Need Help with Pacifist PC

[DiceDiceBaby]

Hi all. We need real help with this.

There's a member of our playgroup who plays a pacifist PC. The character itself is not a pacifist by design, but the person in real life is.

Basically, we have the opposite problem that the usual DM has with a of a group of murderhobos who solve every problem with weapons. Now we have a solo individual who doesn't fight even when the situation calls for it.

Thing is, this PC comes up with creative and non-combat oriented solutions to nearly everything, which we like. But then said PC nearly gets killed all the time when facing stuff that cannot be reasoned with (evil or insane NPCs), because the player's real life default is conflict resolution. Unless it's an utter generic evil, like unintelligent Undead, this player doesn't fight. At all. They'd rather sit at a table and bargain with a Vampire.

This person is also a professional writer, and makes really solid characters. Kicking the player out is also not an option.

What do we do?

PS: for added irony, the PC's Class is Fighter.

[Potato_Priest]

I suspect that the solution to this problem is to talk to them about it out of character. Since this person is a pacifist and a negotiator, they will probably be very willing to have a frank discussion about what you both want out of the game, and will also probably be willing to try a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone.

Just say to them "I really appreciate how good you are at finding peaceful resolutions to conflicts, but I think it would be more fun for all of us if you helped the party in battle when a fight does break out."

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I suspect that the solution to this problem is to talk to them about it out of character. Since this person is a pacifist and a negotiator, they will probably be very willing to have a frank discussion about what you both want out of the game, and will also probably be willing to try a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone.

Just say to them "I really appreciate how good you are at finding peaceful resolutions to conflicts, but I think it would be more fun for all of us if you helped the party in battle when a fight does break out."

I agree

Also maybe ask them why they chose to be a fighter class. Maybe their motivation can be found in the original reason they chose their class

[djreynolds]

He could take the protection style. And instead of attacking, give up his attacks to disarm or trip or shove. Its in the PHB/DMG somewhere.

The new skills as feats, he could grab intimidation and scare away the enemy by giving up his attack.

He can just block the way and take the dodge action and be a meat shield and spam his reaction for protection.

[DiceDiceBaby]

Thanks for the input! Now that i think about it, the problem is probably that we want to adjust the campaign to suit the playstile of the pacifist player more. The player is well-behaved and doesn't steal the show from us, doesn't exclude us from discussions, and does fight when in dire need. The character is well written. The fighter was a NG veteran monster hunter who saw many days of battle and lost his apprentice in a fight with a werewolf. He's so traumatized that he doesn't want to fight again, but is also horribly good at killing things. Strong silent type. Problem is that most of our playgroup is combat oriented and gets bored with roleplay. The DM and I are trying to make the campaign as fun as possible for everyone, and while I personally agree with how the player operates, the PC, DM, and I in the minority. The rest of the group is out for blood and minmaxing and RP is tertiary motivation for them at best.

TL;DR - we want to either entice the PC to fight with the others or create ways where the PC is not punished, but rewarded for what we deem as exceptional RP without alienating everyone else. Preferably both.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As someone who is DMing for a pacifist PC at the moment, I'd say the best way to accommodate them (since that's what you want to do) is just to have less combat in the game, and design most combats to be things that could be resolved through peaceful means.

The main issue is if the other characters are built to only be useful in combat. It wasn't such a problem for me because, when I pitched the campaign, I told them that it would involve a lot of diplomacy so they all built characters that can contribute to that.

Other suggestions:

Run combats where 'victory' is escaping an overwhelming force or protecting civilians. Then the fighty people can cover the party's back and the pacifist can be clearing a path ahead or helping the civilians.
Use initiative order for skill challenges.
Allow the warriors to participate in sporting/gladiatorial contests voluntarily, so the pacifist can sit out or do other things.
See if the player is willing to let their character become more violent as 'character development'.

[Hrdven]

On one hand, this is very good because it will convince the other players to role play more. There are plenty of groups where all the players do nothing more than fight everything in their path, but it is rare to find a pacifist character. You can convince the other players to see this as a challenge, and focus more on rp. They will have plenty of opportunities to play murderous characters in other adventures.

