Any tips for playing a Pacifist?

[infinitum3d]

So just to try something, I've been trying to play a Pacifist. I'm a 7th level Paladin doing this to Atone. This was my idea because I got bored in an adventure and hit an NPC with my Holy WarHammer. I wasn't trying to kill him. He was obnoxious. I was just trying to shut him up. Anyways, that's irrelevant.

So I decided to 'never harm another soul from full moon to full moon' so I have a month.

In my opinion, I have two options. I just don't hit things for a month, OR (sly grin) I actively try to prevent everyone in my group from hurting anything. Everyone thinks Paladins are annoyingly self righteous anyways but I've never played that way.

I don't want to be a jerk about it, but I want it to be fun and interesting. And to be honest I'm a big goof ball so my players will expect something blatant.

Any ideas on how I can make this interesting and enjoyable in a mildly obnoxious way without being a jerk?

My thoughts are to basically be a distraction to the mage if he casts an attack spell or sneeze loudly when the ranger uses his bow, but again, I don't want to be outright annoying.

I had a player one that used Wind spells to blow away arrows off target and a Hold Person spells to stop swords, but again, I don't want them to hate me.

This is going to be harder than I thought.

Suggestions?

[GorinichSerpant]

Depends on the people playing, I'd recommend talking about it out of character. A reasonable discussion before hand would prevent a lot of potential issues.

[EvilAnagram]

In my opinion, I have two options. I just don't hit things for a month, OR (sly grin) I actively try to prevent everyone in my group from hurting anything. Everyone thinks Paladins are annoyingly self righteous anyways but I've never played that way.

Well (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01729/chinese-soldiers_1729449i.jpg).

You know, when people talk about how annoying it is when Paladins are self-righteous and push their outlook on everyone else, they are not advocating it. For a reason.

[ZX6Rob]

Well, I don't know you or your group from Adam, but, coming from both the player's and the DM's side, it's extremely irritating when one person in the group imposes something like pacifism on everyone else.

The players are going to be annoyed because they created characters with certain abilities and a level of prowess in combat, and you stifling that because of a personal problem for your character in-game is going to make them feel less awesome out-of-game.

From the DM's side, it makes building effective encounters more difficult. If I am trying to build a balanced encounter for a group of four, I assume that each of the four players is using, or trying to use, their resources as effectively as they can. I don't really have a good way to build around the fact that, not only is one player now grossly limiting his own options, but he may be attempting to hinder other characters as well. I know for a fact that if a group I was running a game for wiped out because of interference from one of the players, there would be a lot of bad feelings all around.

Third, you're kind of breaking one of the most important metagame assumptions of D&D. Not the nonsense where people complain about what your character would know or do, but the real metagame. The one where we are all sitting down with the assumption that we are here to play a cooperative and collaborative game together, and that the group should stay together.

If an adventurer, someone who puts themselves in deadly situations, often including combat, on a regular basis suddenly had the need to abstain from violence entirely, why would that person continue to go willingly into violent conflict with that group? Further, if that person has a divine mandate to avoid violence because of an action they personally took, what right or even reason would that person have to demand others share in his own penance?

In all honesty, the best thing to do at this point is probably to have the character retire temporarily to a temple or church and serve his sentence there, especially if he is a knight or soldier for a particular religion. He is no longer capable of serving the needs of the adventuring party, and it makes no sense for him to continue with them. You might be able to continue to travel with the group as a complete pacifist, but doing so is probably going to be boring for you and frustrating for the party, especially if you're attempting to share the burden of your nonviolence with them against their will.

[MadBear]

"My thoughts are to basically be a distraction to the mage if he casts an attack spell or sneeze loudly when the ranger uses his bow, but again, I don't want to be outright annoying."

I'm going to point out this makes no sense whatsoever.

If your friends are in a potentially deadly fight where they may die, why on earth would you purposefully impede them in their battle.

Furthermore, if I was the mage/ranger/whoever, I'd vote to have your PC banned from the party. There's just not a chance that I'd want to risk life in battle with a buffoon who is messing me up.

