My character doesn't like killing, but party's cool with it

[Black_Zawisza]

My character doesn't want to kill intelligent beings capable of being non-Evil if he can help it (uses a Merciful weapon), but that's what frequently winds up happening in this campaign. That makes it difficult when the boss meets the above criteria, and can be taken alive, but the rest of the party doesn't care and wants him dead. What do I do about that?

And even in battles with lots of mooks where I can tell the party "these ones are mine to deal with. Don't kill them", how do I realistically RP this character? If it were me, I would be constantly asking my party to follow my example, but that'd get pretty old after a while, and at some point it'd be clear that they wouldn't be changing their ways. How could just I sit there while they kill people and violate their inalienable right to life?

[Rasman]

I'm assuming your class is Paladin or something along the lines of LG. I think your character, while noble, is also naive. I'd RP it like that, do everything in your power to just knock your opponent the hell out, rather than let them kill it. Throw yourself in front of the party to show your dedication. This will psudoforce them to think of alternatives and your DM may reward...or punish...you for your deeds. You could get valuable information about an objective because you treated your victim with more dignity than it's master did. Or, while you're trying to "protect it" it could stab you in the back and end you and you get to roll a new character.

[Ranos]

Depends. Why is this character in the party to begin with ?
If you don't have a strong reason, he leaves and you make a new one that fits better. If they've been killing non-evil, innocent people, then I guess the DM can use your PC as an antagonist from now on, possibly with the guard/paladins on his side.
If he does have a good reason, then consider whether that's a necessary evil you're willing to accept to fulfill that goal.
In the meantime, you can try to tell them about the wonders of bounties. They'll be a lot more willing to capture bad guys if there's a reward for them being alive at the end.

[Kudaku]

First of all for a mechanics concept of something like your character I'd look up the Book of Exalted Deeds, it has alot of insight into playing non-violent characters (including feats, prestige classes, new uses for skills, etc). You may already be using it but I figured I'd throw it out there for good measure.

Now for the party mechanics... I'd be hesitant to play a character like yours simply because it differs quite a bit from how most "traditionally "play dungeons and dragons (kill the -whatever-, get the loot), and that can be a bit off-putting to other players. There is a lot of potential for inter-party conflict here, so you should be careful with how you play this with other party members - try not to admonition or "preach" too much.

[Sir Swindle89]

making bad guys dead is the only real mechanical way of making sure they don't hurt you any more. So getting characters with less... We'll call it confidence in the inherent goodness of sentients to go along with your "don't kill them" idea isn't somthing they'll just accept on faith.

Your character has to pick his battles. Take the ones you knock out for questioning (that yeilds somthing good), get with your DM to have some mooks plead for mercy, maby even get some of them to convet to good and fight for you. (take the Leadership feat/ however your group handles it.)

[John Doe]

from a pure RP perspective, it would depend on just how strongly you oppose killing. Does your character not like killing, but understand why others feel they need to or is your character more of a hardliner who absolutely believes in other creatures right to live?

[Mastikator]

You may have to put yourself between your friends and your enemies.
But honestly it seems like what you have is a character who is incompatible with the rest of the party. You pay have to part ways.

You could also have a cleric put a Gease on them when they sleep that commands them not to murder.

[Godskook]

How could just I sit there while they kill people and violate their inalienable right to life?

You're grossly confused here. The crooks you're fighting are violating the rights of others, and doing so revokes their right to their own lives.

[Thrawn4]

My character doesn't want to kill intelligent beings capable of being non-Evil if he can help it

You named it. If the bad guy isn't in for talking, you can't help it. Same when you don't have a choice. Of course, that's up to your DM's discretion, so maybe your DM should change it.

How could just I sit there while they kill people and violate their inalienable right to life?

Well, inalienable is a bit of a stress, especially in a low fantasy setting. On the other hand, going around and killing everybody should entail some downsides as well.

[Black_Zawisza]

You're grossly confused here. The crooks you're fighting are violating the rights of others, and doing so revokes their right to their own lives.

According to whom? Depends on whether one thinks that the right to life is truly inalienable or not.

[Psyren]

Vow of Nonviolence will punish them for doing this, and seems to fit your character. The bonuses are nice as well (equivalent to, but not stacking with, GSF.)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Welcome to The Paladin's Dilemma - how do I follow my RP even when it conflicts with everyone else's.

As Mr. Burlew's artice points out, your PC is both a Player and a Character: one should make play decisions based on your character's RP, but you are still a Player in a cooperative game so Decide To Act Differently when you're being obnoxious.