On the other hand, if you feel that the player is taking too much attention, you can offer him some role play experience that he would enjoy. For example, make him end up in Carceri for one year and force him to make a pact with a evil fiend to survive ( a level in warlock). Or ask him there is a backstory he would like to follow.

[Sir cryosin]

If the party is more combat and enjoy combat. Talk to the PC and see what he has to say about they way the game is going and what the rest of the party enjoys. Because if he is a writer he probably wants to play a pacifist in a combat group.

To be honest it don't sound like you have a problem. Because you have nothing but praise for this player so how's he disrupting the game play. It sounds like you guys just don't want the deadweight that you think he is when it comes to combat. Have you talked to him maybe he's enjoying the game the way that it is right now.

[Unoriginal]

Have you told the player that there is no real "unintelligent undead" in 5e, as they have just enough mental capacities to be considered sapient?


On the other hand, I agree it doesn't seem like you have a problem.


Maybe try to convince the player to retcon his character from Fighter to Redemption Paladin? That seems like a class he'd enjoy playing.

[Jophiel]

Way back in the day, I played a pacifist character who tried to force the party to avoid combat and wasn't very useful in combat if it happened. Although, in my mind, I was all "Look at this guy roleplaying so well; I am the greatest!", in retrospect I was just bogging the party down because everyone else DID want to engage in combat when appropriate. It sounds as though your party would like to crack heads more often so I'd suggest the pressure is really on him to adjust. He could play a "no damage" support character with buffs or spells like Confusion, Hold Person, etc or even a fighter who grapples because he won't raise a weapon.

There's a place in the world for a fighter who refuses to fight but this party isn't it.

To be honest it don't sound like you have a problem. Because you have nothing but praise for this player so how's he disrupting the game play.
He said the rest of the party enjoys combat so I assumed this was an issue on that reasoning. But agreed that if everyone is okay with the status quo then leave it be.

[Sigreid]

The way I see it you have a few options.

1. Get the whole group together and decide as a group what kind of campaign you are going to have. His character would work fine, for example, in a zombie apocalypse style campaign, or a intrigue/diplomacy campaign.

2. You can let him see repeatedly that sometimes diplomacy works, but the vampire, for example, needs his snacks! This would basically be trying to drive him to acknowledge that sometimes the peaceful solution is no solution.

3. You could encourage him to rebuild to something like a life cleric where his ability to cripple and kill isn't what his character brings to the table in a violent situation. I have, in the past, for example played a character that had no combat skills to speak of and focused on manipulation and healing. She wasn't a pacifist though. She was about as evil as they come but left violence to the lesser people.

5. You could switch to something like WoD, where the setting is much more set up to accommodation that sort of degenerate behavior.

The only real problem I suppose is if the other players are scrapping for a good fight.

[Ninja_Prawn]

1. -snip-

2. -snip-

3. -snip-

5. -snip-

What happened to option 4? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

What happened to option 4? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

It's not 4 us to know.

[Sigreid]

What happened to option 4? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

Option 4 was sacrificed to dark gods in honor of this Sunday. Never forget option 4 died for your weekend!

[lunaticfringe]

Talk first, if they are unwilling to bend then just put an arrow in whatever he's in peace talks with. Problem solved.

[dejarnjc]

Ask the player if they'd be willing to re-stat their PC as an Oath of Redemption Paladin. That class has a built in mechanic to not kill enemies but to charm / knock them out instead.

The PC could also use Paladin spells to help, heal, and shield allies in combat instead of fighting.


Edit, I see that Unoriginal made the same suggestion.

[Sigreid]

Ask the player if they'd be willing to re-stat their PC as an Oath of Redemption Paladin. That class has a built in mechanic to not kill enemies but to charm / knock them out instead.

The PC could also use Paladin spells to help, heal, and shield allies in combat instead of fighting.


Edit, I see that Unoriginal made the same suggestion.

IMO the redemption pally just gives them a class that exacerbates the problem of the other party members wanting to fight.