My only suggestion is to retire the character for the month and see if the DM will let you RP a replacement PC that the group hires to fill in your characters missing role.

[tieren]

For yourself, get a net and try to stop enemies by restraining them or going up and grappling them into submission.

For your group, try to persuade them out of hurting living things for a few weeks, but if they do accept onto yourself the harm they are doing to the world and flog yourself with a cat of nine tails as they inflict pain on others.

[FightStyles]

I am currently playing a sorcerer that loves everything and tries to say "Hi" before fighting and is a fan of knocking out things over killing them.

But I still kill.

As for being a pure pacifist.... I'd say, don't.

[ZX6Rob]

I am currently playing a sorcerer that loves everything and tries to say "Hi" before fighting and is a fan of knocking out things over killing them.

But I still kill.

As for being a pure pacifist.... I'd say, don't.

This is even easier in 5th Edition, thanks to the removal of the largely-unnecessary subdual damage rules, as now you can simply declare that the final blow to an enemy is non-lethal if you want. A promise to refrain from killing is much easier to work with in a group setting than a vow of complete pacifism. 5e gives you the tools to remain effective while honoring your own code.

[DaKiwiMonsta]

First, fair enough that you're roleplaying this. It's understandable that your character would want to do that but there are consequences of becoming a pacifist that you really ought to consider before trying it.

Second, If you don't want to be involved in combat at all then play a character who persuades the party to try and sneak past the sleeping ogre instead of attacking. Or ask them to be merciful when they are faced with choosing to kill a villain or not. You could simply try your best to avoid combat, rather than trying to throw your party off.

Third, your character is playing a pacifist which means he is already deadweight to the party. The difference between a hard encounter and a deadly encounter could lie in your hands. So instead of letting yourself be a hindrance, why not play more of a support class? Focus on your healing pool and use non-offensive spells such as create food and drink rather than smiting. That way you remain a pacifist without ruining everyone's time.

Fourth, as Madbear said earlier, actively trying to stop the rest of your party from killing is not acceptable. Your party could easily die if you spend your efforts trying to stop them from defending themselves. Because even if you don't want to fight the werewolf, it's still going to want to eat you and the rest of your party. If you genuinely want to cause PC deaths simply for some roleplaying then you really ought to just let your character disappear for a month in-game while you complete your pacifist time.

[Theodoxus]

Tip #1) Don't.
Tip #2) Don't.
Tip #3) D&D is not built for pacifism, regardless of length. The 3.5 Vow of Poverty->Saint track was the worst thought out concept - not because it appeared OP on paper and weak in practice, but because it runs counter to the very premise - the core essence - of the game.

I've played with cowards; I've played with a 'do no harm' cleric; I've even played with a Vow of Poverty Monk/Paladin that got upset when he found a magic sword he coveted and literally got angry when I gave him the choice: keep the sword, or keep your vow - you can't have both (when I should have just nuked his vow from orbit the moment he decided to hold onto and use the sword).

All of these concepts ruin the fun for others. When you're expecting the rogue to dash out and deliver some sweet sneak damage, but instead hunkers down under a blanket beneath a table - for his own safety - it makes combat unbearably long. When the cleric refuses to not take anything other than healing and sanctuary spells, and doesn't even provide a flanking bonus because he doesn't want to accidentally cause someone to suffer - it makes you want to slap the player. [the monk/paladin I just kicked out of my game because I wasn't going to put up with the whining stupidity]

I'm sure there are game systems built where pacifism can work. This one ain't one. I suggest following the example above, where you knock opponents out - maybe even convince your party to do so as well. Better yet, find a different way to atone. Take up a non-beneficial vow of poverty for a month, where you walk around with rags and use a stick when you fight (club, greatclub or staff, you choose). Donate any proceeds to the people you originally hurt.

That's my advice, at any rate.

