Playing a Real Pacifist

[Gabe the Bard]

I've read a lot of threads about optimizing Vow of Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace, but does anyone have any roleplaying experience with an intentionally nonviolent character and not just for the mechanical benefits, or DMing for such a player? The threads I've seen mostly talk about the drawbacks of not being able to attack certain creature types and not being able to use magical items, but what if the end goal is to cease violence in a game world that is heavily dependent on supposedly heroic characters whose adventures largely amount to going around killing and looting sentient beings, regardless of the justifications (they're evil, they're monsters, they're involved in a plot that threatens the fabric of existence, etc.)?

[AMFV]

I've read a lot of threads about optimizing Vow of Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace, but does anyone have any roleplaying experience with an intentionally nonviolent character and not just for the mechanical benefits, or DMing for such a player? The threads I've seen mostly talk about the drawbacks of not being able to attack certain creature types and not being able to use magical items, but what if the end goal is to cease violence in a game world that is heavily dependent on supposedly heroic characters whose adventures largely amount to going around killing and looting sentient beings, regardless of the justifications (they're evil, they're monsters, they're involved in a plot that threatens the fabric of existence, etc.)?

Well a lot depends on how strong your technical pacifism actually is. Are you never willing to kill or do you have a breaking point? These sort of questions help to define this character. You could certainly play a bard, or a factotum, or a high level caster who disables his opponents rather than killing them.

A beguiler is particularly good for this sort of thing, since most of their spells are non-damaging and target people and a +4 to DCs is pretty freaking amazing, although not the most amazing thing ever.

You should definitely try noncombat solutions whenever possible, talking your way out of a bad situation is good, running away is infinitely better. Then you can return with better planning.

Lastly, I would discuss this sort of thing heavily with other members of your group, so that way they know what you're going for and it won't be unpleasant for them.

[Corlindale]

I would only play a true pacifist (someone not even willing to assist in violence) if the game in question was truly tailored towards such a playstyle, and if everyone else was ok with it. Most 3.5/PF players expect to be doing a lot of combat and a lot of killing, so it would be extremely important to make sure that everyone was ok with doing a mostly pacifist game. Otherwise your character would effectively be unable to participate in most regular encounters.

It's easy enough to play a technical pacifist who is perfectly willing to assist his allies without doing direct harm - there are plenty of technically "nonviolent" ways to contribute to combat encounters in that case (debuff, control, buff, heal, etc, etc...). One might of course debate how real such pacifism would be, but it is possible to imagine such characters - perhaps with a religious motivation against doing direct harm.

[molten_dragon]

I've read a lot of threads about optimizing Vow of Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace, but does anyone have any roleplaying experience with an intentionally nonviolent character and not just for the mechanical benefits, or DMing for such a player? The threads I've seen mostly talk about the drawbacks of not being able to attack certain creature types and not being able to use magical items, but what if the end goal is to cease violence in a game world that is heavily dependent on supposedly heroic characters whose adventures largely amount to going around killing and looting sentient beings, regardless of the justifications (they're evil, they're monsters, they're involved in a plot that threatens the fabric of existence, etc.)?

I've played in a few of games where someone took vows of poverty/nonviolence/peace. In every case it caused arguments among party members, and in generally ended with PvP combat. Mainly because, as you pointed out, those feats go against the expectations in a D&D game, and force the other players to choose between having their actions restricted by someone else's feat choices, or causing inter-party conflict.

So I would say that unless you're playing in a game where the whole party is in agreement with that playstyle, vows of peace and nonviolence are going to end badly.

[danzibr]

Well uh... they can kill undead and constructs, IIRC. So have a campaign based on that.

[Fouredged Sword]

I have always wanted to play a game where EVERYONE took vow of non-violence and or vow of peace.

Seriously, Cleric, wizard/war weaver, beguiler, Monk 2 / warblade. The warblade focuses on non-lethal damage/strikes with saves (+4 DC), the beguiler is the skillmonkey, the cleric is the tank, and the wizard covers utility and buffs like a madman.

[Killer Angel]

I've read a lot of threads about optimizing Vow of Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace, but does anyone have any roleplaying experience with an intentionally nonviolent character and not just for the mechanical benefits, or DMing for such a player?

Don't know if it counts, but once I've played a sorcerer that didn't wanted to kill anyone, but has nothing against the killing itself, if made by someone else.
It was a battlefield controller and a buffer.

[AMFV]

Don't know if it counts, but once I've played a sorcerer that didn't wanted to kill anyone, but has nothing against the killing itself, if made by someone else.
It was a battlefield controller and a buffer.

This is true, you don't have to take the vows to be a technical pacifist, and that probably won't bother your party members as much.

