesting that it is off limits for discussion, we're saying that actual mechanical penalties in some sort of misguided attempt at simulation are iffy at best.

[LordVonDerp]

If you go to the medieval city of Canterbury in England you may notice that lots of the doors on the houses seem very short. This is because people were shorter pre - wide spread availability of meat and balanced diets.

If his character has always been a vegetarian I'd maybe make him be a bit shorter than average. I'd have thought his choice opened up some roleplay options more than anything. He goes off hunting for mushrooms while the others eat boar and discovers some medicinal / hullucinagentic /poison ones. Maybe npcs keep offering him meat.

Mechanics wise I think you might be over thinking it.

This is mostly a myth. Medieval were about an inch shorter on average than modern people, though geographic isolation led certain areas to have different average heights.

BTW, it was the 1800s when poor diets led to shorter people (like Napoleon), or the Neolithic age.

[raspin]

I agree. Mechanics for it is totally unnecessary but I'd expect some sort of roleplay explanation even if it's just "my character doesn't like the taste"

[Thrudd]

I see your point but I don't think most characters/players would bother to state a preference unless it was interesting. Now if a meat eater decided their character was a veggie cos he hates the smell of meat, particularly cooked, after his family died in a fire started by an orc raiding party that he could not save them from? that seems interesting. "I eat veg so my character eats veg cos...well...he just does cos in real life I don't like meat/agree with animal slaughter" seems less roleplay and more bringing OOC stuff IC.

It's not hard to come up with a roleplay reason is it. "My character is an half-orc who hates the taste of meat and his tribe mock him but he thinks they are idiots" except maybe because the player has projected something personal into a game he may get sensitive about it being gamed or trivialised by other players/the dm which begs the question why use OOC rl stuff for you character if it's something you don't want explored. If I was bald and I was sensitive about it then playing a bald character would be an odd choice if I was very hurt by IC bald jokes.

Maybe I'm not making my point well but, yes, veggie fighter doesn't need mechanics but for me it does need some IC explanation, like the bosmer example, as well as the player being ok with it being explored.

How stupid would it be to give your character a trait in a roleplay game that was off limits for discussion because it might upset you?

I think it's clear that the player in question likely has a problem with the idea of eating meat, and carries that over to the game. I would just leave it alone and not make a deal out of it.

[Giant2005]

Don't try and dissuade the player's choice of characterization with mechanical penalties! The character sounds awesome!
There is nothing more interesting than a morally misguided character and what is more morally misguided than a character that has decided meat is murder, so they take to the path of the adventurer: murdering people in order to earn enough cash to sustain their philosophy that murdering animals is bad.

[Arc-Royal]

It is important to make anyone who is different from us feel alone and isolated in the world. They should feel bad for being different from us. How dare they deviate from the norm?!? GRAHHGHHH IM SO ANGRY NOW

Until I got to this point in your post, I was worried you were being serious. Your satire game is strong!

On-topic, I really can't add more of substance to the discussion than has already been said. This really seems more like a teachable moment for the OP than anything. I'm no vegetarian (tried it once, but I missed meat too much), but I have plenty of friends who are and they're in just as good of shape as I am (except for this one who could definitely hand me my own ass five different ways before I realized what was going on--it's always a joy to watch her put asshats in their place when they mess with her! XD). There's no good reason to impose any sort of penalty whatsoever. It's flavor, if anything, and as we've shown, the idea that vegetarians are inherently "weaker" or "malnourished" because of their diet is false.

EDIT: As a potential opportunity for a new character trait/character development, you could have some NPC mock the character for being a vegetarian (if you do this, please do the player a favor and let them know what you have in mind ahead of time), then give the player an opportunity to defeat the NPC in their choice of physical contest (fight, arm-wrestling, running a race, whatever) and have them roll for how badly they trounce the NPC/how embarrassed the NPC is/how impressed the public is (might even become locally famous or something of the sort). Could be a fun way to show (with that talk ahead of time) you're okay with your player's choice, help them feel welcome in the group/party, and make for an amusing table story!

[warty goblin]

My senses tell me there's a story here...

Less one story, more like something that happened pretty much every single catered banquet I ever worked. Thank heavens I got out of the food service biz before the "I'm gluten intolerant please prepare my food in a clean room oh for desert I'll have the gluten chocolate cake" people became a thing. I'd have gnawed somebody's throat out.

