A Party That Doesn't Kill

[Amphetryon]

The frequent discussions on this board and others about the implications of killing enemies within the D&D alignment framework got me thinking about this one. Let's assume a group gets together and unanimously decides to make characters that will not kill. For the sake of common ground in discussion, start them off at 3rd level with a Lesser Aasimar Paladin 2/Crusader 1, Strongheart Halfling Scout 3, Sun Elf Beguiler 3, and Darfellan Spirit Shaman 3. All sourcebooks are open, and the DM anticipates getting to at least 20th level.

How does this party go about its business? What modifications to the default standard will a DM need to make when confronted with a party that only deals nonlethal damage? In what way will this impact the campaign as a whole?

[Greenish]

Well, until they can afford merciful weapons, they'll either have to take -4 to hit all the time or use unarmed strikes/truncheons/saps, which have poor base damage. Then there are critters immune to non-lethal damage (warforged with the feat or juggernaut levels).

Can skirmish be used to deal non-lethal damage?

[Kol Korran]

that mostly depends if the DM is planning to run things as usual (go loot places and incapacitate the monsters within) or is willing to go for more interesting ideas. main thing to worry about is what you give XP for. i suggest different kinds of challanges get the XP that defeating monsters would have. I'd go into that in more detail, but i don't have the time. some ideas though:
- the campaign is mostly a "politics and intrigue" kind of game, where the party works as tools behind the scenes. XP could be gained for accomplishing missions. the more subtle and less obvious the means, the better.
- they could belong to a religion that doesn't allow killing (or deeply frowns upon it). the party could most chances deal with most foes normally (or otherwise circumvent them), and when they are in negative hp cast cure minor wounds or stabilize them, maybe tie them up.
- i suggest that just for the sake of releasing pent up aggression. (which will come up), that some things would be ok to "kill", such as undead, constructs, maybe plants, abberations or certain outsiders (since they don't actually "die")

i hope this helped.

[Amphetryon]

Well, until they can afford merciful weapons, they'll either have to take -4 to hit all the time or use unarmed strikes/truncheons/saps, which have poor base damage. Then there are critters immune to non-lethal damage (warforged with the feat or juggernaut levels).

Can skirmish be used to deal non-lethal damage?

They could also take Subduing Strike/Nonlethal Substitution from the BoED, in theory.

[Eloel]

Everyone who can afford the feats will want Vow of Nonviolence, and maybe Vow of Peace.

[Ernir]

For the DM, I'd suggest giving out Subduing Strike (BoED) as a bonus feat at character creation. It becomes a feat tax for the melee-ers otherwise.

Other than that, nonlethal damage is... a perfectly viable strategy, assuming that Undead and Constructs (you don't kill them anyway, you destroy them) can be dealt lethal damage. Handing the subdued enemies over to the authorities is the only annoyance, most of the time.
Which also means the party can't just fight down anything they would be physically capable of defeating. I'd expect the RP of the game to be dominated by gathering support and evidence for it to be OK for them to take certain individuals down.

This would be most suited for a campaign taking place somewhere where leaving a trail of bodies everywhere they go isn't acceptable. Like in any well ruled city.

[HunterOfJello]

Weapons with the Merciful enchantment would be a start. Finding ways to do nonlethal damage, in general, would be good for the characters. The Subduing Strike (Sneak Attack), Holy Subdual (Smiting), Nonlethal
Substitution (Metamagic +1), Merciful Strike(Sneak Attack, but decreases damage by 1 die and isn't exalted). (CORRECTION: Subduing Strike isn't an Exalted feat and should therefore be taken instead of Merciful Strike if 3.0 material is allowed. Thanks Geesi!) I couldn't find a relevant feat for Skirmish damage, but I don't think it's unrealistic to have a feat designed for Sneak Attack be allowed for Skirmish.

The Vow of Nonviolence would allow the Beguiler to have very high spell DCs as long as no one kills a living creature.

For Exalted feats, destroying undead isn't considered evil and doesn't count as breaking the different Vows.

A zombie apocalypse setting could then become appropriate. Or at least a setting where the PCs destroy undead on a regular basis and then also deal with living beings using nonlethal damage.

Is the party allowed to kill undead? Being able to destroy something every once in a while would be nice.

~

I don't think that having a LG (or just Good aligned) party that refuses to kill living creatures is too unrealistic. The party could be a covert police force that is responsible for taking down dangerous threats to the population. A situation similar to Men in Black. They could be asked to regularly take down Monsters, Thieves Guilds, and Necromancers like any ordinary d&d adventuring group. However, instead of killing their enemies, they only destroy undead and use nonlethal damage on all others until those enemies are unconscious.

A method for making the enemies stay unconscious once they're nonlethal damage exceeds their current hit points.