[Fouredged Sword]

I am playing a (PF) elan lifeleech vitalist who has the longterm goal of ending death as a major force in the world. He wants to eventually wanted to convert anyone who wanted into an elan after finding a way to store their minds to shield them from the memory loss. His ideal was a world without aging, hunger, sickness, or death. He also wanted to tell the gods to sod off about the whole afterlife stuff. His heaven was to be built on earth.

The whole funny part of this was the fact that he was 8 years old. He had enough psionic potential to break the world, trapped behind the mind of an adult, with the experience of a child. People forget that immortal doesn't mean old. :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

I think one of the biggest issue with being a true pacifist is justifying why you are going on an adventure in the first place. A pacifist, to me at least, is more than just someone who wont kill, or who wont cause harm, he is someone that above all else avoids conflict. So why would someone out to avoid conflict join an adventuring group or take part in any of their missions?

[AMFV]

I think one of the biggest issue with being a true pacifist is justifying why you are going on an adventure in the first place. A pacifist, to me at least, is more than just someone who wont kill, or who wont cause harm, he is someone that above all else avoids conflict. So why would someone out to avoid conflict join an adventuring group or take part in any of their missions?


http://www.cracked.com/article_20157_the-6-most-aggressively-badass-things-done-by-pacifists.html

There have been many pacifists in wartime, some have been medics, or filled other roles. Not all Pacifists have the same exact philosophy, and they can vary pretty heavily on what they will or will not do.

[Psyren]

I would take a 3.P approach to this - Say, a Monk of the Lotus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-of-the-lotus) from PF combined with Vow of Nonviolence, Apostle of Peace and Sacred Fist from 3.5. The Stunning Fist advancement from SF would apply to the MotL's Touch of Serenity feat.

I would have massive Wis bonuses from Vow of Poverty, and since Wis adds to my AC, I could wear/use magic items that enhance it even further without breaking my vow.

[AMFV]

I would take a 3.P approach to this - Say, a Monk of the Lotus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-of-the-lotus) from PF combined with Vow of Nonviolence, Apostle of Peace and Sacred Fist from 3.5. The Stunning Fist advancement from SF would apply to the MotL's Touch of Serenity feat.

I would have massive Wis bonuses from Vow of Poverty, and since Wis adds to my AC, I could wear/use magic items that enhance it even further without breaking my vow.

Also the Vow of Nonviolence should stack with your Monk of the Lotus abilities.

However you still can't use stat boosting items with vow of poverty. Since boosting AC is not an exemption in the vow. It does suck. I would just stick with Lotus Monk and the boost from Nonviolence.

[Slipperychicken]

1. Play Diplomacy by RAW.

2. Max out social skills (Including handle animal).

3. Talk your way out of all problems involving sentient creatures and creatures which you can use Handle Animal on.

4. ???

5. PROFIT! PACIFISM!

[Seto]

I've read a lot of threads about optimizing Vow of Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace, but does anyone have any roleplaying experience with an intentionally nonviolent character and not just for the mechanical benefits, or DMing for such a player? The threads I've seen mostly talk about the drawbacks of not being able to attack certain creature types and not being able to use magical items, but what if the end goal is to cease violence in a game world that is heavily dependent on supposedly heroic characters whose adventures largely amount to going around killing and looting sentient beings, regardless of the justifications (they're evil, they're monsters, they're involved in a plot that threatens the fabric of existence, etc.)?

First off, the "mechanical benefits" of these Vows are generally not worth taking the vows. So, if someone plays a pacifist, it is (almost) always for flavor and never because it has mechanical benefits.
I have to say your idea of the end goal being to end violence in the game really is awesome. Ideas just come flyin' to my mind. You could even have Evil pacifists who find gruesome ways to incapacitate or paralyze their too-violent enemies to prevent them from doing further harm.... without actually killing them or physically hurting them (which may be a fate even worse in some cases). Then you have the Good pacifists that strive to not only restrict violence, but to build a society in which the very idea of violence loses its meaning (if they're too lawful or tend towards LN, it could go very wrong... See Aldous Huxley). So, you could have a diverse party. By the end of the campaign, you could be the leaders of a powerful ideological tendency, or even create an Epic overarching organization whose role is to prevent violence from ever happening (and god, would THAT be awesome !).

But you'd need to talk it over with the DM and the fellow players, because it'd only be possible if the DM helps you take the campaign towards this direction, and if the whole party agrees to play this (insist on the diversity of possible Real Pacifists, you don't need to be all the same character). If you're the only one, well... That's much more difficult, and could cause conflict as you might be perceived as slowing down the campaing/ruining the fun. If you're the only pacifist in your party you should compromise (like, "violence is okay but not murder", or "violence is okay but I won't take part in it") as others have said. And even then it's difficult, though not impossible, to pull off.

