A PC who wont kill

[Set]

Kinda gives me a funny feeling to realize that Jesus would be considered 'mentally ill' by some posters standards.

Anywho, the closest to 'no-killing' I ever got was a mid-level elven Wizard who had crafted a special version of Polymorph Other that would only turn people into animals, fey or sylvan humanoids. Every critter beaten got a choice, death or transformation. This was back in 2e when Polymorph included a mental transformation, so these former Orcs or whatever suddenly just 'woke up' as Elves, with no memories of their former lives. As far as they knew, they'd always been elves (or centaurs or sprites or bunny rabbits)...

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Wow, I never thought I would see this post again! And it has been Nominated too!

 

[mlund]

Kinda gives me a funny feeling to realize that Jesus would be considered 'mentally ill' by some posters standards.

The notion that Jesus forbids all killing or violence for any reason is dubious at best. However, this direction strays into real-world religion and would be best served by a thoughtful Theological debate rather than drive-by posting.

However, such discussions are not permitted on this board.

- Marty Lund

 

[Walknot]

It occurs to me that a non-killing character might actually work better in 4e. Now, anybody can do non-lethal damage without penalty, and you don't even need to declare it until the enemy actually drops.

Take Ritual Casting so that you can conjure a few Tenser's Floating Discs to ferry the prisoners back to town, and you're all set.

Of course, the default Points of Light setting doesn't really encourage such play. The half-dozen officers of the Town Guard aren't going to be best pleased when you turn up with an entire tribe of kobolds for them to arrest.

In a sense, it could make core sense to not "kill" any enemies in 4e. Both as a munchkin (strategery) and from the RP viewpoint.

For the munchkin, if there is some sort of extra 1d6 damage for non-lethal then why not? Most battles are over when all the enemies are down so what's the diff? And also for strategery purposes why not decide after the battle is "over" who to interrogate and who to coup-de-gras.

For the RP'er, if 4e extracts no "penalty" for your mercy, then all the more power to ye. Now your PC can avoid slaughter just to keep the blood off their hands (literally) or for some moral reason.

And as to a moral reason, maybe your next character sees the world black-and-white, so accepts no responsibility for any "killing blow". It would be frustrating for the group if you back off of the monsters, but no prob if the last strike is allowed as always your "nonlethal" option.

 

[roguerouge]

The notion that Jesus forbids all killing or violence for any reason is dubious at best. However, this direction strays into real-world religion and would be best served by a thoughtful Theological debate rather than drive-by posting.

However, such discussions are not permitted on this board.

- Marty Lund

Talk to the guy who incited it with his nonsense--FranktheDM--not Set, myself, or the others who have shown good restraint in not rising to his baiting. I reported his post to the moderators, but evidently it falls within their standards of what's acceptable.

 

[Dirigible]

The worlds D&D takes place in have a place for mercy, but utter refusal to kill is a mental sickness of the modern world that has little place in a world ruled by strenght of sword and spell.

Thank you R. E. Howard

I've never played a fantasy character with a code against killing (but plenty of superheroes that have). Fantasy games tend more towards wilderness and outlawry, which means taking them alive is less of an option... so unless you've got a GM that's willing to play the majority of enemies as willing to slink off once they recover from a good flat-of-sword whuppin', you're pretty much stuck.

Still, if you make that stipulation in the campaign tone, and perhaps house rule all damage to be nonlethal by default, it should be entirely possible to play Saturday Morning Kids Cartoon D&D.

 

[Jack99]

Back in 2e, one of my players often made a love cleric. If the monsters didn't take care of him, the other players usually did

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Can't say I have ever made a non-killing character. I was the type whose characters were quite oriented around dirty-fighting and very, very brutal methods of dispatching foes (its fun being NE).

 

[Callowbran]

Having a pacificst PC is a bit like having a vegetarian at a pork BBQ. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the stance, but it is tedious, and reduces the fun.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Really wouldn't be a problem in M&M, mind you. Nonlethal damage is the default, as far as the core rules and assumptions go. You can beat the crap out of villains, blast them into unconsciousness, whatever you like. . . just don't damage them, per se.