*edit*

The party's big weakness that I can already see would be Constructs. They're immune to nonlethal damage and mind-effecting spells. Destroying those would be necessary, otherwise there would be few options against them.

~

As long as the group is fully interested in playing a campaign like this, it could work out very well. I would start the characters at level 3 and given them a set of free feats and items like:

1 Merciful Weapon of their choice per character
1 free feat per character. Either Subduing Strike (Exalted), Merciful Strike (not Exalted, but penalty), or Nonlethal Substitution. Also, give the paladin Holy Subdual for free.
1 pair of Goggles of Lifesight
1 pair of Lenses of revelation

[Amphetryon]

To address some concerns brought forth so far, we'll say the party is allowed to do 'lethal' damage to the following types:

Undead, Constructs (but not Living Constructs), Demons, and anything mindless (any creature lacking an INT score).

[Eldan]

I'm running a Skype game, which has lasted for nearly 20 sessions now, and hte party hasn't killed a single thing. Hurt a few, but never killed anything. Which included even the mindless zombies they encountered and the dangerous ghoul they caught alive and brought in to be reformed.
We have a Xenotheurge, a custom Outsider/Initiator, a gravetouched Ghoul and a Nerra, as well as several ex-players who dropped out, namely a savage bard, an ardent and a bard/dread necromancer. They didn't really have any problems so far, save that one time they tried to assault a beholder in his city mansion.

Of course, the campaign has so far really been one focused almost entirely on investigation and city adventuring.

[Greenish]

the dangerous ghoul they caught alive and brought in to be reformed.Catching a ghoul alive is quite a feat. :smallamused:

[Yuki Akuma]

To address some concerns brought forth so far, we'll say the party is allowed to do 'lethal' damage to the following types:

Undead, Constructs (but not Living Constructs), Demons, and anything mindless (any creature lacking an INT score).

Why should it be okay to kill demons? They're still living creatures.

I can see killing summoned demons being okay, but killing a called demon (or, worse, going to his home plane and killing him) is still murdering a living being.

[FMArthur]

Oneiromancy from HoH is a feat that lets all of your spells deal nonlethal damage to any creature that dreams without metamagic adjustment, but comes with a drawback and requires another feat that basically amounts to "your DM comes up with everything that this feat does, and it uses stupid dream and future-reading rules that must be researched. If your DM thinks that's a pain in the ass and doesn't want to do that, this feat is not available."

[Psyren]

Everyone who can afford the feats will want Vow of Nonviolence, and maybe Vow of Peace.

About the only time Vow of Peace is usable is when everyone has it, and even then it can be irritating. I would stick with Nonviolence and leave it on the Beguiler.

[HunterOfJello]

Why should it be okay to kill demons? They're still living creatures.

I can see killing summoned demons being okay, but killing a called demon (or, worse, going to his home plane and killing him) is still murdering a living being.

A demon can be killed outside of the Abyss, but it isn't really murder. A demon who dies outside of the Abyss just returns to the Abyss and is only likely to be demoted from his current position to a lesser one. That's only a temporary roadblock for a demon, like getting the flu. A summoned demon returns unharmed after being destroyed, which isn't a big deal at all.

The rules change for a demon killed inside the Abyss. Those ones are completely destroyed along with their essence. That would be something the party should avoid.

[Amphetryon]

A demon can be killed outside of the Abyss, but it isn't really murder. A demon who dies outside of the Abyss just returns to the Abyss and is only likely to be demoted from his current position to a lesser one. That's only a temporary roadblock for a demon, like getting the flu. A summoned demon returns unharmed after being destroyed, which isn't a big deal at all.

The rules change for a demon killed inside the Abyss. Those ones are completely destroyed along with their essence. That would be something the party should avoid.
Exactly. It also provides a possible way for the players to slake bloodlust.

[dsmiles]

Well, I, for one, don't think it would be too hard. Especially if the players are all more into the roleplaying/skill-use aspect of the game than the combat aspect. XP is awarded for overcoming encounters, not necessarily killing things.

[Hanuman]

So what's the theory, you planning to adhere to nonviolence or are you going to be against outright killing?

There's multiple ways to do this, but poison and ability damage would not be nonviolent, but it would be against killing.

As far as nonviolence goes, you REALLY have to be careful not to over-spec into something that only does NL, as some things are immune to NL damage.

Also, in terms of the god's interp. of this, a Vow of Nonviolence will require heavy restriction on spell types (weird god whim) and more importantly no damage, imaginary, ability, or otherwise to any humanoid or monsterous humanoid.

This means that let's say a golem appears, you can solve this easily, but a paladin with a NL weapon is going to have a HARD time, and if your party is specced for blasting you're not going to be happy either as it will be immune. Causing lethal damage to a golem isn't considered killing, squishing an ooze isn't considered violent. Not by DnD gods standards.