(Not that I have anything against gluten intolerant people, or food allergies of any sort. If the stuff actually hurts you, we were always happy to accommodate.)

Basically what I'm saying is that food service is an excellent place to learn to hate stupid people.

[krugaan]

Less one story, more like something that happened pretty much every single catered banquet I ever worked. Thank heavens I got out of the food service biz before the "I'm gluten intolerant please prepare my food in a clean room oh for desert I'll have the gluten chocolate cake" people became a thing. I'd have gnawed somebody's throat out.

(Not that I have anything against gluten intolerant people, or food allergies of any sort. If the stuff actually hurts you, we were always happy to accommodate.)

Basically what I'm saying is that food service is an excellent place to learn to hate stupid people.

Ah gods, the gluten fad. Personally I find all these health fads rage-inducing, particularly when my mother won't stop talking about it.

[truenekomancer]

Do remember that real life Shaolin Monks, the group that inspired a whole class in D&D, are vegetarians

[Thrudd]

Do remember that real life Shaolin Monks, the group that inspired a whole class in D&D, are vegetarians

Wellll, maybe maybe not always. But yes, the fact remains, it is possible to be a capable athlete with a vegetarian diet.

[YCombinator]

Bonuses to animal handling make no sense. People learn to handle animals by working with them, the primary reason one works with a lot of animals is to keep them healthy and breeding long enough for you to then kill and eat them. Somebody who doesn't eat meat has vastly less reason to have this knowledge than somebody who does.

I disagree that they don't make sense. While I agree that meat-eating farms is also a good rationale for gaining the animal handling skill, I also think that there is plenty of justification for gaining it while being a vegetarian.

My reasoning here is not that their vegetarianism cause a need to develop animal handing, like with a farmer, their meat eating cause a need for animal handling. I'm suggesting the opposite that their animal handling caused their vegetarianism.

I'm imagining a person who as a young adult spent a lot of time, potentially not on a farm but in the woods, potentially with lots of animal friends. That person might be likely to grow up not wanting to eat animals. It makes plenty of sense that someone would have both.

[Gtdead]

I think you should completely ignore his vegeterianism.

Plenty of foods offer enough protein for adults to sustain their bodies so no problem with that.
Also don't give him any special treatment. If he enters an inn, offer him stew. Let him roleplay.

If you want to have some fun you can add a friendly cannibal npc and have urge him to start a conversation about the ethics of eating.

[hymer]

Brian Blessed is a vegetarian. That's all the argument I'll ever need. :smallbiggrin:

[Regitnui]

If you want to have some fun you can add a friendly cannibal npc and have urge him to start a conversation about the ethics of eating.

Now that would be great encounter for all the characters. Have a friendly NPC with the ethics of a bosmer, as mentioned earlier in the thread. It's all perfectly ethical to the NPC, but would probably rub the players up the wrong way.

[Knaight]

Bonuses to animal handling make no sense. People learn to handle animals by working with them, the primary reason one works with a lot of animals is to keep them healthy and breeding long enough for you to then kill and eat them. Somebody who doesn't eat meat has vastly less reason to have this knowledge than somebody who does.

A bonus makes no sense, but it's worth remembering that there are two big reasons to work with a lot of animals. One is for the production of food, and the other is to offload as much manual labor on them as possible. The second one is significantly less common now than it used to be due to other sources of energy and machines that do labor with them (e.g. farm equipment powered by various petroleum products), but still around in a lot of places. In a more medieval setting, you've pretty much got human labor, animal labor, and by the late medieval period a fairly huge number of water mills and fair number of wind mills harvesting available natural energy sources for all they're worth.

Someone who doesn't eat meat could still easily be familiar with draft animals. That plow isn't going to pull itself.

[Diebo]

I've enjoyed this thread, and have a similar problem to discuss.

I have a female player that wants to be a human barbarian. At level-up, she wanted to bring her strength past 16.

