D&D 5E Class for Pacifist

[Fimbria]

It's not exactly D&D, but I played a pacifist in Skyrim once. I was aiming for a good character, but I had to reign in my character once for violating the spirit of the oath and twice for excessive brutality. Even after that, a friend of mine still called me out for my complete lack of morals. (Even if it's my fifteenth attempt to kill a monster and I'm feeling desperate, it seems that paralyzing a monster and ordering a deer to nibble it to death is considered wrong by most standards.) The point is, not only can you play a pacifist, you have options in how to do it.

In 5th edition, there is no difference between lethal and non-lethal damage. You could build your pacifist as an ordinary warrior and declare that all your damage is non-lethal. Then your challenge is about how you choose to handle your prisoners. There's some good gaming in that. With a policy like that, you could out-good most paladins without changing a single line on your character sheet.

You could also play a control-oriented wizard. Check out Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards, because Treantmonk says it far more eloquently than I ever could. Played right, you could get an MVP award without dealing a single point of damage.
(ENWord won't let me post links, so Google it or search this forum.)

Thirdly, you could play the combat medic. Don't bother healing in combat of course, but you can cast buff spells every turn and call yourself a valuable team member. I think there's a cleric for that. It's a bit questionable whether you can call yourself a pacifist when you're standing behind the barbarian casting Haste and screaming for blood, but that's a question for people who aren't fighting trolls.

If you want to play an evil pacifist, you could play a mind control Enchantment wizard. It's not YOU who slaughtered the village, it was that troll you were talking to earlier! Like the combat medic, this one raises the question of whether a person who incites violence is as guilty as the person who carries it out. Unlike the combat medic, you get to play with mind control, and that's always fun. Taken to the logical extreme, this is basically a summoner. There are multiple character classes for that.

You may be able to get by with only attacking "acceptable" enemies. Someone who refuses to take the life of a sentient being may have no such qualms about killing animals, plants, undead, and robots. I once played a D&D paladin that way, and no one said a word.

If you have exactly the right sort of game where roleplay is king and combat rolls are few and far between, you could make a skill-oriented rogue. Maybe you're a burglar, or an adventuring archaeologist. I wouldn't recommend it, but with the right GM and the perfect campaign, you could live entirely on skill checks.

 

[gyor]

If you have SCAG you can play a Warlock of the undying, at level one it keeps undead from attacking you, protects you from disease, and gives you spare the dying.

Later you gain the ability to got without eating so you don't need to harm living creatures for food.

You get some healing tricks.

Take a single level bard for healing word and cure wounds spells.

Take the Chain Pact and summon a Sprite Familiar and when not healing or buffing, have her attack with her sleep arrows, but fluff it that she chooses to do this on her own.

Also take weapon mastery feat to gain access to nets and throw them when you don't want to use your Sprite.

 

[pdegan2814]

If you're simply looking for a character that isn't the one dealing actual damage in combat, as opposed to someone trying to avoid combat encounters completely, put me in the Lore Bard camp. Bards have access to some good control/healing/buff/debuff spells to play an excellent support role in combat, plus they can cherry-pick some spells from the other classes as well. Their inspiration abilities can be very effective, too. Plus the Lore Bard gains proficiency in a whopping SIX skills, four of which you'll have Expertise in. Given that you'll be a high-Charisma character, you'll likely have at least two of Deception, Persuasion and Intimidation, making you the go-to for social encounters. That will balance out your lesser role in combat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, originally, it was about avoiding fighting whenever possible while finding a way to still take their stuff. Since the 80's it has expanded to be many different things and what depends upon the group.

No, originally it was "Instead of killing everything with units, let's make rules so each player can focus on a single hero and use them to kill things."

Yeah, you weren't meant to fight everything, but you weren't meant to avoid combat all the time either. D&D is based of a wargame. Where killing is a core part of the game.

 

[Jaelommiss]

If you don't mind, I would like to share a pacifist-like character who I have played for the last year.