PALADINS are not a great choice for playing up the whole "True Image" of good, their whole class gains powers to go around and dish out lethal damage to anyone who strongly disagrees with their morality. NEXT.

Well, from personal experience NL sub with subduing strike is great, the main problem is you REALLY have to watch that you don't do too much damage or you could deal massive damage (yes NL does massive damage) or you could kill them anyway. I highly suggest a grappler, for melee, groundfighting generally doesn't bang them up too badly. Justicular also gets hog-tie and bring em' back alive which is an all-around NL damage sub. With a good roll, a justicular can transform a battle ready opponent to a helpless opponent in 1 round.

As far as casters, anything that causes entangle and helpless is good, ability damage is a great way of getting rid of a strong enemy.

If you REALLY want to break the game and take them down without killing them, then use Shivering Touch (Frostburn 3rd Level Cleric/Wis/Sorc Spell) with Touch of Golden Ice (BoED Feat):
You make a touch attack expending a 3rd level spell Shivering Touch.
You hit, dealing 3D6 Dex Damage
Evil? Yes?
A passive effect from ToGI then triggers, they are infected with Golden Ice, a ravage that only effects evil creatures, they have to make a DC14 fort save or like a poison take 1d6 dex damage and 2d6 secondary dex damage.

For a standard action, that deals 3-36 Dex damage.

Evil dragon? PSHHHH, Doesn't even stand a chance! Dragons have 10 dexterity regardless of age, and their touch AC goes DOWN with age, great wyrms have 6AC!!! GG.



Scoundrels, tricksters, illusionists, escaping from battle, diplomancers, poisoners (NL), grapplers, entanglers, casting traps like walls around them or cages, all of these things work quite well.

[Guancyto]

The Subduing Strike (Sneak Attack), Merciful Strike(Sneak Attack, but decreases damage by 1 die and isn't exalted).

Just a quick note. Subduing Strike isn't actually an Exalted feat, it just happens to be located in the BoED.

Races of the Wild also features blunt-headed arrows that do nonlethal damage, if your scout is an archer.

[Cespenar]

Just give all NPCs a -10 HP threshold like normal PCs and they wouldn't even have to all deal nonlethal damage in order to spare their enemies.

[Greenish]

Just give all NPCs a -10 HP threshold like normal PCs and they wouldn't even have to all deal nonlethal damage in order to spare their enemies.Isn't that the standard rule? Only enemies that "die" at 0 hp are constructs and undead.

Anyhow, that'd still mean PCs can easily accidentally kill the enemies, and have to waste actions in combat to stabilize them so they won't bleed to death while you fight their allies.

[DisgruntledDM]

IIRC, in "Complete Warrior" there's a prestige class called the Justiciar which can deal subdual damage without penalties. They also become proficient at using manacles as weapons. Obviously they're geared toward Bounty Hunter/lawman type characters.

[Greenish]

IIRC, in "Complete Warrior" there's a prestige class called the Justiciar which can deal subdual damage without penalties.There are also Bloodhound from CAdv, Deneith Warden from Dragonmarked and Crimson Scourge from Cityscape.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

"I didn't want to kill the spider! I wanted to save them both!"

/Obligatory Trigun reference

Though this is a cool concept, realize that it'll be flippin' hard to pull off, and it'll require a lot of work and a lot of frustration. See Trigun (http://www.youtube.com/show?p=XaK67xvVn_M) for examples, actually. The PCs are going to have to jump through a lot of extra hoops to achieve their aim, and it won't be a walk in the park. They have to earn the ability to spare their foes, as it were, even if that means rushing around to tend their wounds on the battlefield

Which can be a good thing. To me, that's heroism above and beyond what D&D calls "heroism".

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

The DM would likely have to tailor the campaign to the idea to some extent; a party that avoids killing will simply not take on the same tasks as a more mercenary group.

As a subplot, you could have a rival party out there that has similar goals, but is much less thoughtful about how they achieve them. They will often be a step ahead of the PCs as a result of this, but eventually, somebody is going to have to show them that their actions have consequences.

"It's you. YOU are the consequences."

Also, construct bane weapons make robots explode.

[mucat]

I've played in many games where we rarely if ever kill anything, not because it's an ironclad vow, but just because the characters aren't sociopaths. Killing sapients is the last resort, not standard procedure. It wouldn't be all that much more of a stretch to turn this into an actual stated vow against killing.

(In a lot of these campaigns, non-sapient animals would be on the list of things the players freely use lethal force against.)

If your game takes place in a city, then a no-killing policy is pretty easy to work within. Most of the opposition will be from people who the characters would prefer not to kill anyway, and there are authorities close at hand to take prisoners off their hands. (Assuming the characters are on good terms with the authorities. Even if they're rebels or criminals, though, killing their enemies might complicate their lives more than it would simplify them.)