[lunaticfringe]

IMO the redemption pally just gives them a class that exacerbates the problem of the other party members wanting to fight.

Yup. Also the great thing about this edition is Anyone Can Knock Anything Out Instead of Killing it at Anytime. Knockout Class features are stupid, it's built in already. You should tell the guy this, a lot of people miss it. People are more tolerant of of that than refusing to fight. Pull a Rurouni Kenshin a whack Mooks with a blunt sword...

[Dr. Cliché]

As others have said, I think talking to the player would be wise. Perhaps suggest that, whilst his character will obviously want to avoid conflict whenever possible, he might still want to help defend his friends if they are unable to prevent a battle.

Part of the issue, I think, is that Fighters aren't really well suited for other stuff. I guess he could take Protection as his fighting style and use Commander's Strike and Rally to help allies, but that's about it. It would be more useful if he was a caster of some kind - then he could buff/heal the party or debuff enemies without ever needing to hurt anyone.


They'd rather sit at a table and bargain with a Vampire.

I'd actually argue that this isn't nearly as strange as you'd think. As a DM, I've actually had this happen. The vampire in question literally invited the players to dinner, which remained free from hostilities. Admittedly, though, the players came back later and killed him. :smallfrown:

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Player is trying to force the table into his paradigm. That group has to deal with that, not you.

If they want combat, keep providing combat. Also provide non combat challenges.

2. PC's are allowed to die. When this PC eventually dies during a hard fight, have this person roll up another character.

3. Have the player Use the Knock Out Rule. When using a melee attack, players can declare non lethal damage on the blow that drops enemy to 0 HP.

4. The other suggestions on Shield Master, Defensive Fighting STyle, Shove, Grapple, etc are most excellent.

5. If this person is a writer, Remind Him about genre Conventions. Fighters Fight In This Genre. Switch class to Druid, Monk, Cleric, or Wizard for pacifist, or even Bard. It fits better. The UA paladin suggested above is a great idea also.

[GlenSmash!]

In your session 0 did you discuss expectations of the Game? Was the pacifist option brought up?

If you have not had a session zero you can have one at any time. It's just a discussion with the DM and Players about what you expectations for this game are. If someone has expectations that are incompatible with the rest of table, you can talk about what to do about it.

If the group decides to continue, you could try the already mentioned Oath of Redemption Paladin, or the Tranquility Monk. A life Cleric, Lore bard, Illusionist wizard, or either flavor of Druid could easily work in my opinion.

Ultimately it's a group game, and it's important that everyone is having fun. One Player shouldn't have to have fun at the expense of any other player. If that's happening a player might have to find another game.

[Arenabait]

Talk first, if they are unwilling to bend then just put an arrow in whatever he's in peace talks with. Problem solved.

Found the Murderhobo

[lunaticfringe]

Found the Murderhobo

If the situation calls for it, I read the room. As someone has stated the player is forcing their paradigm on the group. Pacifism is just as bad as a fighter who bum rushes into every encounter.

"I made a character and we are going to everything my way."

Sorry it's a group game. Serial Pacifists are easy to counter, just attack and ignore them like they are ignoring the rest of the group. Don't be that Asshat who shows up with a Knight of Solamnia Toon for a Pirate Campaign.

[RickAllison]

For a pacifist fighter, I would go with the Banneret from SCAG to be able to use archetype abilities while being a pacifist, maybe a single level of rogue for Athletics Expertise (optional), and focus on non lethal methods of subduing attackers. I see this fighter as being the one who instead of attacking will disarm his opponent, grab their weapon, and throw it somewhere they can't reach it, and grapple them.

[Unoriginal]

I'd actually argue that this isn't nearly as strange as you'd think. As a DM, I've actually had this happen. The vampire in question literally invited the players to dinner, which remained free from hostilities. Admittedly, though, the players came back later and killed him. :smallfrown:

If this vampire was like the one described in the 5e's MM, then it was wise.

Making deals with utterly malevolent supernatural entities who have no real empathy rarely ends well.

[Sigreid]

If this vampire was like the one described in the 5e's MM, then it was wise.