Here, trying to force the other players in a "hack and slash" game to stop hacking and slashing is just going to end in tears. As a good first step, adopt a "save the ones we can" approach - advocate taking prisoners when possible, make plans that make taking prisoners more attractive than killing then, but always be "willing to be convinced." Look for ways to influence other characters via IC paths; for example, try to find "take them alive" bounties to cultivate the idea that living people are worth more than dead people to your mercenary party members.

Remember: this is a group activity. As soon as you realize that you're the fly in the ointment of a group, take steps to be as accomodating as possible to the dominant playstyle.

[Telonius]

So you're stuck with a party of less-than-sparkling morality? You might want to take the Roy option: they'd be worse without you. Not every character would think of things in those terms, but it might be something for yours to consider.

[Aidan305]

So you're stuck with a party of less-than-sparkling morality? You might want to take the Roy option: they'd be worse without you. Not every character would think of things in those terms, but it might be something for yours to consider.

This one actually happned to me recently. I (As a paladin) left a 4th ed group I've been playing with for the past two years and the characters immediately fell to bickering, in-fighting, trying to kill on another and making faustian pacts.

But to the OP, the bounty option is your best bet. Try and guide (not order) the party towards goals that would be best resolved by capturing rather than killing. Seek out law officials whenever you enter a new town and see if there's any outstanding bounties.

And, of course, work with the GM to ensure that there will be plot-hooks a plenty

[Cespenar]

I'd recommend using the same "dying" rules for NPCs as well. For example, if all NPCs would die not at 0 but, say, at, -5 or -10, everyone would be able to (at least potentially) spare some enemies by simply turning to attack another target when the one before them falls.

This also brings another angle to the "spare/kill" duality. When you leave the scene after downing a foe, he has a (if not equal) chance to die or recover. But, if you actively treat and stabilize them, or finish them off, the moral values of those choices are magnified. More options means better RP.

Also, there's a chance that some of your other party members who automatically kill enemies may spare the downed foes once they start to use this system. Means, for example, you could get to a position where there are one person saving your enemies, two people leaving them to their fate, and one person finishing downed enemies; instead of a "one person using merciful weapon, three people killing enemies" situation.

Not the clearest explanation, but hope this makes some sense.

[Synapse]

making bad guys dead is the only real mechanical way of making sure they don't hurt you any more. So getting characters with less... We'll call it confidence in the inherent goodness of sentients to go along with your "don't kill them" idea isn't somthing they'll just accept on faith.

Your character has to pick his battles. Take the ones you knock out for questioning (that yeilds somthing good), get with your DM to have some mooks plead for mercy, maby even get some of them to convet to good and fight for you. (take the Leadership feat/ however your group handles it.)

Bad guys of what type? If you are talking about mooks, nonlethal KO instead of lethal KO is the same, they won't be back or they'll be the same as any new mook in the future who will be thrown in anyway. If you talk about big bads and recurring villains...it's the same. Resurrection magic means it's harder to lock down a dead enemy than a live enemy if he has the outside support to back it.

[mucat]

When you designed this character, what was your plan for making mesh with the rest of the party? (Or clash with them in ways that entertained, rather than annoyed, the other players?)

If you didn't have such a plan, then it might be that your group needs to move toward designing characters together -- have the players get together and design a team, rather than everyone showing up with an individual who might have no realistic reason to work with the others.

However, if the party is already established, and you don't want to have your character split ways with the others, then you need to think first about what makes the game fun for everyone. This doesn't mean you always give in; a limited amount of intra=party conflict is fun, and makes the characters stand out as vivid personalities rather than playing pieces. But repeating the same conflict every few minutes bogs down both the action and the roleplay.

So find ways to memorably display this aspect of your character's personality, without letting it become the main focus of the game. Just like a good DM needs to give every character their share of spotlight time, a good player needs to decide when it's worth claiming the spotlight. So save your own spotlight time for scenes which can be an iconic demonstration of the character's principles. While for most routine fights, his objections kind of fade into the background. He himself will fight to subdue, not to kill, and he's not happy that his friends are using lethal force...but their shared goals are important enough to him that he doesn't lecture them every time.

If he can't realistically bend this far -- for example, if he's a good character and the others are killing innocents -- then he needs to part ways with them, or possibly try to bring them to justice. When the dust clears, one or more players will need a new character...and this time, you should think as a group when designing them.