For wider-ranging campaigns, they'll probably want some magic to help hold and transport prisoners. At low to mid levels, a bag of holding with a good air supply could work; as they gain power, more sophisticated portable extraplanar prisons become possible.

Some missions might be harder if the PCs are determined not to kill. "Steal the world-saving artifact from the dragon's treasure horde" gets a lot more complicated if you plan to leave the dragon alive, and need to prevent it from taking revenge for the theft, either against you or against nearby humans in general. But the extra challenge and creative thought could be a lot of fun.


EDIT:
As a subplot, you could have a rival party out there that has similar goals, but is much less thoughtful about how they achieve them. They will often be a step ahead of the PCs as a result of this, but eventually, somebody is going to have to show them that their actions have consequences.

"It's you. YOU are the consequences."
This. I like this idea.

(Just don't play it so the players feel like chumps for not taking the easy way while others do.)

[Cespenar]

Isn't that the standard rule? Only enemies that "die" at 0 hp are constructs and undead.

Is it? Even so, I never saw a DM utilizing it.

Admittedly, this was more of a Neutral-ish party idea, where you don't finish off your fallen enemies but don't sweat it too much if you happen to slay them in the heat of the battle as well.

Still, it can work in case you don't get to your preferred feats that easily. A -4 penalty is pretty hefty.

[Yuki Akuma]

Is it? Even so, I never saw a DM utilizing it.

...Yes?

You die at -10, not at 0.

[Gabe the Bard]

Aside from undead, constructs, etc. you'll still probably have a fair share of humanoids and monstrous humanoids. If they can redeem some of the evildoers, that would be great. But for a lot of the naturally evil and violent monsters that they face, this may not be a viable or realistic option. Depending on what kind of enemies the PCs face, they'll need some sort of powerful authority where they can send their prisoners to. Not every town will be equipped to hold all the prisoners that need to be jailed.

And then there's always the chance that their more powerful enemies will break out of jail and come for vengeance. That'll lead to the dilemma of what to do when you can't kill them and they'll probably break out again in the future. Maybe they'll need a more powerful prison, like a temporal statis or a Phantom Zone machine.

As for outsiders, technically they return to their native plane when they're destroyed, but killing them is still different from casting planeshift or banishment to send them away. At least, if I were playing a character who had taken an oath of nonviolence, my PC would see a clear distinction.

[Yuki Akuma]

Outsiders are sent home when they're killed, yes. If they're Summoned, they reform after a day just fine. If they're killed, it depends on the Outsider - Fiends tend to reform after a year or something as a lower rung Fiend. Many others just dissolve into Plane-stuff and meld with their plane.

Kill them on their home plane and they tend to always dissolve.

[Incanur]

I've always wanted to run a campaign like this.

[snoopy13a]

Have the players be bounty hunters that go around the world capturing dangerous criminals so that they can stand trial.

This will also lead to more roleplaying as the characters have to investigate and search for their target.

[Princess]

The beguiler and spirit shaman should have little to no problem with the adjustment, but ya, make sure the scout and pally get a good look at the Book of Exalted Deeds.

[Cespenar]

...Yes?

You die at -10, not at 0.

We were talking about NPCs, not PCs. I know PCs die at -10.

[WinceRind]

Outsiders are sent home when they're killed, yes. If they're Summoned, they reform after a day just fine. If they're killed, it depends on the Outsider - Fiends tend to reform after a year or something as a lower rung Fiend. Many others just dissolve into Plane-stuff and meld with their plane.

Kill them on their home plane and they tend to always dissolve.

I fail to see how it makes it "okay" to kill them.

Would you consider it against the party's code to kill someone who - you know - both has the resources for a ressurection, and someone with the ability to do so? Because, hey, the guy's still gonna be there, alive, when the spell is cast.

[Volthawk]

I'm running a Skype game, which has lasted for nearly 20 sessions now, and hte party hasn't killed a single thing. Hurt a few, but never killed anything. Which included even the mindless zombies they encountered and the dangerous ghoul they caught alive and brought in to be reformed.
We have a Xenotheurge, a custom Outsider/Initiator, a gravetouched Ghoul and a Nerra, as well as several ex-players who dropped out, namely a savage bard, an ardent and a bard/dread necromancer. They didn't really have any problems so far, save that one time they tried to assault a beholder in his city mansion.

Of course, the campaign has so far really been one focused almost entirely on investigation and city adventuring.

Heh, yeah. Closest we got was getting some Xaositects unconscious and one of the aforesaid beholder's guards to negatives, before picking him up and running off with him.

