-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Your opinion is appreciated
- Thread starter Triple H
- Start date
Sabaron
First Post
My opinion: If you're in a large party (more than say, 5), fine. There's others about who can kill, and so long as you have powers useful to the party, everything's fine and dandy.
If you're in a small party (5 or less), forget about it. They need everyone they can get in combat, and they can't afford some pacificistic wuss dragging them down.
Just my opinion.
If you're in a small party (5 or less), forget about it. They need everyone they can get in combat, and they can't afford some pacificistic wuss dragging them down.
Just my opinion.
There's nothing wrong with it, per se. To take an example from canon, Frodo renounced all violence after returning from Mount Doom. He even refused to help fight against Saruman and his lackeys back in the Shire, although he did help to organise the hobbits and inspire them on.
There would be nothing wrong with, say, an NPC healer who stood back and didn't do any fighting, instead saving up his/her spells to patch up the party afterwards. But that isn't really the sort of role that appeals to most players. Are you sure that you want to have the other players killing all the monsters and hogging the limelight that way, while you stay in the background?
Finally, what may happen is that a particularly ideological pacifist character wouldn't fit well in your gaming group, which will probably contain more pragmatic-minded characters. It's like trying to be an evil assassin in a good party, only the other way round. You should try to ensure that your PC can coexist with the other PCs in the group.
There would be nothing wrong with, say, an NPC healer who stood back and didn't do any fighting, instead saving up his/her spells to patch up the party afterwards. But that isn't really the sort of role that appeals to most players. Are you sure that you want to have the other players killing all the monsters and hogging the limelight that way, while you stay in the background?
Finally, what may happen is that a particularly ideological pacifist character wouldn't fit well in your gaming group, which will probably contain more pragmatic-minded characters. It's like trying to be an evil assassin in a good party, only the other way round. You should try to ensure that your PC can coexist with the other PCs in the group.
Last edited:
Zappo
Explorer
It depends on the campaign. In a mostly hack and slash campaign, you can only do this if there are enough other characters to do the killing for you. You can be useful in combat by healing, casting buff spells, or trying to subdue the enemy. If your character is so pacifist that he won't even subdue or cast buffing spells, it will be tough. If he is so pacifist that he will actually try to stop others from fighting, it will be impossible.
In a roleplaying-oriented campaign, such a character is perfectly viable. Taking away his resources from combat can allow him to become great in many other fields - healing, information gathering, enchantment, scouting, and many more. Spellcasters and rogues would be favorite. As long as there are a few other characters that can manage a combat situation, you will be fine. If your character is so pacifist that he will actually try to stop people from fighting, it may get tough every now and then, though.
In a roleplaying-oriented campaign, such a character is perfectly viable. Taking away his resources from combat can allow him to become great in many other fields - healing, information gathering, enchantment, scouting, and many more. Spellcasters and rogues would be favorite. As long as there are a few other characters that can manage a combat situation, you will be fine. If your character is so pacifist that he will actually try to stop people from fighting, it may get tough every now and then, though.
Valmur_Dwur
First Post
So what does your character do once they are subdued? Does he allow the other members to kill it in cold blood? Do you set it free or leave it tied up somewhere? Don't get me wrong if your DM doesn't work off alignments that's fine. I personally would never allow a pc not to kill, save that for the doddering old mage who just wants to find the ingridents for Lic.. I mean a potion of wonderous joy Truthful response - save the Npc's for pacifists go out and do right Even monks and paladin's understand that there is a reason for everything under the sun. Fight honorably and allow quarter but if refused send the being to its maker.
Truthful response - save the Npc's for pacifists go out and do right Even monks and paladin's understand that there is a reason for everything under the sun. Fight honorably and allow quarter but if refused send the being to its maker.Any Exceptions? I think a monk who uses Subdual Damage is cool, but will he switch to lethal in the case of say Demons, Devils or other such creatures?
