A PC who wont kill

[Conaill]

What other options are available to implement a character like this?

Monks. Virtually any spellcasting class.

That's not really wat I was asking for, though...

Regardless of which standard PC class you start with, a self-imposed restriction not to kill anyone will still saddle you with a huge handicap, compared to your standard D&D "kill 'em and take their loot" character. Sure, it might be easier to implement such a character as a spellcaster, but you will still pay a significant price (spellcaster without any spells that could do lethal damage?) Monk is better, since you can actually so nonlethal damage without any penalty using unarmed attacks. You'd still have to suck up the -4 to attack with any of the monk weapons though. You also give up the benefit of the Quivering Palm class feature.

However, things like a Merciful weapon, or a Vow of XYZ can make this type of character much more viable, as they allow you to trade the non-killing restriction for some additional benefits.

 

[BullMarkOne]

There's also a feat in the book of exalted deeds that negates the penalty for doing subdual damage with normal weapons.

I was planning on taking the aforementioned feat for a fighter/rogue I was playing. The character was by no means a pacifist, but was slowly coming to find killing "people" distasteful. People meaning any humanoids that didnt look too different from him, or anyone he happened to like. I was having a blast playing the character, unfortunately the game disintegrated before I really got into playing up the transition. Pity, I may try something similar again with a different character.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The Vow of Nonviolence/Vow of Peace/Apostle of Peace PrC combo is hands down the most effective way to do this without gimping yourself. It produces a very powerful character, mechanically speaking; the major issue is to come up with some undead- and construct-killing spells, since those creatures are immune to mind-affecting spells and since you're allowed to destroy them anyway.

 

[Felix]

I wasn't sure who was supposed to understand the PC is hypocritical; the other characters, the players, the DM

The player and DM mostly, since the DM determines the Truth of the setting, and the player must work his character within that given Truth. But that's the case with any PC, hypocritical or not. Just as long as it's understood.

 

[genshou]

As a player, I had a refomed assasin who refused to kill sentient beings.

I've played one of those. He started out as an ordinary Rogue/Ranger and became an assassin (with his own race of human as his primary favoured enemy). After several character levels, he made a vow to never kill a living, sentient non-outsider again and had his katana enchanted with the merciful property. Ten levels of Bloodhound made him quite effective at it, and you should have seen how quickly he could drop a foe by ECL 30. My favourite PC ever.

So I'd say this concept can work very well, especially if the other PCs are actually friends like they should be and support each others' moral beliefs. When you've adventured with someone for years and both of you have saved each other's skin more times than you can count, what's one or two moral standards to uphold for a close friend?

The problem comes in when the PCs don't know each other well yet, or are in a group that doesn't role-play as much as they kill things.

 

[Mallus]

That's not really wat I was asking for, though...

Regardless of which standard PC class you start with, a self-imposed restriction not to kill anyone will still saddle you with a huge handicap, compared to your standard D&D "kill 'em and take their loot" character.

OK. D&D is a poor choice systemwise, for that kind of 'advatage/disadvantage' character building. That's done better under HERO.

In order for it work in D&D, you need DM (and fellow player) buy-in. But that's true for a lot of character concepts. "Paladin" can be seen as a handicap too, depending on the group.

With a willing party, I'm not so sure its a huge handicap. More like a intriguing challenge.

 

[ARandomGod]

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 once played a necromantic type who refused to kill ... He thought it was very important, indeed vitally important, that every living being remain alive so he could harness their souls to fuel his master creation...

 

[Silver Moon]

I play a lawful good cleric who will kill evil foes, but whenever possible tries to have the party use non-lethal means against neutral-aligned foes and non-evil lackeys of the evil enemy. That in and of itself is quite a challenge in D&D and requires a DM who will play along with that idea.

 

[lukelightning]

On a slight tangent, I am against giving characters mechanical advantages for things like 'codes of pacifism' and stuff like that outside of the existing structure of feats or class features, i.e. you don't get any free advantages for being pacifist if you don't have that special vow feat.