[Greenish]

We were talking about NPCs, not PCs. I know PCs die at -10.We're talking about 3.5 here. NPCs follow the same rules as PCs unless otherwise specified.

[Kelb_Panthera]

IMHO this isn't that hard. Base weapon damage is entirely unimportant anyway, pickup a sap or truncheon. Spell-casters have plenty of non-lethal options built in, but they can take non-lethal substitution if they want blasty stuff. Beyond that, it's business as usual, except that you get to deal with the consequences of your enemies still being alive after you leave the area. Trade in your non-lethal weapon for your weapon of choice with the merciful quality when you can afford it. Merciful is activated or de-activated by command word, so undead and constructs aren't a problem. People tend to overthink this.

[Ormur]

We were talking about NPCs, not PCs. I know PCs die at -10.

I don't know how often I've told the party that the some of the ambushers they just chopped down survived heavily injured only to have the resident sociopaths of the group coup de grace them while their conveniently inattentive partners aren't looking.

Sometimes on the other hand the party is very relived when they find out they didn't kill somebody so they can question him/not-get-killed by-his-powerful-friends.

[Ravens_cry]

Have the players be bounty hunters that go around the world capturing dangerous criminals so that they can stand trial.

This will also lead to more roleplaying as the characters have to investigate and search for their target.
I recommended investing in a bottle of air and a large bag of holding as a holding cell for prisoners.

[Greenish]

I recommended investing in a bottle of air and a large bag of holding as a holding cell for prisoners.Just make sure they don't have anything sharp.

[hiryuu]

I think it's funny how almost everyone's still advocating a normal D&D campaign and trying to find ways to deal nonlethal. To me, this sort of thing screams for a "nonstandard" campaign. If the PCs don't want to kill anything, then challenges likely won't be combat related at all, and if they are, You'll probably never be making an attack roll since you'll be using the environment or finding creative ways to escape.

For a campaign like this, it might be a good idea to pick up some adventure movies like O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everything is Illuminated, Frog Dreaming (a wizard discovers strange goings-on in a lake near his hometown and investigates, to the consternation of the townsfolk!), The Goonies, Explorers, or even things like Back to the Future, which are all good adventure films that don't require attacking things or even traditional combat to deal with their challenges (or for more suspense, watch Jurassic Park III; PC challenges in a situation like this will be Reflex saves to avoid falling debris from monsters fighting over you, Fortitude saves for diseases, fatigue from lack of sleep, and Survival checks to cover your tracks). Almost any 80s family adventure movie works, too, and is a great source for adventures (this is totally off topic, but at one point I was building a system out of d20 Modern where no one had hit points, but had "cool points" instead, everyone played kids, and combat was done by performing bicycle/skateboard tricks or weird science stuff as you were trying to get away from adults; adults "damaged" to 0 cool points stood around slack-jawed and amazed, while kids reduced to 0 got captured/tumbled into a ditch/fainted/etc. Seeing awesome things or scary things did "damage," like watching demons crawl out of a hole in your backyard or finding out your new housekeeper was an alien with like laserguns and everything).

For reading, you could look at Huckleberry Finn, some of the Glooscap mythology (there are some killings in them, but not many; the story about the eagle and the wind is a good one), and things like Expedition or even On the Origin of Species (imagine a campaign where the main focus is exploring a new environment and cataloging the species there (it'd be a lot of work to create an ecosystem like that, but it would be fun as all hell to dig around in).

[Yora]

In my current group, the most dominant player is a great fan of solving situations without violence and the others all seem quite willing to follow his lead.

I think the most interesting thing when the group choses to avoid killing, is paying more attention to violence. Like movies, most RPGs seem to regard violence as trivial. As long as you have 1 hp left, there's no harm done and you can laugh about it later.
But in reality, it's not that funny at all. Even if you survived being stabbed just once, it will take weeks in pain before you have fully recovered from it and it's almost impossible to knock out someone for more than a few minutes without killing him.
Starting a brawl in which everyone unspokenly agrees not to draw a weapon can be considered somewhat permitable among the tougher kinds of guys, and everyone else can be friends again the next day. But when weapons show up, it's often kill or be killed, something that usually seems to be ignored.

But if you have a group of players who chose to avoid violence when possible, you can make it more meaningful when it does happen. I think in the 6 sessions so far, my players killed 5 out of a group of 6 goblins in the very first fight, and since them only defendet themselves against tainted animals and insane goblin-ghouls.
But much more than killing random enemies, allowing them to escape alive has much more consequences. On the one hand, showing mercy might bring some rewards later on, but there's also always the possibility that they will try to get in your way again. And when this is a common occurance in a game, killing someone even has a bigger impact. I'm not for making things too hard for the players, but killing someone should often have severe consequences. People will wonder what happend to the dead guys and might even want to investigate. And if they find out, they might want revenge or withdraw their support.
Ideally, having a dead guy lying at your feet should mean "Oh crap, this means trouble!". I like violence as a narrative device, but I rarely enjoy it for the gore but more for the lasting impact it will have on the events that follow. D&D is not the best system for games like this, but there's no reason why it can't be done.