[MadBear]

To put it in perspective, let's say that we have a character that during WWII:
- Tortured and killed an Axis member
- Has now decided that he is a pacifist to atone for his misdeeds

If that PC goes on to:
- Knock the gun out of allies hands
- Scream in a high pitched voice to alert enemies of the groups sniper

The other PC's are at the very least justified in having him sent off to prison, and they're likely going to have him put to a firing squad for getting their allies killed.

Furthermore in the above scenario, why would the soldier turned pacifist continue to even go with the other soldiers on missions? There's no reason to at this point, and it can only lead to bad things for all involved.

[Sigreid]

Aside from what others have said, if I were GMing this wouldn't even count for atonement. The reason is that it's all about you and does nothing at all to make things right with the injured party. IMO what you describe is a selfish person's version of atonement since it doesn't really cost you anything, makes you more of a burden to others, is short enough duration that it is not a real commitment, and makes not restitution.

[Serket]

I advise you not to play a pacifist in a game that is ultimately about combat.

If you really want to, I advise you to discuss it with the rest of the players and the GM first. Since it's a temporary state of affairs, they might go with it.

For the same sort of theme but much easier play, I recommend trying negotiation as a first solution to conflicts and using nonlethal violence as a last resort in defence of self or others. Of course, I would recommend that anyway for supposedly "good" characters.


Any ideas on how I can make this interesting and enjoyable in a mildly obnoxious way without being a jerk?

It seems to me that there's a contradiction in this sentence. Plus, the actual work and hard bit here is in the sacrifice to your character. What's more of a sacrifice: being sneaky for a little while, or having long in-depth conversations with your close allies (that could cost you valuable relationships) about alternative techniques?

[Ruslan]

So I decided to 'never harm another soul from full moon to full moon' so I have a month.
Slip the DM a $20 bill under the table to have him only throw zombies and constructs at you.

[Inevitability]

Imagine this, please. Your party suddenly notices your role seems to have changed from 'defender of the weak' to 'obnoxious pacifist'. You have lost your use in combat (and worse, are a detriment to the others), and are annoying and self-righteous.

What reason do they have to not knock you out or kick you out of the party, or at the very least keep you tied up for the duration of your oath?

[Aldarin]

I've had a pacifistic character in my group before.
It didn't end well for him.

[RickAllison]

I've had a pacifistic character in my group before.
It didn't end well for him.

"You won't hurt a soul, correct?"
"That is true."
"Ahhh." Cue repeated stabbings without fear of retribution!

[greenstone]

Get the party's buyin before you start.

[Ewhit]

Play a full heal priest with buffs or commands Mage with charms sleeps buffs etc

[infinitum3d]

Slip the DM a $20 bill under the table to have him only throw zombies and constructs at you.

I agree with every argument that has been proposed against Pacifism. I really do. I understand your reasons and they are valid.

My point in choosing this Atonement was so that I can try something beyond Hack and Slash. I understand that D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. But that gets boring after 20 years.

I like the idea of searching for a tomb or cemetery and only going after undead! That could be a way of laying them to rest and sounds like a good thing.

I can't just go off into a monastery for 30 days. That defeats the Atonement. The character needs to learn how to do more than just kill. That's why I chose this 'punishment'. There are ways to stay alive without killing the enemy. I just have to figure them out. Maybe it means I don't go after that werewolf. Maybe I have to focus on smaller, weaker opponents that I can catch with a net. Maybe there's some other way.

Obviously the Jerk part needs to be dropped. Maybe I have to play it more maturely...

[infinitum3d]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0568.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0569.html

[Ruslan]

I agree with every argument that has been proposed against Pacifism. I really do. I understand your reasons and they are valid.

My point in choosing this Atonement was so that I can try something beyond Hack and Slash. I understand that D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. But that gets boring after 20 years.

I like the idea of searching for a tomb or cemetery and only going after undead! That could be a way of laying them to rest and sounds like a good thing.

I can't just go off into a monastery for 30 days. That defeats the Atonement. The character needs to learn how to do more than just kill. That's why I chose this 'punishment'. There are ways to stay alive without killing the enemy. I just have to figure them out. Maybe it means I don't go after that werewolf. Maybe I have to focus on smaller, weaker opponents that I can catch with a net. Maybe there's some other way.

