Pacifists are fun...

[SangoProduction]

Until you realize you are playing D&D, and the entire point is to run in to monsters' homes and murder them to take their stuff. So that you can run in to bigger monsters' homes and kill them to take *their* stuff.

I spent about 30 minutes writing a backstory for a cleric of Ilmater when I realized: Hey, you just made someone with a distrust of humans, and has chosen to "turn the other cheek" rather than fight. Congratulations, you are completely unfit for joining the party. At least, in the middle of a game, where you don't get to have a shared backstory with the rest of the players.

[Elricaltovilla]

Yeah, good luck with that.

I suppose you could go the "technical pacifist" route, using tripping, grappling, or dirty tricks to debilitate enemies without actually causing physical damage. Combine that with a variety of buff and utility spells and some diplomancy and you can still contribute to a party without actually being violent yourself. The key is to not have your character prevent others from engaging in violence. It only becomes a problem if your character concept interferes with another player's ability to play their character as they see fit.

And being "anti-human" isn't so bad when there are plenty of great non-human races to choose from.

[Maat Mons]

the "technical pacifist" route

I'm a big fan of the Vash the Stampede school of pacifism. You see, he ultimately solved every problem that came his way by filling people with bullets. Usually a lot of people. But he still called himself a pacifist, and so did all the other characters.

[Malphegor]

I've always wanted to do a pacifism game where the whole party are sworn to do no harm except in specific situations. Kind of like an Asimov's laws of robotics situation.

But it really does need full party support.

Maybe if I play a Warforged. "This unit cannot willingly do an action that would cause harm to a humanoid. This unit cannot willingly harm itself unless not doing so would break the first Law. This unit cannot disobey a humanoid unless that would break the First and Second Laws."

[Florian]

Yeah, stop writing NPC backstories and play the game already.

[16bearswutIdo]

I'm a big fan of playing a "pacifist" that has no qualms fighting people if diplomacy fails, but focuses on combat maneuvers and non-lethal damage. It helps that the group I play with is pretty low OP, so I can get away with playing something like Monk/Rogue with Ascetic Rogue.

I also once made a Half-Orc cleric of Pelor with Vow of Peace + Vow of Nonviolence who dual-wielded tower shields. He had an AC of like 28 and a diplomacy of +15 at level 3. That guy was fun as hell to play, with enemies just breaking their weapons on him if they didn't lose their will to fight when they got within 20 feet of him.

[umbergod]

Cadderly of Carradon? Cleric of Deneir that was very pacifistic but willing to defend himself and his friends. Goes through a bit of an crisis when he realizes his "toy" is lethal when he uses it to defend himself, breaking the aggressor's nose and possibly forearm.

[Andor13]

You could always go the non-lethal damage route. "I said I wouldn't kill him, I never said I wouldn't hurt him."

[Goaty14]

You don't have to murder them. Instead, you can incapacitate them and...
1) Take all its stuff, leaving it buck-naked.
2) Tie it up, and sell it to the Nine Hells.
3) Wait for it to wake up again to XP grind
4) Tie it up, force it to listen to Nickleback until it passes out (WARNING: Only for the most EEEVIL of PCs!)
5) Force it into servitude of the local bean farmer
6) Forcibly convert it to a LG alignment.

[ThatMoonGuy]

It's doable, depending on your exact definition of a pacifist. If you're against causing direct harm yourself but isn't against others doing it, then you could just focus on being a support and face. I often play Wizards like that. No damaging spells, no weapons, but a lot of control and support spells.

Now, if you're going for a more strict definition of "pacifist", things get a little tricky. It can work in campaigns more focused on investigation and politics but if your game is going the dungeon crawler route, that would be a bit harder. Personally, I'd go for a Wizard with out of combat utility. Things like Item Crafting, teleport and things like that.

And if you're going with an even more strict definition of pacifist where you refuse to even help with violence... I guess you could go for a an out of combat healer? Not very fun nor active but sorta doable, I guess.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Could always be a thrallherd mob boss. "I don't kill people! My people kill people!"


I'm a big fan of the Vash the Stampede school of pacifism. You see, he ultimately solved every problem that came his way by filling people with bullets. Usually a lot of people. But he still called himself a pacifist, and so did all the other characters."I don't kill people! The bullets I shoot do!"

[Geddy2112]

As others have stated, it depends on your level of pacifist.

-You can kill monsters, capital E evil, constructs, dangerous animals etc just not humanoids.
-You use nonlethal damage, and other attacks/maneuvers that don't kill to stop enemies. This extends to buff spells, face/debuff, etc
-You choose to use violence only as an immediate last resort and even then you try not to kill.