Looking at Olympic Records, for the 69 kg weight class, in combined Snatch and Clean & Jerk, the men's record is 357kg. For the same weight class, the women's record is 286 kg. Now, if that isn't a good base for raw strength in a barbarian, I don't know what is. Anyway, I figured that male Olympic Record holders probably have 20 strength. And they can lift 25 percent more than a woman of the same size, so I figured that the maximum strength for a female is 80 percent of a males, or in this case 16.02 (round to 16).

I didn't want to break bounded accuracy by allowing my male fighters to get 25 strength (25 percent more than a women's max at 20), so I had to limit her to 16.

To compensate for this very reasonable and realistic house-rule, I decided that as a female barbarian, she gets an extra rage per day when she is PMSing. But on those days, she has one level of exhaustion. And we just track it by her own real-life cycle to keep it easy.

Anyway, she thinks I am being unfair, but I have the stats to back me up. Thoughts?

I also have an elf rogue with 8 strength that wants to use a 120-lb pull longbow. I said no way, and basically just limited him to a blow gun. Just keeping it real.

[Knaight]

I've enjoyed this thread, and have a similar problem to discuss.

I have a female player that wants to be a human barbarian. At level-up, she wanted to bring her strength past 16.

Looking at Olympic Records, for the 69 kg weight class, in combined Snatch and Clean & Jerk, the men's record is 357kg. For the same weight class, the women's record is 286 kg. Now, if that isn't a good base for raw strength in a barbarian, I don't know what is. Anyway, I figured that male Olympic Record holders probably have 20 strength. And they can lift 25 percent more than a woman of the same size, so I figured that the maximum strength for a female is 80 percent of a males, or in this case 16.02 (round to 16).

I didn't want to break bounded accuracy by allowing my male fighters to get 25 strength (25 percent more than a women's max at 20), so I had to limit her to 16.

To compensate for this very reasonable and realistic house-rule, I decided that as a female barbarian, she gets an extra rage per day when she is PMSing. But on those days, she has one level of exhaustion. And we just track it by her own real-life cycle to keep it easy.

Anyway, she thinks I am being unfair, but I have the stats to back me up. Thoughts?

I'm trying to get a read for whether this is sarcastic or not. If it isn't though, I'll just point out that you're applying "realistic" house rules that involve blowing off how the strength score actually works, ignoring the numerous, numerous ways that the system is already ludicrously unrealistic.

[kaoskonfety]

I'm trying to get a read for whether this is sarcastic or not. If it isn't though, I'll just point out that you're applying "realistic" house rules that involve blowing off how the strength score actually works, ignoring the numerous, numerous ways that the system is already ludicrously unrealistic.

I suspect that is in fact, the point. The Strength score thing was playing it pretty straight so they tossed in the bow to make the sarcasm clearer... I hope.

[Diebo]

I suspect that is in fact, the point. The Strength score thing was playing it pretty straight so they tossed in the bow to make the sarcasm clearer... I hope.

Yup, plain old satire (with blowgun thrown in to make it clear).

[krugaan]

I can't remember the last time my pc had to use the bathroom.

Or take a bath. Or eat.

I did drink some ale, though. Or was it mead?

[Seto]

The "very reasonable and realistic" line, the blowgun and the extra-rage based on her cycle have convinced me it is in fact, sarcasm. But since it's sarcasm realistic enough to start a comment war (not to mention upsetting people who actually have met that met with a non-sarcastic version of that rationale, or some women who meet with it everyday), posting it was probably not the smartest idea.

EDIT: But since you've clarified that it's satire, let's move on :smallsmile:

[Temperjoke]

I can't remember the last time my pc had to use the bathroom.

Or take a bath. Or eat.

I did drink some ale, though. Or was it mead?

If you can't remember, you might have had too much, and your character did actually use the bathroom while you were blacked out.

[Jarlhen]

I can't decide if this whole thread is a badly veiled joke or if it's serious... It's a joke, right?

[Temperjoke]

I can't decide if this whole thread is a badly veiled joke or if it's serious... It's a joke, right?

At this point I'd say it's a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.

[krugaan]

If you can't remember, you might have had too much, and your character did actually use the bathroom while you were blacked out.

Darnit. That's why I had ... things ... drawn on my forehead.

[Temperjoke]

Darnit. That's why I had ... things ... drawn on my forehead.

You should have known what was going to happen. Never be the first one to pass out.

[Chambers]

Mod of the Broken Pattern: Thread Locked.