Obviously the Jerk part needs to be dropped. Maybe I have to play it more maturely...
Here's another idea: there are still plenty of ways to be useful without dealing damage.

- The Bless spell is still a thing.
- The Aid Another action is still a thing.
- Healing, Grappling and Tripping are all a thing.

Lead off in every battle with Bless. Party will love you for it, Bless is great at any level. Then use the Aid Another action for a couple of rounds, distracting enemies and such. Or use your attacks to shove enemies, same effect, gives advantage to fellow party members. If a party member is low on hp, heal them. If a monster gets near a squishy party member, grapple the monster and try to drag it away.

Not as efficient as a Paladin using his Smites to full effect, of course, but still some measure of contribution the party might appreciate.

[EvilAnagram]

Snip

One of the big objections is that this isn't atonement. By all means, turn inwards and look at thyself, but you aren't making up for an unjust killing by refusing to kill. Most people can get through their loves without regularly killing creatures. Returning to the baseline after such major sinning isn't atonement.

[Rhaegar]

When you are deciding how to play your character and your new pacifism you have to ask yourself two questions. First, why is your paladin out adventuring as a pacifist, and choosing to put himself in kill or be killed situations. I would expect a true pacifist to stay home and not do any adventuring. Second, why should your party keep you around vs kicking you out of the group at best, or knocking you out and leaving you at the side of the road, or at worst killing you for aiding the enemy/harming your group.

I know if I were in an adventuring party, and one of my fellow team mates turned against the team, if determined not to be mind control of any kind, they would be off the team very fast, if not dead before the next sunrise.

[Temperjoke]

Well, my first question is, have you discussed this with the rest of your party and DM? If you have, and they accept this as a proper atonement (assuming they feel that an actual atonement is necessary for the situation), then okay roll with it for yourself, but don't directly interfere with your party. It's your atonement, not theirs. Offer alternate suggestions to violent actions, such as negotiating with enemies that offer the opportunity. This could also be a good chance for the DM to expand on the story options, for all you know, he might be getting tired of a party of pillaging murderhobos disguised as holy crusaders.

As for the pacifism part, you need to decide where to draw the line. What exactly does harm mean to you? Is it inflicting actual damage to another individual, or is it only permanent damage (maiming or death, for example)? Does it include supporting those who harm others? Total pacifism would say that any violence at all, against living or unliving things (including undead or constructs) is wrong, as it is the violence itself that you are against.

Depending on where you draw the line, you could focus on the healing and support spells for your party. You have detection magics that you can use, which means other people don't have to have those spells ready. Buffing your defense and making a target of yourself can give your teammates opportunities to take advantage of. It just depends on where you draw that line.

[Demonslayer666]

A vow of pacifism is perfectly fine in my eyes for your atonement, especially if you constantly put yourself in harms way and take a lot of punishment.

Is it self-imposed or is your DM requiring it? As long as he agrees (or it's self-imposed) there nothing wrong with it at all.

I would not screw with the other party members too much though, other than trying to convince them to use diplomacy before every fight, and you continue to use it throughout combat. That's a great roleplaying opportunity.

(edit)
Oh, I would also consider breaking your vow if it comes to saving the party - even for one member, and just start your vow over.

[Aldarin]

"You won't hurt a soul, correct?"
"That is true."
"Ahhh." Cue repeated stabbings without fear of retribution!

All it took was a critical hit sneak attack in the night. Surprisingly accurate :)

[infinitum3d]

Ruslan had some great suggestions there. Any others?

I agree with everyone who says Don't be a jerk. After all, that is not in fitting with the whole Atonement thing. The Atonement is meant to be a way for the character to mature and learn and use his other strengths beside his ability to crack skulls.

Diplomacy, healing, buffs, even being a meat shield are acceptable to me. Meat shield isn't causing harm, but it is Allowing harm to occur so that's on the iffy line.

Nets, sleep spells, web, maybe even intimidation would be ok. Grapple, distraction, maybe illusions or dancing lights.