Even if your character refuses to carry a weapon or take hostile actions against enemies, you can still buff, diplomance and similar things, so long as you are cool with your friends being axe wielding murderhobos.

[ShurikVch]

"technical pacifist"It reminded me of prince Philionel (http://kanzaka.wikia.com/wiki/Philionel_El_Di_Saillune) from the Slayers


https://youtu.be/FhF30HwUvtM?t=2

[Calthropstu]

Pass a fist to me, I'll pass one back.

[Azoth]

I'm a big fan of the Vash the Stampede school of pacifism. You see, he ultimately solved every problem that came his way by filling people with bullets. Usually a lot of people. But he still called himself a pacifist, and so did all the other characters.

Actually, Vash did not solve most of his issues with bullets. He also did not shoot alot of people when he did draw his gun. The only time he would fire his gun is when not doing so would lead to the deaths of others.

The first time he does so is after an entire town spends more than a day trying to kill him to collect the $$60 billion bounty on him. He fires six bullets to incapacitate an escaped convict that intentionally attacked five incapacitated women with the intent to kill them.

He routinely uses other methods to deal with people intending to only kill him. Whether it is running away, tricking them into taking themselves out, bluffing them into backing down, or putting them against each other to incapacitate each other.

There are maybe three arguable instances in Trigun where Vash uses his gun with the intention to kill.

The first is against Monev the Gale where Vash nearly kills him before coming to his senses. This is one of the first times in the series he then vanishes to deal with the mental trauma of being prepared to break his ideals.

The second is against Legato Bluesummers. His first kill since the series start. A situation where he was put in a no win scenario. Kill Legato or let two of his friends be killed. This murder broke him. It took him a long time before he could accept he did what he had to do, and that he was not a hypocrite.

The last would be when he finally confronted Knives. Even in this fight Knives was the aggressor. Vash fought with the intention to stop his brother by any means, and even here he managed to win without killing.

While Vash will fight, even with a lethal weapon, it is always a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. Even when forced to fight, to protect others and not himself, killing is something he vehemently opposes.

Now, Webster's Dictionary defines a Pacifist as:

"someone who believes that war and violence are wrong and who refuses to participate in or support a war"

I do believe Vash fulfills those criteria.

[Maat Mons]

Oh, I never said anything about him having intent to kill. What usually happens, is a lot of people wind up seriously hurt, and then there's a quick bit of dialog that amounts to "It's okay, everyone is somehow alive."

Do you know what happened to all those still-alive people after Vash went off to the next city? Most of them died of infections. Some of them were saved by amputating limbs. The common folk of Gunsmoke don't have antibiotics. They barely have food and water.

Oh, and hey. Do you know what happens to people who are living hand-to-mouth who are injured, and can't work for a while? They also can't eat for a while. And they're out on the street. If they don't succumb to their injuries, starvation and frigid desert nights may still get them.

And this isn't all just my imagination. Do you remember the city of July? The one Vash walked away from when it had been reduced to ruble, but everyone was miraculously still alive? Remember what the anime established happened after that? That's right, everyone died. Because of course they did. Vash left them all in the middle of the desert with no way to feed their massive numbers.

Basically, he spends the entire first part of the series burying his head in the sand, ignoring all the death and suffering his actions are causing just off-screen. The reason the Gung-ho Guns traumitized him is because they didn't let him have the illusion that his hands were clean.

[Azoth]

I am not arguing that Vash is not partially responsible for the deaths of countless people on planet Gunsmoke. I am arguing that Vash does not personally solve all or most of his problems by putting a lot of bullets into a lot of people.

Do people get injured trying to collect the bounty on his head? Yes.

Do people around him die? Yes. (Usually as a result of bounty hunters or the Gungho Guns).

Has he personally killed by his own decisions? Yes (Legato)

Has he killed against his will? Yes. (The first two times Knives forced the activation of his Angel Arm)

The Gungho Guns mainly torture him by pointing out that he allows alot of people to suffer and die because he won't kill. That if he would just grow a pair and kill them outright when the fight starts, others wouldn't die or suffer. He personally feels guilty and like the blood is on his hands, despite not being the one who directly killed those people.

He still meets the definition of a Pacifist as defined by Webster's Dictionary. His ideals even align with the more common idea of a pacifist. If you mean a man who does not commit violence, then he is not a pacifist.

[Erit]

I'm a big fan of the Vash the Stampede school of pacifism. You see, he ultimately solved every problem that came his way by filling people with bullets. Usually a lot of people. But he still called himself a pacifist, and so did all the other characters.

Did you and I watch the same show? Because from what I recall Vash only ever intentionally killed Legato, and that was when Legato specifically engineered the scenario to leave him with zero other options.