Istari, a LE human divination wizard, strictly avoids killing sentient beings for religious reasons. He accepts that others do not hold his same views and that there are extreme circumstances where slaying an intelligent being is necessary, however still tries to avoid it whenever possible. To date he has inflicted somewhere around 40 damage, and that was from firing a few Magic Missiles at ambushing owlbears. He has reached sixth level without contributing significantly during combat.

As a matter of character development, he has grown to accept that he occasionally needs to contribute in battles. While still hesitant to directly take a life, he no longer has qualms about using spells like Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern that help end a fight. Portent has also been extremely helpful from time to time. Although the party had a rough time at first, they have adapted to fighting a man down half of the time and grown to accept it as a character quirk.

The true area that he excels is outside of battle, particularly with information. Between Magic Initiate (cleric) for backstory reasons, taking a one level dip into Knowledge Cleric for ongoing plot reasons, and the Sage background, there are very few knowledge checks that he cannot pass. 1d4 (Guidance) + 5 (Int) + 3 or 6 (proficiency) means that he frequently has 10-13 before even rolling a d20. This will only grow as he advances in levels.

My DM has been generous in letting me acquire spellbooks to copy spells from, though I think that was mostly in an effort to give me offensive spells.

Cantrips - Message, Minor Illusion, Ray of Frost, Light, Guidance, Thaumaturgy, Mending, Sacred Flame, Spare the Dying
1st level - Comprehend Languages (R), Identify (R), Alarm (R), Unseen Servant (R), Illusory Script (R), Detect Magic (R), Tenser's Floating Disk (R), Find Familiar (R), Charm Person, Silent Image, Magic Missile, Bless (1/Day), Command (Domain), Protection from Evil and Good, Shield of Faith, Detect Poison and Disease (R), plus a handful of other wizard spells that don't get used often
2nd level - Suggestion, Locate Object, Detect Thoughts, Hold Person
3rd level - Leomund's Tiny Hut (R), Hypnotic Pattern

Message has allowed us to convince enemies that they are needed elsewhere by imitating their deity (with a lucky deception check), in addition to helping us plan movements when the party is split.
Minor Illusion and Silent Image should be obvious.
Guidance gets cast upwards of thirty times a session and really helps with playing a know-it-all wizard.
Thaumaturgy has been useful for helping the party intimidate others.
Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, Identify, Alarm, and Tenser's Floating Disk have all come up frequently enough just doing what their names' suggest to be worthwhile.
Unseen Servant was great for retrieving a lost chest from an elemental infested river (coupled with Locate Object), and allowed us to close and lock the door behind enemies when they walked into an ambush we set up.
Find Familiar has been the single most useful spell I've got. From aerial scouting, to distracting low intelligence predators into chasing them, to freeing tied prisoners at night, my familar almost makes up for not fighting by itself.
Charm Person does what it says on the box, though has been helpful after conventional interrogation methods fail.
Although I haven't had a chance to test most of my cleric spells yet, Bless has been handy from time to time.
Suggestion and Detect Thoughts tend to go nicely with Charm Person.
Locate Object is really great if we know what we're looking for and don't know which fork in the tunnel to take. It's also useful after water elementals destroy your boat and you need to find your valuable cargo of books before they are ruined.
Hold Person always makes a melee heavy party happy.
Leomund's Tiny Hut is another one of those rituals that is just generally useful to have.
Hypnotic Pattern ends fights without costing any lives. What's not to love?

It certainly helps that there are no other casters in the party, excluding a sorcerer focused solely on blasting everything into oblivion. By dropping spells that would generally be used for combat, I have managed to expand my capabilities to cover a wide variety of situations. Sure, a single wizard could cover some of those utility spells, but not many have space for all of them. I don't doubt that any bards or clerics in the party would feel very much like I was encroaching on them. Because the rest of the party generally prefers combat to exploration, they have no problems with my handling almost all of it.

At first it was a challenge finding ways to help without being involved in combat, but the satisfaction when it works is immense. It was shortly after the first time I managed to effortlessly defeat an entire encounter without resorting to violence or risky charisma checks that the party started respecting the playstyle.