Also is he a vegetarian? Not really pertinent as far as rules go, but if you simply refuse to kill at all (One wonders how you deal with 'skeeters') and not, "I refuse to risk killing somebody who may actually be innocent or may be redeemed' then I can see you conceivable eating meat, and even using lethal force against non sentient creatures. Or something that is normally seen as irrevocably evil (Like the Demons and Devils mentioned above.)
If you don't want to go the monk route I suppose you can be a caster who focuses on buffing or subduing/hindering spells. Though if it's not a curse or something and a strongly held philosophical belief held by the character one wonders what he is doing helping people kill. (Because a Bless, or a Web helps everyone else in the part frag.)
If not a caster I suppose you could use a Sap, or talk to the DM into letting you use the Quarterstaff subdually at the cost of a feat or some such. (Maybe Exotic Weapon Prof). And as already stated you could be a Cleric with probably Domains: Healing and Protection. (Cleric of Ilmater or some such.)
Also is he a vegetarian? Not really pertinent as far as rules go, but if you simply refuse to kill at all (One wonders how you deal with 'skeeters') and not, "I refuse to risk killing somebody who may actually be innocent or may be redeemed' then I can see you conceivable eating meat, and even using lethal force against non sentient creatures. Or something that is normally seen as irrevocably evil (Like the Demons and Devils mentioned above.)
If you don't want to go the monk route I suppose you can be a caster who focuses on buffing or subduing/hindering spells. Though if it's not a curse or something and a strongly held philosophical belief held by the character one wonders what he is doing helping people kill. (Because a Bless, or a Web helps everyone else in the part frag.)
If not a caster I suppose you could use a Sap, or talk to the DM into letting you use the Quarterstaff subdually at the cost of a feat or some such. (Maybe Exotic Weapon Prof). And as already stated you could be a Cleric with probably Domains: Healing and Protection. (Cleric of Ilmater or some such.)
Bagpuss
Legend
I think Sabaron hit the nail on the head. In a larger party it shouldn't be too much of a problem tactically, but I'm still not sure it isn't a problem RPwise.
Valmur_Dwur does raise some very good points, fighting to subdue is effectively the same as killing, if you then let the party finish them off. Also if your character is against killing, how long is he likely to stay with a party that spends a good deal of its time killing?
I could see a cleric who refuses to shead blood for religious reasons, but understands that others have been chosen by his god to do such tasks against evil-doers, thus allowing himself to remain a pure vessel through which his god can work wonders, being a viable character. Especially if it was fine for him to perhaps kill undead, and/or even lesser creatures (animals, beasts, etc).
That could work but I think a DM is well within his rights to veto a character that just has a blanket "No killing" rule without a detailed background and reasons, or thought into how he will react to others killing. Or if it is kill or have a party member die?
Valmur_Dwur does raise some very good points, fighting to subdue is effectively the same as killing, if you then let the party finish them off. Also if your character is against killing, how long is he likely to stay with a party that spends a good deal of its time killing?
I could see a cleric who refuses to shead blood for religious reasons, but understands that others have been chosen by his god to do such tasks against evil-doers, thus allowing himself to remain a pure vessel through which his god can work wonders, being a viable character. Especially if it was fine for him to perhaps kill undead, and/or even lesser creatures (animals, beasts, etc).
That could work but I think a DM is well within his rights to veto a character that just has a blanket "No killing" rule without a detailed background and reasons, or thought into how he will react to others killing. Or if it is kill or have a party member die?
All of the classes in 3E have combat applications, and the default CR system assumes all PCs will fight. Therefore, no, I don't think it fits the average D&D game very well, where a lot of fighting goes on. Your DM will have to make special provisions for such a character if he or she is included, such as taking into account the fact that your character will not be fighting, but may be healing or buffing the other characters instead.