[Psyren]

Consider having the Beguiler take levels in Exalted Arcanist from BoED. You'll lose some skill points and a caster level, but you'll get a ton of great offensive magic to shore up his weaknesses vs. undead.

[Cespenar]

We're talking about 3.5 here. NPCs follow the same rules as PCs unless otherwise specified.

*sigh*

I was only saying that I've never seen DMs rule that way.

[dsmiles]

I recommended investing in a bottle of air and a large bag of holding as a holding cell for prisoners.Just make sure they don't have anything sharp.Alternatively, use a portable hole.

[mucat]

But if you have a group of players who chose to avoid violence when possible, you can make it more meaningful when it does happen.

This is why I like low-violence campaigns. Not quite a vow of nonviolence, but just an understanding that from the characters' point of view, fighting is serious. Punching a guy in the face isn't normal behavior...or if for a particular character it is, then that's a defining trait for that guy. (Could mean he's a jovial barbarian brawler or a thuggish bully, but it should mean something.) Pulling weapons represents a major escalation, even for that jovial barbarian. And if someone dies, then the reaction isn't "OK, he's down. I take another look at that treasure chest you mentioned," but "Holy ****, I think he's dead!"

Not every group of characters will behave this way. Professional soldiers, hardened mercenaries, or ruthless thugs might kill someone casually and calmly. But I always find it makes a more intense story when the mere fact that a fight with lethal weapons is going on, means that things have gotten as serious as they can get, and nothing will ever quite be the same.

[Ravens_cry]

Just make sure they don't have anything sharp.
Well duh. Strip them naked, remove all items, full cavity searches, and bind and gag them before stuffing in the hole. Every day, take one out at a time and give them food and water, under close watch, search again, then back in the hole.
You're not killing them, you're not stupid. A lot of work, but I prefer a bag of holding over a portable hole because one has a mass limit, the other has a volume limit. For high density things like coins, the latter makes more sense. For things made of a few hundred pounds of meat and bone, the former.

[doctor_wu]

I actuallly played a game with this. I had my brother using the heal skill on the downed npcs before looting them. The problem is where do all the captured people go. Emprisoning all the freaking bad guys in the campiagn will put stress on the local town. They did kill people but it was only on accident. If the players want this it is possible through rule 0.

[Greenish]

*sigh*

I was only saying that I've never seen DMs rule that way.You mean that you've always had DMs houserule it? :smalltongue:

You shouldn't really be surprised that not everyone plays by your houserules.

[Cespenar]

You mean that you've always had DMs houserule it? :smalltongue:

You shouldn't really be surprised that not everyone plays by your houserules.

I said I've never seen DMs rule that way, which means no DM I played under ruled that NPCs die at -10 instead of 0, and I've played under a good number of DMs for that case. Now, that might mean they houseruled that way, while you spurt out this line that not everyone plays by my houserules.

Anyway, this really derails the thread, so I'm heading out.

[Amphetryon]

If the players want this it is possible through rule 0.Given that, at its base, this applies to anything you may wish to try in the game, I'm not sure that 'it is possible through rule 0' is a ringing endorsement of the idea.

[bannable]

I fail to see how it makes it "okay" to kill them.


Because summoned creatures aren't killed. Called creatures (or creatures on their home plane), however, are another story.

[Incanur]

This is why I like low-violence campaigns. Not quite a vow of nonviolence, but just an understanding that from the characters' point of view, fighting is serious. Punching a guy in the face isn't normal behavior...or if for a particular character it is, then that's a defining trait for that guy. (Could mean he's a jovial barbarian brawler or a thuggish bully, but it should mean something.) Pulling weapons represents a major escalation, even for that jovial barbarian. And if someone dies, then the reaction isn't "OK, he's down. I take another look at that treasure chest you mentioned," but "Holy ****, I think he's dead!"

Not every group of characters will behave this way. Professional soldiers, hardened mercenaries, or ruthless thugs might kill someone casually and calmly. But I always find it makes a more intense story when the mere fact that a fight with lethal weapons is going on, means that things have gotten as serious as they can get, and nothing will ever quite be the same.

This roughly describes my ideal. It's not easy to pull off in 3.5 D&D, however, at least not at higher levels. Resurrection spells alone make death much less of an event.

[HunterOfJello]

Just a quick note. Subduing Strike isn't actually an Exalted feat, it just happens to be located in the BoED.