To finally respond to the original post, I would recommend deciding why your character is a pacifist before determining class. For myself, I decided that it was religious reasons and that my character had something of an obsession with amassing knowledge. Making him a Divination Wizard with a later dip into cleric naturally followed.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I'd go with a Rogue/Monk, so you can Sneak Attack and use Stunning Fist. Also, Expertise with Intimidation and Persuasion to convince people not to fight, because that's what Pacifists do.

Failing that, Pass-A-Fist across their face.

 

[jayoungr]

I've never played a rogue, but how does Sneak Attack work with the self-defense idea? It seems like, by definition, it shouldn't be able to be be done in self-defense. (I know you can just knock the person out instead of killing them, but it's still violence.)

 

[Mercule]

It's not exactly D&D, but I played a pacifist in Skyrim once. I was aiming for a good character, but I had to reign in my character once for violating the spirit of the oath and twice for excessive brutality. Even after that, a friend of mine still called me out for my complete lack of morals. (Even if it's my fifteenth attempt to kill a monster and I'm feeling desperate, it seems that paralyzing a monster and ordering a deer to nibble it to death is considered wrong by most standards.) The point is, not only can you play a pacifist, you have options in how to do it.

In 5th edition, there is no difference between lethal and non-lethal damage. You could build your pacifist as an ordinary warrior and declare that all your damage is non-lethal. Then your challenge is about how you choose to handle your prisoners. There's some good gaming in that. With a policy like that, you could out-good most paladins without changing a single line on your character sheet.

See, this is where the definition of "pacifist" is important. Is it "code against killing" or is it "vow of non-violence"? I've always interpreted it as the latter. Fighting just as much as a normal character, but relying on non-lethal damage doesn't make one a pacifist -- unless you consider Spiderman, Batman, and Superman to be pacifists.

Beyond that, anyone who strongly holds values like that does not hang out with folks who regularly violate them. Why is the character a pacifist? It's probably something resembling "because hurting people is wrong". So, why would you spend so much time with folks (other adventurers) that don't share that compunction? Sure, they can use the line "Yeah, but they were all bad people," to justify their actions. If you could do that, you'd be gutting them, too. Instead, the pacifist character should be condemning the other PCs -- or, at least trying to convince them to change their ways.

You can probably excuse a certain amount of "excessive force", but habitual or extreme levels would not be acceptable to any true pacifist.

The other option is that you've taken a religious or philosophic vow to not shed blood. Well, that's pretty much what the 1E cleric class was, mace and all. Clearly, the vow isn't about the morality of beating people up. It's about drawing a line between yourself and others. A legalistic vow like that doesn't really warrant much discussion -- choose a blunt weapon and move on. Morally, were the Knights Templar (don't shed blood) any more pacifists than a random Crusader? Is a spiritual leader (I'm thinking ISIS) who encourages acts of violence without committing them himself any less wicked than those who do his bidding?

Which gets to the deer you used to kill your enemy. If you can compel the deer to act, it's your will that killed the enemy and you bear the weight of that action. Think Jessica Jones, only the deer is Jessica and your "pacifist" is the Purple Man.

And, this is why I say it's difficult to play D&D with a pacifist character, especially if you plan to have much advancement and/or use normal adventures.

A pacifist character might be able to head into a traditional dungeon and sleep everything in sight, take the loot and leave. That covers the bases and aversion to violence doesn't have to map to aversion to theft. Normal XP had, all around, assuming you restrain the slept folks so you don't have to kill them on the way out. Also, don't run out of spells. And... it becomes a lot more difficult to get away with as you go up in level. Plus, there's all that business about the orcs being angry and trying to hunt you down and kill you, anyway.

You can't just tag along with a party that thinks nothing of wanton violence if you have moral qualms with it. So, you're left with adventures that don't involve that.

Which means political or espionage games. I like those, and have used D&D to run them. They just tend to advance very, very slowly. The good news is that those sorts of games scale very well with any level character, so advancement isn't critical -- you can be 5th level with a duchy and it works great.