Additionally, the other players may be annoyed by your PC for sapping XP and "not pulling his/her weight". I would talk it over with the DM and other players before going down this path, and see if they're willing to accomodate it. There's also a boredom issue - given the amount of time battles take up in most gaming sessions, you may want to consider what you'll be doing to amuse yourself whilst all the other players are resolving combat.
Last edited:
Lots of Possibilities here. Let's look at it from a Combat perspective first:
A rogue. A lot of their things aren't combat savvy. They can do the thief thing, but, with a Sap and sneak attack, can put anyone down. Even snip the ends of arrows off, and try to make 'Subdual' arrows (There's some enchantments for weapons that'd allow this). If the rogue can't sneak attack them (Undead, Constructs, Elementals) then go ahead, beat them down. Undead are Allready dead. Constructs never lived.
Bard. See rogue above for skills; they could be more into influencing people, inspiring them, from a more RP point of view. The bard could simply heal/buff the party, and stay Out of a fight.
Cleric. See above for better examples, but a God of Peace would make sense, instead of the cases of perhaps Pure Evil (Outsiders, Undead, etc). In 2e, Clerics didnt' use sharp weaposn because they wern't supposed to spill blood (Insert rolled eyes here).
Wizard/Sorceror. There's a feat that allows you to convert all of your spell damage into Subdual damage. Although you have to be careful Not to overdue on the subdual (It becomes lethal after hitting 0), then go for it. A subdual fireball would definetly take out a lot of people peacefully. Even spells that effect people nonharmfully (Sleep, Grease, Charm, Hold, Slow, Fear, Dominate Person, Reduce, Ray of Enfeeblement, so on). IF someone is slowed, Reduced, or Weakened, then they're more then likely to give up (Or fight even harder, like a cornered animal).
Monk. They may be so fully focused on the purity of the body and the harmony of the universe, that they do not wish to tip the balance by killing. Attacking with Subdual attacks would equate this.
Paladin. In Forgotten Realms, there's a God of Healing, and Martyrdom, Ilmater. I once had a halforc paladin in the party, who delt with Subdual damage. He used a Big Warhammer, and subdualed. Except when the party came up against a vampire (He was a short lived character, sadly; very peaceful soul).
A rogue. A lot of their things aren't combat savvy. They can do the thief thing, but, with a Sap and sneak attack, can put anyone down. Even snip the ends of arrows off, and try to make 'Subdual' arrows (There's some enchantments for weapons that'd allow this). If the rogue can't sneak attack them (Undead, Constructs, Elementals) then go ahead, beat them down. Undead are Allready dead. Constructs never lived.
Bard. See rogue above for skills; they could be more into influencing people, inspiring them, from a more RP point of view. The bard could simply heal/buff the party, and stay Out of a fight.
Cleric. See above for better examples, but a God of Peace would make sense, instead of the cases of perhaps Pure Evil (Outsiders, Undead, etc). In 2e, Clerics didnt' use sharp weaposn because they wern't supposed to spill blood (Insert rolled eyes here).
Wizard/Sorceror. There's a feat that allows you to convert all of your spell damage into Subdual damage. Although you have to be careful Not to overdue on the subdual (It becomes lethal after hitting 0), then go for it. A subdual fireball would definetly take out a lot of people peacefully. Even spells that effect people nonharmfully (Sleep, Grease, Charm, Hold, Slow, Fear, Dominate Person, Reduce, Ray of Enfeeblement, so on). IF someone is slowed, Reduced, or Weakened, then they're more then likely to give up (Or fight even harder, like a cornered animal).
Monk. They may be so fully focused on the purity of the body and the harmony of the universe, that they do not wish to tip the balance by killing. Attacking with Subdual attacks would equate this.
Paladin. In Forgotten Realms, there's a God of Healing, and Martyrdom, Ilmater. I once had a halforc paladin in the party, who delt with Subdual damage. He used a Big Warhammer, and subdualed. Except when the party came up against a vampire (He was a short lived character, sadly; very peaceful soul).
Similar Threads