[Psyren]

Also the Vow of Nonviolence should stack with your Monk of the Lotus abilities.

However you still can't use stat boosting items with vow of poverty. Since boosting AC is not an exemption in the vow. It does suck. I would just stick with Lotus Monk and the boost from Nonviolence.

Actually it is, for Apostles of Peace specifically:


As part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor).

AC boosting magic items are specifically called out as legal. Since the build above has monk levels, anything that increases Wis will boost AC and therefore be legal.

[The Fury]

I've been planning a character like this for a game that hasn't started yet. If it's helpful I'll share my approach. In terms of a general concept he's a guy that only considers violence acceptable after all other options have been exhausted, killing is never acceptable. Other than that I decided to build the character as a cleric-- just because keeping a vow against killing is easier when you can heal people, also creative use of some Divine spells might allow for some non-violent solutions.

[AMFV]

Actually it is, for Apostles of Peace specifically:



AC boosting magic items are specifically called out as legal. Since the build above has monk levels, anything that increases Wis will boost AC and therefore be legal.

Wow that's really wonky, I had forgotten how ridiculous that class was. And they still can't use a holy symbol :-(, that's depressing.

[Psyren]

Wow that's really wonky, I had forgotten how ridiculous that class was. And they still can't use a holy symbol :-(, that's depressing.

You can get around that too - Worldly Focus for instance, or since I'm using the PF Monk I can take the Birthmark trait. There may also be a way to get Summon Holy Symbol onto their list (e.g. with a Cleric dip.)

[Person_Man]

It's very do-able, both in a D&D game and in real life. You just have to accept the following:


1) Your life, needs, and wants are no more important then the life, needs, or wants of any other sentient living being. Whenever possible, your actions should not be the source of conflict. Look inward to see if there is something you can be doing differently to prevent conflict before looking outward to criticize or act against others.

2) Being a Pacifist does not mean being a wimp. Practice active pacifism. Work to prevent violent outcomes. Seek alternative solutions to problems, even if they are not what is traditional or what is expected. Convince others to support non-violent solutions, don't just roll over and let them defeat you or dictate violent outcomes.

3) In the end, your body is mortal, but your soul is eternal. Most pacifists live very long and full lives, because they rarely put themselves into a situation where they would meet a violent end. But if you are put into a situation where you cannot prevent violence, cannot find an alternative solution, cannot retreat, and cannot surrender and seek to change the hearts of your captors, then it is better for your mortal body to die and for your eternal soul to remain true to your beliefs then it is for you to extend your mortal life for some period of time and forfeit your immortal soul.

From a strictly D&D perspective, I would add that you can't just play a traditional murder hobo who wanders random dungeons but doesn't kill certain enemies. Your whole party needs to be on board with your beliefs - you can't just dictate how everyone else acts - because then you're just being a jerk. If you're trying to take stuff that belongs to sentient living creatures, you're not a pacifist, because you're creating conflict. You need to truly work for peace and fight injustice. There are many many potential adventures that do this. They're just not traditional D&D quests.

[Telonius]

I think there have been a few attempts to stat out Vash the Stampede, you might try searching those. You don't have to take the feats in order to play a pacifist, the feats just give you mechanical modifiers when you take them.

[AMFV]

You can get around that too - Worldly Focus for instance, or since I'm using the PF Monk I can take the Birthmark trait. There may also be a way to get Summon Holy Symbol onto their list (e.g. with a Cleric dip.)

I don't know PF well enough to know the ways around it, I was more lamenting the bad writing and design theory in BoED than anything else.

[The Glyphstone]

Wow that's really wonky, I had forgotten how ridiculous that class was. And they still can't use a holy symbol :-(, that's depressing.

It gets really ridiculous if you combo it with the Magic Item Compendium. Now (almost) anything can be given a +1 Deflection bonus to AC for the low, low price of 2,000 GP/item, and thus make it a legal item to carry for the Apostle of Peace. It's like Wilding Clasps for Vow of Peace.

[mucat]

I think one of the biggest issue with being a true pacifist is justifying why you are going on an adventure in the first place. A pacifist, to me at least, is more than just someone who wont kill, or who wont cause harm, he is someone that above all else avoids conflict.
A pacifist would probably avoid creating conflict, but I don't see why they would stay clear of a conflict that already exists. That may be exactly where they are most needed, to find a way to solve the problem without violence.

As long as the whole group had similar ideals, a pacifist adventuring party might exist for the same reason as any other (probably good-aligned) party: bad stuff is happening, and they intend to set it right. The tools they are willing to use would be different, of course. But it could make a hell of an interesting campaign.