The bad news is that those sorts of games tend to be very, very sandbox-y, which means it's hard to have set "chapters" for story awards. You're very much at the whim of the GM to notice when a major milestone happens and his judgement about whether it's appropriate to award a whole level at that point. Clever (or lucky) PCs can sometimes bypass a month worth of planning by a GM in a single session. That's not bad, but it does feel very weird to gain two levels in as many sessions. Game systems that use character points of some form tend to smooth out progression much better than D&D for non-combat focused campaigns.

You can do it. It just takes a bit more understanding of the game framework and knowing which knobs to turn.

You could, potentially, get away with it if you played a healer who didn't actually have a moral issue with killing all the orcs, but viewed his pacifism as the price of his healing magic. He's completely forsaken the skills of war to be able to support those who focus on them. Now, you're the Army chaplain who comforts those going to battle in a just war against evil. Depending on your views on moral equivalency, one man's just war is another's terrorist attack or empire-building. You could also play an enchanter, bard, or some such who didn't like getting his hands dirty so never uses actual weapons or direct damage spells.

Maybe the most interesting way of doing a pacifist would be to take advantage of the extremely and explicitly abstract nature of hit points. You'd still have to get party buy-in with the moral issues, but play a monk who tries to avoid conflict but is well trained in self-defense. But... all attacks should be interpreted as non-lethal moves -- throws, pressure points, arm locks, feints, etc. that just wear down your opponent, rather than truly damaging them. Look to things like hap ki do, judo, or even some elements of goju ryu karate. All those forms have some seriously crippling moves, but one-on-one, all have the capability to either wear down your opponent's reserves or put them in a compromising position where you can cause serious pain or dislocate something with a small twitch.

 

[Mistwell]

Greetings again friends,

I had another question now. I am looking at a class that would work well for a pacifist character. I figured out a way to do so within the bounds of the game (and with a code of conduct befitting to a pacifist). However, I was wondering which class you thought would be the best for this? I am looking for certain area's, such as battlefield control and healing. As such, I am thinking either Druid or Cleric would be best so far. Any other suggestions? Thank you again in advance for the help.

Bard.

You can go a long way helping your party using a bard, without causing anyone direct harm.

Just about all class abilities can help your party without doing direct harm to a foe. First, there is Bardic Inspiration, which helps your allies a great deal (even more with Lore Bard). Jack of All Trades and Song of Rest, Expertise, Font of Inspiration, Countercharm, Magical Secrets, all of it can be highly useful while still allowing for pacifism.

Second, your best spells often do no harm. For example, just looking at first level spells: Faerie Fire is very powerful (gives a group of foes disadvantage by making them glow). Bane is great as well. Charm Person, Healing Word, Heroism, Silent Image, Longstrider, heck even Tasha's Hideous Laughter does no damage. That's a lot of highly useful choices.

Second level is about as good: Blindness/Deafness, Detect Thoughs, Enhance Ability (if you go Grapple this is great), Enthrall, Hold Person, Invisibility, Lesser Restoration, Silence, Suggestion, etc..

Third Level is roughly the same as well. Bestow Curse, Clairvoyance, Dispel Magic, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Major Image, Speak with Dead, these are all great spells for a pacifist.

I could go on for the rest of the spell levels, but looking through the spell list, I see a Pacifist would always have good choices for spells.

You might want to check out the Treatmonk guide. It's focused on Wizards, but most of the spells he mentions are available to Bards as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Page 14 of this goes into it a bit, for a cleric.

One of my favorite ideas there is going with the "trickery" angle. You could be an enchanter or a "disable-mage" and chug along just fine as long as you're not up in arms about OTHERS engaging in violence. ("I won't kill you, sir Orc, but I'm afraid I won't be able to stop my friends.") A fun idea is to uses charm and domination to turn your enemies against each other (dominate an enemy into hitting their allies: "Violence breeds violence!").

As long as you're not TOO strict about your pacifism, you should be fine. Living in a dangerous fantasy world makes forcing everyone to avoid all forms of violence pretty hard, but getting by with subdual and disabling and "lets try talking first" are all perfectly playable expressions of the concept.