Ooh, I didn't know that. I made a correction to my first post, if anyone else reads it in the future. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Callista]

It sounds like a fascinating idea. Expect heavy use of diplomacy, subdual damage, role-playing, and magical work-arounds. But the DM in this case will have to really look at the PCs and who they are in order to create an adventure these people would logically participate in. This would be very different from a the average party, which is generally Good with a scattering of Neutrals and will kill anything that attacks them (and occasionally things that don't attack them). You can't send them off to "deal with the invading orc tribe" and expect them to do things the way the average party would--go in, kill some orcs, get out, hope that solves the problem. Those orcs are going to have to have personalities beyond "1d8+1 HP", because the PCs, if they are dedicated to never killing anything sentient, will probably be trying to negotiate with those orcs eventually.

Speaking of negotiation, one thing to remember is that the diplomacy skill has some mechanical problems because it uses flat DCs. There are many houserules out there that will solve the problem; but the easiest fix is simply to make Diplomacy an opposed check with modifiers for opponent attitude rather than a fixed target.

[Incanur]

My campaigns always involve plenty of intrigue - even with groups that enjoy the mechanics and combat. That's not abnormal, is it?

[Yora]

You can send nonviolent characters on the same quests as other characters. But unless they are specifically send to kill someone, they will deal with the problems in a quite different way.

[grimbold]

the characters would be weaker than their level
mages would have to use nondamage/killing spells creatively and meleers woud have constant -4
so it would need to be easier than normal

[Amphetryon]

the characters would be weaker than their level
mages would have to use nondamage/killing spells creatively and meleers woud have constant -4
so it would need to be easier than normal

Um, no? As pointed out, a simple feat with no prereqs allows for non-lethal damage if that's wanted, a similar feat is available to spellcasters at 3rd (starting level, conveniently), and lots of Save or Lose spells don't do damage. Dealing direct damage via spells, in fact, is usually considered a caster's weakest option.

[Yuki Akuma]

I fail to see how it makes it "okay" to kill them.

Would you consider it against the party's code to kill someone who - you know - both has the resources for a ressurection, and someone with the ability to do so? Because, hey, the guy's still gonna be there, alive, when the spell is cast.

...Uh...

You do know I said earlier that killing demons is not okay, right?

Right?

The thing with summoned creatures is that they are not actually there. "Killing" their summoned bodies (which are not their real bodies) is just banishing them violently.

Called creatures, meanwhile, are really there. Killing them is Not A Good Thing.

[Callista]

If you really are desperate not to kill, you can generally petrify someone instead. But that's a real gray area that most non-violent types would never use except in the most extreme circumstances, or as a temporary form of imprisonment.

[Grelna the Blue]

To address some concerns brought forth so far, we'll say the party is allowed to do 'lethal' damage to the following types:

Undead, Constructs (but not Living Constructs), Demons, and anything mindless (any creature lacking an INT score).

Why should it be okay to kill demons? They're still living creatures.

I can see killing summoned demons being okay, but killing a called demon (or, worse, going to his home plane and killing him) is still murdering a living being.

I fail to see how it makes it "okay" to kill them.

Would you consider it against the party's code to kill someone who - you know - both has the resources for a ressurection, and someone with the ability to do so? Because, hey, the guy's still gonna be there, alive, when the spell is cast.

...Uh...

You do know I said earlier that killing demons is not okay, right?

Right?

The thing with summoned creatures is that they are not actually there. "Killing" their summoned bodies (which are not their real bodies) is just banishing them violently.

Called creatures, meanwhile, are really there. Killing them is Not A Good Thing.

Okay, I believe I understand the objection here, but I fundamentally disagree with the premise that I think underlays it. I think you are considering demons to be "people." Speaking as someone who rather doubts their existence IRL, in the game they're not people, they're living embodiments of evil. Sure, they think and most of them breathe and bleed if poked, but they don't have the free will required to choose to be good or take good actions. Those tiny few who are presented as exceptions to the rules can only be explained as the result of divine interference.

As living embodiments of evil, there is zero obligation to consider their right to life. They don't have one.

Consider this short excerpt from C.S. Lewis' Perelandra, where the protagonist Ransom fights the Devil, now inhabiting the body of Dr. Weston:

Then he remembers--as one remembers an island of consciousness preceded and followed by long anaesthesia--going forward to meet the Unman for what seemed the thousandth time and knowing clearly that he could not fight much more. He remembers seeing the Enemy for a moment looking not like Weston but like a mandrill, and realising almost at once that this was delirium. He wavered. Then an experience that perhaps no good man can ever have in our world came over him—a torrent of perfectly unmixed and lawful hatred. The energy of hating, never before felt without some guilt, without some dim knowledge that he was failing fully to distinguish the sinner from the sin, rose into his arms and legs till he felt that they were pillars of burning blood. What was before him appeared no longer a creature of corrupted will. It was corruption itself to which will was attached only as an instrument. Ages ago it had been a Person: but the ruins of personality now survived in it only as weapons at the disposal of a furious self-exiled negation. It is perhaps difficult to understand why this filled Ransom not with horror but with a kind of joy. The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for. As a boy with an axe rejoices on finding a tree, or a boy with a box of coloured chalks rejoices on finding a pile of perfectly white paper, so he rejoiced in the perfect congruity between his emotions and its object. Bleeding and trembling with weariness as he was, he felt that nothing was beyond his power, and when he flung himself upon the living Death, the eternal Surd in the universal mathematic, he was astonished, and yet (on a deeper level) not astonished at all, at his own strength. His arms seemed to move quicker than his thought. His hands taught him terrible things. He felt its ribs break, he heard its jaw-bone crack. The whole creature seemed to be cracking and splitting under his blows. His own pains, where it tore him, somehow failed to matter. He felt that he could so fight, so hate with a perfect hatred, for a whole year.

[Yuki Akuma]

There is a canon character who is a succubus paladin.

Your argument is flawed. No I don't give a damn if you think they're due to divine intervention, because not all of them are.

Demons have free will. Demons can choose to be good. They just have to work really hard at it, because all their instincts tell them they should be eating orphans.

And on the flip side, angels can be evil. At least two of the Archdevils are fallen angels.

[dsmiles]

Demons have free will. Demons can choose to be good. They just have to work really hard at it, because all their instincts tell them they should be eating orphans.

Or kicking puppies. :smalltongue:

IIRC, even the DMG states that not all individuals of a race with an "always" alignment are necessarily of that alignment. Everything that can understand the difference between good and evil can choose between good and evil.

[Psyren]

BoED also has the two succubi that are just trying to have hot lesbo secks live their lives together when they're confronted by a Paladin. While the text does not rule out the possibility that they may need to be killed, it's not a foregone conclusion either.

[hamishspence]

There is a canon character who is a succubus paladin.

Your argument is flawed. No I don't give a damn if you think they're due to divine intervention, because not all of them are.

Demons have free will. Demons can choose to be good. They just have to work really hard at it, because all their instincts tell them they should be eating orphans.

And on the flip side, angels can be evil. At least two of the Archdevils are fallen angels.

Indeed- and in Elder Evils, there's one angel that's fallen all the way to Evil-aligned- and still retains their Good subtype and angelic abilities.

So they don't always morph into archdevils right away.

[Gabe the Bard]

We had a similar argument regarding outsiders and prisoners in our group, when we captured a summoned (or called?) outsider. Our cleric had a holy avenger that could cast greater dispel at will. So I suggested tying up the outsider and dispelling him until he went away, which is what we did eventually. But not after a heated argument about whether it wasn't the same thing to simply run him through with the holy avenger.

I argued that since he was a prisoner, the violence would be unjust because he was captured and helpless. The cleric's sword could dispel at will, so why not send him away painlessly? The cleric, on the other hand, saw him as a bad guy who didn't deserve that kind of mercy, even if he was a prisoner, and didn't want to use the power of her sword (even if it was an at will ability) to send him away without suffering.

She finally agreed to it, just to get things moving. But I felt a little bit bad about it afterwards, since my character wasn't the one holding the sword.

[hamishspence]

I argued that since he was a prisoner, the violence would be unjust because he was captured and helpless. The cleric's sword could dispel at will, so why not send him away painlessly? The cleric, on the other hand, saw him as a bad guy who didn't deserve that kind of mercy, even if he was a prisoner, and didn't want to use the power of her sword (even if it was an at will ability) to send him away without suffering.

She finally agreed to it, just to get things moving. But I felt a little bit bad about it afterwards, since my character wasn't the one holding the sword.

Evil and currently unredeemed outsiders are extremely difficult to redeem- and it is quite reasonable for them to be "best slain, or at least banished" under normal circumstances.

Choosing to banish one painlessly rather than "kill-banish" it, once it's taken prisoner- in order to minimise suffering- is pretty Good behaviour. Perhaps a little "above and beyond what's required"- but it's never immoral to minimise an enemy's suffering, even an exceptionally Evil enemy.

"Inflicting undue suffering" is associated with Evil- so, in theory, going out of your way to avoid doing so, was very Good behaviour. Treating prisoners as kindly as reasonably possible, is also something Good characters should strive to do.

[Amiel]

You could reward the players with the same XP for obstacles overcome and challenges solved through diplomacy et al as if they had "defeated" a creature of that level.

[Yuki Akuma]

You could reward the players with the same XP for obstacles overcome and challenges solved through diplomacy et al as if they had "defeated" a creature of that level.

This is in fact exactly how it works.