[Psyren]

I think one of the biggest issue with being a true pacifist is justifying why you are going on an adventure in the first place. A pacifist, to me at least, is more than just someone who wont kill, or who wont cause harm, he is someone that above all else avoids conflict. So why would someone out to avoid conflict join an adventuring group or take part in any of their missions?

Nah, it's fairly easy to justify. Aang, Vash, Himura Kenshin etc.

[Gabe the Bard]

I agree that there's a difference between avoiding conflict and avoiding violence. There is always conflict, even in nonviolent situations, and the challenge for a pacifist would be to try to resolve a conflict without resorting to violence or lethal force. That's why I like the Kenshin suggestion. That's one I hadn't thought of before. I see that as not being a pacifist insofar as the use of violence, but showing mercy by trying to avoid killing others and preserving human life.

So it seems like there are two broad ways this could go. Either a PC could avoid violence or killing enemies personally, perhaps by dealing nonlethal damage only, but leave the other players to make their own decisions. This would be the least confrontational way, though I can still imagine arguments coming up along the lines of "Why didn't you kill that drow? We can't bring him along, and if we let him go he'll just come back to slit our throats."

I've found that players don't think twice about killing their foes in battle, but when they have a live prisoner to deal with, then they become more squeamish as they have to balance morally justifiable execution against convenience of play and keeping the game/story moving.

The other option is to challenge the rest of the group to reevaluate what they consider to be moral justifiable actions in an adventure, and consider whether that is even important to them in the first place. Some people probably don't want to think about this at all, they would rather just play the game and have fun, not thinking about the monsters and NPCs as fully fleshed-out characters, and that's okay. So in addition to a gaming challenge, I think this would be more of a challenge for the whole group when working together as a team, since the most important thing at the end of the day is that everyone has fun playing the game!

[WbtE]

I seem to recall playing in a game with a player who took the Vows. My character was good-aligned enough to respect the pacifist's path and attempted to work with them. Another PC did not and a very ill-tempered argument broke up the game in the second session. :smallfrown:

[gorilla-turtle]

The most important facit of playing a Pacifist seems to be entirely Out of Character, rather than in character. Pacifists can do anything from use spells to nonlethally incapacitate foes (which conjures to mind a Touhou like environment with Metamagic Orb spaming Arcanists with Non-Lethal Substitution), to physical damage with non-lethal modifiers (an ubercharger that can knock any foe out in 1 action who just leaves everyone unconcious would be interesting to watch). And that assumes they even get involved in the fight at all, since as a Healer, Buffer, or other general Utility role, they could easily stay outside of combat on the sidelines. Still, by a wording, one interpretation of the rules notes that Vow of Non Violence only punishes allies if they kill a helpless foe, and Vow of Peace only if they kill a foe that you incapacitate, so there's actually a bit of room for Pcs to be able to fight as needed, really only having to stop attacking 1 foe once it's already been neutralized as a threat, at least most of the time.

The biggest ruddle is if other players don't want in when the occasional "thou shalt not kill" aspect comes into play, or when the Dm tries to set them up to fall. Getting everyone, at least out of character, on board with the concept looks to be the biggest hurdle. Easier said than done, I suppose, but still possible.

As for why a Pacifist might be adventuring, a... friend of mine wishes for me to Dm for him while he tries out a Pacifist Cleric, who travels the world doing acts of charity for people. Other Pcs would most likely end up her body guards. In general, a Good aligned church order could have several beings working for it who fight evil without murdering anyone, and who travel on assignment.

[Malroth]

Shout "Pacifist Crush" as you execute your unarmed warblades favorite manuver and damned be the consequences

[ranagrande]

I once played a Human Paragon/Warmage/Apostle of Peace/Mystic Theurge.

His standard response to any given situation was a nonlethal fireball.

[Darth Stabber]

I have never seen, nor heard, of vow of non-violence/peace leading to anything good. In other systems the concept works, but D&D is not really set up for this on any real level. Those vows are a sad attempt at kludging in that style, but even amoung very mature groups it can lead to serious problems. I was running a session with 2 players (who are engaged to each other) and it was getting very close to a screaming match before the end. If you value your sanity and your friendships with the other players, avoid this line of feats (especially vow of peace).

Vow of poverty only causes problems if you don't mind sucking. There are a few corner cases where it is not completely terrible (druids, totemists, incarnates can get away with it, and if your GM's idea of "low magic campaign" is keeping you well below wbl it can pan out). VoP only hurts you, so if that's okay with you go right ahead, if I'm GMing I will give it away for free (no spent feat slots) with no alignment restriction, and I'll let you take a wider variety of bonus feats (incarnum feats, bind vestige, any bonus to saves feat, any +2/+2 skill feat, and any skill focus) and you can use any non-magic armor and weapons you want (and it's still completely terrible).