A PC who wont kill

[ProfessorCirno]

Did he eat parts of them later while they were still alive?

Oh, no. He didn't eat humanoids. They're too neat to eat. Plus they don't taste as good as bugs.

 

[MarkB]

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.

 

[Drowbane]

I once had a monk in one of my games who wouldn't kill. He'd destroy outsiders, constructs, or undead, but if it was alive he'd go nonlethal.

I've played that monk.

Houseruled version of Vow of Non-violence / Peace (as written, but Evil Outsiders were lumped in with undead on the ok to beat down/destroy)

I was a gestalt cleric | monk... only healer in the party. We subdued a badguy (Return to the Tomb of Elemental Evil?)... some crazy wizard-type... and as I was tying him up to drag him up to town... party rogue slit his throat. After much arguing, my PC left the party.

 

[roguerouge]

In the campaign I DM of nearly two years, the lone PC has only killed one human (self-defense after NPC's mass murder) and has only killed humanoids in self-defense while arresting them for piracy, murder and slaving. She's 8th level now. And one of the signature moments of the campaign was when a Paizo goblin managed to wheedle its way into not being summarily killed and the PC spoke up that the goblins had been forced into piracy by their captain. The court then awarded her custody of the goblins and a "spiritual advisor" to mentor them.

Mentoring redemption arcs and moral dilemmas are fun, guys. You should try them.

 

[Lizard]

Okay, I have probably been watching too much Trigun lately(anime,main character, Vash, wont kill anyone no matter how vile and evil they are). But have you ever DMed for or played with, or played as a character who refused to kill Anyone. I mean, not even killing that evil to the core Drow, or even the rampaging Orc Warlord? Did the PC try to redeem these evil villains? If so, how did it go?

Not in D&D proper -- though it could be fun -- but in cyberpunk M&M and Fantasy Hero games. The key to playing such a character is not let him take the easy out and stand by while everyone ELSE slits throats. To be done well, you need to seek to prevent other PCs from engaging in mass murder.

 

[Lizard]

As i said, complete refusal to kill is a mental illness!

In the real world, sure.

But don't we roleplay to engage in fantasy?

I'm a firm believer that "He needed killin'" is a legitimate defense under some circumstances. That's why playing someone who refuses to kill is a fun, interesting, challenge.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not in D&D proper -- though it could be fun -- but in cyberpunk M&M and Fantasy Hero games. The key to playing such a character is not let him take the easy out and stand by while everyone ELSE slits throats. To be done well, you need to seek to prevent other PCs from engaging in mass murder.

And I think that only works if you have a group prepared to deal with such themes.

If you want to play a character that won't kill, you should at least ensure that the other party members and the DM can accept this and are willing to deal with the theme. Of course, you risk becoming the "splot-light hogger", which makes the entire group consensus thing even more important.

The same seems also to apply to playing Evil characters.

In essence, if you want to play a character that does not fit the standard themes and concepts your group or the game supports, you need to convince them to work with you.

That doesn't have to mean you couldn't have a Chaotic Evil murdering/back-stabbing rogue and a Lawful Good non-violent Monk in the same party. But it's better if the players intentionally play out the inherent character conflicts, instead of accidentally butting heads due to their different expectations on the game.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I think it can be done - with, as Mallus points out, DM and fellow player buy-in. I've played in groups where it could work, and in groups where it wouldn't fly at all.

 

[Mercule]

In 2e, I played a non-violent, extremely CG ranger (my handle's namesake, actually). If it wasn't undead, non-sentient, or extra-planar-like evil, he wasn't just no-kill. He was no hurt. Even under duress, he tried to keep bloodshed low.

For a primarily role-play based game, he was pure awesomeness -- especially with an "I smite thee" paladin around to act as a Law vs. Chaos foil with both being extremely Good. For a dungeon delve, he was a painful character and almost sabotaged the group. My general thought is that D&D tends toward dungeon delves more than town/diplomacy based campaigns and is a generally bad system for an internally consistant pacifist. This is doubly true for 3e and 4e with their attempts to center balance on combat ability.

 

[roguerouge]

In the real world, sure.

But don't we roleplay to engage in fantasy?

I'm a firm believer that "He needed killin'" is a legitimate defense under some circumstances. That's why playing someone who refuses to kill is a fun, interesting, challenge.

That approach has an unfortunate reputation for having a high error rate, however, as these PCs would observe.