I would give occasional circumstance bonuses on things like diplomacy on captives ("they tried to kill you but I prevented them..." etc.)

 

[Steverooo]

I've played a few...

"Scout" was a 24th-Century Explorer who found "Modern Life" just too stinkin' violent, and rebelled. While he could shoot an alien beast who was trying to eat him, he preferred to do it with a tranquilizer dart... and then, he took Engineering... Rick, my GM, was the kind of guy who tried to work with you, and allow the players to have the adventure they wanted to have. My PC wanted to develop some new, non-lethal weapons, and I made up a series of tasks, and he approved them...

In the first episode, my PC had a tranquilizer rifle, and when we were attacked in a "McDugle's", ripped the table from its bolts in the floor, overturned it, and used it for cover, checked his dead buddy, then used the napkin-holder as a missile weapon. After the gunman left, he went and got his rifle.

In later episodes, he took a 24th-Century airgun, and developed an "Autoinjector Magnum" which fired Stun rounds, and used that against any non-hard targets. He also developed an Armored Hostile Environment Suit that protected him from anything short of plasma bursts, and gave him some special abilities... Of course, he was a survivor, and also carried a modified, optimized sniper rifle with a rifle-integral grenade launcher, and loaded that with Armor-Piercing, High Explosive grenades, for targets which WERE hard.

In 1e D&D, I played a pacifistic Ranger who wouldn't kill. The GM didn't work with me, and I never played with her, again, so I don't recall much. I remember him using a Spetum against an attacking Badger...

In another Sci-Fi game, I had another character who would kill, if forced to, but who used weapon tech to avoid it. She invented her own weapons, too. Tangler Grenades and Needler Pistols (along with a "Bolacaster", sort of a crossbow, to throw grenades) were her things.

I also invented "The Eternal Order of the Militant Pacifist". This bunch were in some version of a D&D world, and recognized that a pacifistic life was problematical, but persisted, nonetheless! Today, this would be a Divine Core Class, with restricted weapons (Knife - because all Commoners have'm, Club, Sling, & Staff - because anyone can find or make them, and a plethora of special weapons, such as the Sai, Ranseur, Spetum, Sap, Hookless Net, and other weapons that disarm, trip, or do non-lethal damage. Spells included all healing and "damage repair" spells (such as Restoration, for instance), as well as Charms, Holds, Sleep, Web, etc.

Non-lethal damage, disarming, tripping, etc., are all allowed, and encouraged, IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES! However, causing any lethal damage results in -1 XP/HP. Naturally, that doesn't apply to non-living Constructs/Undead.

Other weapons are generally disallowed, unless there is a good excuse. Using a bow with Sleep-arrows, for instance. Lethal weaponry can result in expulsion from the order.

More importantly, Militant Pacifists are all about fighting! These are not your Amish, these are folks who will step up and oppose the agressors! At first level they get Improved Unarmed Strike (for the no-Attacks-of-Opportunity), and Merciful Blow (no -4 to use non-lethal damage with any weapon they're proficient with). Second level brings Improved Disarm & TWF (for use with the Staff). Third level was Improved Trip and... something.

In short order, they were able to move up, disarm their opponents, knock them down, and grapple or net them. They also had a small selection of spells and healing, as well. They were more limited than Clerics, in general, but fun (to me, at least). I thought a tough-but-gentle healer was a cool idea, but I don't recall who, if anyone, ever played one... And no, I don't have the class description handy. Sorry!

Skills should be a combination of Cleric's & Rogue's. Hit Dice & BAB as the Cleric, I guess. Any armor/shield (including tower). Skill points? Probably more than the Cleric, since weapons & spells are so limited... 6-8.

Anyway, you can make one of your own, if you want. Yes, it IS possible, in D&D. And it can be fun, too!