Any other ideas? Thanks gang! You're awesome!

[Inevitability]

Diplomacy, healing, buffs, even being a meat shield are acceptable to me. Meat shield isn't causing harm, but it is Allowing harm to occur so that's on the iffy line.

Technically, there'd be more harm caused if you weren't a meat shield, because then the monsters would be attacking your squishier allies.

To put it simply, the best way to minimize harm is to draw the attention of some very angry armed people (D&D logic! Yay!).

[Cayzle]

So just to try something, I've been trying to play a Pacifist. ... So I decided to 'never harm another soul from full moon to full moon' so I have a month.

I strongly urge you NOT to try to ruin the game for your fellow adventurers. If you think your philosophy is worthwhile, then be content to act as an example to others. Do not force your opinion on others.

That said, I also urge you to abandon "pacifism" and instead embrace "Life is the highest priority." If you resolve not to kill anything, then Nonlethal Violence can be fun!

First, you have all the non-combat solutions already in the game, starting with Diplomacy. Second, you have all the non-killing options, as some have suggested, including combat maneuvers and nonlethal damage.

For my recent two-part blog post on this very topic, see "You Do Not Have To Be A Murderhobo Any More (http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/book100.html)" at cayzle.com. Good luck!

[Gtdead]

So your only options is to either avoid conflict alltogether or sabotage your allies? This doesn't seem like pacifism.
Pacifism is a response to conflict. You still need to find a way to solve problems. Just not a violent way. And if it still comes down to violence and it's outside your power to stop it, try to minimize loss.
Argue in character with your party members. Tell them that you won't raise your weapon to hit another sentient being, no matter what, and if they don't like it, they should find a replacement. Instead of attacking, try to control enemies by using spells like command, hold person (if OoV), or trying to grapple/shove. Try some suppression tactics, like throwing caltrops, set the terrain on fire and warn them to stay away and that nothing will happen to them if they stop their attack and leave.

If your DM likes running a mature scenario with npcs capable of thought, then he will help you with this and try to give you some options.
If he runs a game where conflict means combat, and winning combat/getting xp means to kill all the enemies involved then it's better to retire your character for a while and play another.

Now if you just want to turn this into a comical situation, the big guy that won't hurt a fly and the other players don't have any problem with this, make them regret it.

Make fun of them and always remind them that they are bad people and they should be ashamed. Their only chance of becoming decent men again is to learn a thing or two from you. Say that enough times and after a while it will be like a bad catchy song, they won't be able to shake it off.

Remember to dust your extremely dusty bedroll when the archer is trying to take aim, replace the arrows in his quivers with carrots, saying that you always thought your mother was trying to kill you with these things when you were little, the fighter's sword with a wooden one, probably with some termites on top, grab a banjo and encourage your allies with your dissonant tunes.

You can also hide their pants when they take a bath, I doubt they will be too eager to fight without pants (lol who are you kidding, the players hardly take a bath themselves, you doubt that they will have their characters take one, and that lake water is freezing cold, screw that).

^^

[Ruslan]

infinitum3d, it's been almost a month since you started this thread, so I assume you have a few game sessions since. How's it going? Pacifism working out okay or giving the party fits?

[Thrasher92]

Is it not to hit anything or not to kill anything?

You can choose to deal non-lethal damage. In my group we simply do slightly less damage with every sword swing and rule it as they chose to hit with the flat of their blade.

Also, if that doesn't work, I certainly wouldn't impose your beliefs on anyone else but, you could just be the shield for your allies and let them do the attacking. Consider that your character my be learning "The true value of your allies in combat instead of focusing on your own power"

Perhaps your character, in story, was focusing on everything he could do on his own and his deity decided that he needed to see his strength in his allies and his deity.

Just a thought.

[Takewo]

What about talking with your party and change the tone of the campaign a little bit? As long as you don't go dungeon crawling all the time, it's easy to focus more on politics, intrigue, finding lost artifacts, I don't know, stuff that doesn't require you to participate in five combats a day.