Are we reading the same Hippocratic Oath? What part of it indicates that a medic should not take care of his patients in times of war? Vowing to not harm patients in the practice of medicine is not the same as being opposed to violence. Not all doctors are pacifists. In fact, many doctors are probably pragmatists.
There is no paradox here.
Your overall position has been very argumentative, so forgive me a rebuttal.
[Pacifism is a perfect absolute, like a Greek Logos]
Medieval bishops were forbidden to shed blood. So instead they killed with maces. Some early Catholic sects interpreted the vow of celibacy literally, "it says I can't get married, not that I can't have sex". The Shaolin, a very militant group, involved in numerous rebellions, took strict vows against 'violence', while roaming the countryside armed to the teeth.
Long story short, the world isn't as simple black and white as we would like it to be. Religious vows are manipulated like anti-pollution laws, and have been for as long as religious vows have existed.
[D&D is about protraying a serial killer]
Police break into homes, kill suspects if they feel they need to, and sieze property (they then sometimes sell that property to fund thier operations). By your standards they are evil mercenaries. Oh wait they have a warrant, that makes them good guys right? If so couldn't your evil mercenary adventurers also get an official sounding piece of paper and go from evil to good?
This argument is way too broad, and way to fragile to hang anything on. Last time I ran a module for a pick up game the Paladin asked if he could talk his way past the Kenku, to get to the undead below in the crypt. The module made no provision for such a thing, but I loved the idea, they did a favor for the kenku and skipped two needless combat encounters. (I gave them loot and xp anyway of course). My next campaign will not involve loot.
Long story short, games vary, again the real world isn't as simple as we'd like, and the game world doesn't have to be as simple as you make it out to be. Not every killing is murder, and not every game is a pure hack and slash slaughterfest (though the current module writing is trying to prove me wrong there).
[On to the feat itself]
Now is the term pacifist unfortunate? Sure, but in the real world there are a lot of groups called pacifists that by your very strict definition are not (I think only Quakers and Therevada Buddhists might meet your approval).
Do certain around the edges examples of this feat in application not make sense? Sure. Can't you poison that same "trap", or potentially subject it to mind control? If you want the system to hurt your head you don't need this feat as an excuse.
I had not thought of the feats interaction with minions, and it bugs me. I would apply the stun any time they defeated a foe, even if it wasn't bloodied before the attack.
Lastly is it that good of a feat? At 12th level an optimized Astral seal cleric will see a noteworthy 15% increase in total healing in a standard 10 round encounter (estimated 410 vs 355). But In exchange he has to micromanage his damage, and give up the ability to use some awesome prayers. Net gain? I don't think do, especially given how much overhealing this guy is probably throwing out.
I wouldn't trade consecrated ground for this feat on any character.