Making deals with utterly malevolent supernatural entities who have no real empathy rarely ends well.

That goes back to my earlier statement that a vampire can come across as reasonable and civil as you could hope for, but at the end of the day V needs his snacks. Not killing the vampire if you are capable and there is pretty much the same as feeding it more peasants.

[Dr. Cliché]

If this vampire was like the one described in the 5e's MM, then it was wise.

Statistics wise? yes. Personality wise? No.

I tend to avoid using the personalities straight out of the MM - especially for any monster important enough to have a name.

Put simply, I just feel that far too many monsters as described are either 'psychopath' or 'in it for the evils'.

[Unoriginal]

Put simply, I just feel that far too many monsters as described are either 'psychopath' or 'in it for the evils'.

Personally I think it's a good thing they choose to make the Undead like they did.


That goes back to my earlier statement that a vampire can come across as reasonable and civil as you could hope for, but at the end of the day V needs his snacks. Not killing the vampire if you are capable and there is pretty much the same as feeding it more peasants.

Being invited by a reasonable and civil vampire and having dinner without hostility with him basically describes the start of "Dracula". So yeah, pretty much the same as feeding it more peasants, or worse.

[Sigreid]

Being invited by a reasonable and civil vampire and having dinner without hostility with him basically describes the start of "Dracula". So yeah, pretty much the same as feeding it more peasants, or worse.

If I've followed the thread correctly, the party in that example went back and killed him later. They aren't responsible for any peasant deaths. The pacifist from the OP, however; specifically negotiated with the vampire to avoid having to fight him. To me that says making the decision to let people die to avoid having to fight the fight that would have saved them. I don't think a party is obligated to save the peasants just because they have the strength to kill the vampire but there's no moral high ground in not doing it.

[Lombra]

Ask your DM to involve more unintelligent or utterly evil monsters to fights so that he won't feel bad for attacking them, add hostages to promote initiative.

[Dr. Cliché]

Personally I think it's a good thing they choose to make the Undead like they did.

I think that this okay for mindless or semi-mindless undead, but not for intelligent ones like vampires.

Personally, I prefer having a bit of grey morality - as opposed to just having vampire = irredeemably evil, kill on sight.


Being invited by a reasonable and civil vampire and having dinner without hostility with him basically describes the start of "Dracula". So yeah, pretty much the same as feeding it more peasants, or worse.

In this case, the vampire in question was by no means good. However, he was a force for stability and preservation. The choice was not simply 'should we kill the evil vampire?', but rather 'could allowing this vampire to stay in power actually be the lesser evil, given the enemies that are waiting to strike if he falls'? With regard to peasants, the question becomes 'Is this guy worse for the peasants than the people/creatures who will try to gain power if he falls? What's more, if he doesn't die as cleanly as we're hoping, and we effectively trigger a civil war, how many more peasants will end up dying as the various forces fight for supremacy'?

TL:DR Killing the vampire was not an easy, consequence-free choice.

[Thrudd]

I don't see why anything needs to be done. Let him play his character how he wants, and everyone else play the characters how they want, and you should run the game the way you want. Don't adjust anything for him - he's choosing to do this, and he can choose to stop doing it if he wants. If his character gets pushed too far, maybe he'll decide to start fighting again, like Morgan in Walking Dead. Don't pull your punches, have the monsters and enemies behave in the way that makes sense for them, even if that means attacking him instead of agreeing to talk to him, or trying to stab him in the back after he talks to them, or whatever.

D&D is not really a place for a pacifist PC, but if he can make it work, good for him. If it gets his character killed, well that's a thing that happens sometimes. The other players should deal with it in-character - their characters can talk to and react to his character - maybe they get tired of never having his help in a fight, maybe they get mad at him. Nobody needs to be talked-to outside the game - there's room in the game for people to role play different personalities and choose different strategies for their characters.

[Saeviomage]

Is the non-combat stuff actually fun? The only way I could see actively wanting to cut to combat all the time would be if the DM was failing to make everything outside of combat engaging. That might be as simple as the spotlight always falling on this pacifist player because the other players recuse themselves.