#non-binary-deathcat

“nope, havent heard of em.”

“ARE THEY ACTUALLY SLIMY?”

“nah, bro, just one of them’s slimy.”

“EWWW, WHY ARE THEY SLIMY?”

“i dont think the actual game is slimy.”

“BUT IT’S GOT SLIME IN THE NAME!”

“i think it means you, uh … ranch slime? whatever that means?”

“THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.”

“sounds like my kinda game.”

I mean, you could. You’re the writer. You have the power. 

But would you break your reader’s suspension of disbelief? 

Is there a reason you have to do this? Would it make logical sense within the world? If your reason is “it would be easier that way for me,” then it’s not a good idea. However, if you make it sensible within the narrative, I can’t see why it wouldn’t work. 

I mean, if you’re writing about anthropomorphic animals, then you’ve already taken evolution into your own hands, right? Who’s to say that their diet did not also change as they evolved?

Bina: If they can talk, I assume they can also reason with each other. This is a pretty big assumption on my part, but maybe this clan has a set of agreed-upon rules that everyone should follow, or else they'd be kicked out or some other consequence. Having a rule of "don't eat each other" sounds reasonable if the clan has an interest in keeping the peace and enforcing a sense of equality between herbivores and carnivores. 

 I'm sure that even if these talking animals had a rule (whether unspoken or explicitly enforced) for their diets, some of them are gonna disrespect the rule or even break it. This could lead to interesting politics. Do any carnivores resent not being able to eat their natural prey? Are herbivores mistrustful of all carnivores no matter what?

Mirintala: One very big thing: have enough of a food source for everyone that they don't need to rely on each other as food.

Bina: True^^ a sense of scarcity will drive the animals to return to their old ways, especially if they haven't moved far beyond their base instincts despite being able to talk (assuming that in your world, animals originally ate each other)

Werew: A lot of the way this will play out depends on the level to which the animal-people reason like humans, versus listening to their instincts. 

 A cat, domestic or wild, that is entirely animal cannot fully control its instincts. Flick a small, fast moving thing past even the most lazy, laid back cat, and you'll see the predator's gaze lock on to it. If your animals retain most of their instincts, they will have a much harder time living together. Most predators have an instinctive chase response when something small moves quickly near them. Even some dogs, possibly the most domesticated species there is, can't always be trusted around small, fast-running children because they still retain some of the instinct to chase.

However, if your animals are much more like humans mentally and have lost most of these instincts, they will have a much easier time living together. This isn't to say it would be impossible otherwise; just that you would be likely to see more conflict and need more safeguards in place to keep the peace.

Another thing that you need to keep in mind is diet. Some carnivores could survive without eating other animals. Canids are often better at using various protein sources and could potentially thrive eating insects, eggs, fish, and plant-based protein sources instead of meat. However, there are other species that absolutely cannot live without eating mammalian meat. Weasels, cats, and predatory birds are three groups that come immediately to mind. This might cause a problem, depending on how you want to structure your world. If these sapient animals are a minority, and other animals remain in their natural forms (and are seen as an acceptable food source by the talking ones), then you might not need to disrupt their diets too much.

Zootopia is a pretty good example of this. In that universe (though it isn't explained in the movie itself, sadly) the majority of protein that carnivores eat comes from insects. Though this would work for a lot of species, there are some that would still realistically be malnourished, and those species probably wouldn't survive for long.

So my question for you is this: if the carnivores still eat meat (just not the talking herbivores), what's the benefit that both groups get from living together? Do they trade for resources that the other group can obtain more easily? Do they work together to obtain food? (Do carnivores help farm or gather food that they won't eat because they are compensated for doing so? Do herbivores help hunt or raise meat that they won't eat?) How do they feel about witnessing each others' diets and food preparation?

You could also handwave the diet thing by saying that some obligate carnivores (species that need to eat meat) have evolved to be able to consume a wider variety of foods.

Synth: Could also play it similar to how C.S. Lewis (and also L. Frank Baum? Memory on the Oz books is a bit hazy) did, and have a distinction between animals -- non-sapient, commodities, considered acceptable to kill and consume -- and Animals -- sapient, people in their own right, definitely not okay to eat one.

Just one tip.