Have you ever played a pacifist character?

[Tuzenbach]

The character goes along with the party and is very useful, but kills no creatures and doesn't even try to attack them.



Does it happen?



Discuss!!!

 

[Dandu]

You aren't a pacifist just because you don't attack people. It's more accurate to ask if anyone's played a non-violent character.

 

[Maxperson]

I never have because it's too disruptive to the premise of D&D the way it is usually played. I'd only do it if the entire group was pacifist.

 

[Tuzenbach]

I never have because it's too disruptive to the premise of D&D the way it is usually played. I'd only do it if the entire group was pacifist.

YES!!! That's just the idea. You see, I'm disruptive by nature. I'm so "outside the box", that I haven't seen the inside of the box for a couple of decades.


Should "the premise of D&D the way it is usually played" become stale or tiresome, then ways of alleviating the monotony must be found to instill new vigor into the game play. One idea I had was creating characters who gain experience in ways other than attacking. Maybe it'd be more fun to run from and evade a kobold rather that just nonchalantly extinguishing it?


LoL. I suggested this idea to a friend of mine and he proceeded to blast me into oblivion for even making that suggestion. In another discussion entirely, he was trying to tell me how good the film "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969) was. I recently had to opportunity to sit down and watch the film. Do you know what? With the exception of the final 10 minutes, the protagonists spend the bulk of the film not fighting, but running from opponents. I had to laugh.

 

[ccs]

No & I doubt I ever will as the basic premise of the game IS fighting monsters.
That said, I have played a few characters who aren't violent by nature. They tend to be explorer types. They'll fight if neccecary, even kill. But they aren't out on seek-&-destroy missions.

I'm not sure how I'll have my current character react when the party kills something not clearly a "monster".
So far all that's crossed the parties path is a (dire?) Wolf, an animated suit of armor, a beetle swarm, and a grick. (Playing CoS). And we've talked to a pair of ghost children.
Blowing away skeletons & zombies later? No problem.
Assorted viscous animals? No problem. Even eventually staking Strahd? No problem {vampires aren't people, they are monsters}

 

[Dandu]

Well, strictly speaking, there's no thing stopping you from solving problem with orcs raiding towns with a diplomatic solution...

 

[Maxperson]

YES!!! That's just the idea. You see, I'm disruptive by nature. I'm so "outside the box", that I haven't seen the inside of the box for a couple of decades.

Outside the box is fun and good. Disruptive is bad and needs to be shut down. I'm all for you having fun, and outside the box does that. However, disruptive is called disruptive because it interferes with the fun of others. That's a big no no.

Should "the premise of D&D the way it is usually played" become stale or tiresome, then ways of alleviating the monotony must be found to instill new vigor into the game play. One idea I had was creating characters who gain experience in ways other than attacking. Maybe it'd be more fun to run from and evade a kobold rather that just nonchalantly extinguishing it?

If everyone is on board for playing D&D in unusual ways, then there's no problem with it. One person doing it tends to throw a wrench into the game and I've seen it often shut a campaign down.

 

[religon]

No.

However, I did play a character… a ranger… that had a strange religious conversion. He went from a paranoid, borderline psychotic to a serene, holy warrior in a very short span. Not a pacifist, but really sought to avoid violence after his conversion experience.

The other PC's were a little miffed as I had gained some super-powers that would have been really useful in combat. I agonized over using them to their chagrin. Great role-playing for a few months.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Well, strictly speaking, there's no thing stopping you from solving problem with orcs raiding towns with a diplomatic solution...

Except the 4 or 5 other murderhobos you travel with...

Playing a pacifist PC is not in and of itself un-doable, or even problematic, but deciding to play one HAS to involve understanding and appreciating what kind of characters the rest of the players are going to play. If you're a pacifist in with a bunch of the aforementioned murderhobos then you've elected to play a PC that will be seen as useless dead weight. The other players will be keen to get into a lot of combat and your character, being a pacifist, would do what in all that combat? If you're not a healer or buffer type and instead are concentrating on attempting to reach diplomatic conclusions in the middle of freewheeling combat then your PC is almost certainly going to be seen as a burden by other players/pc's and the player is likely to see it as not much fun to play.

On the other hand, if the party and the campaign are actually geared to lots of diplomacy and RP over hack-and-slash then a pacifist PC becomes a MUCH more viable concept - even a valuable one since you can devote skills and abilities to alternatives to outright combat that will PAY OFF.

Since I've never played in or run a game that shied away from combat for any reason a pacifist character has always been a complete non-starter. It just would not make any sense except as an albatross around the neck of the game.

 

[Dandu]

At a minimum, it would work with a party that's willing to give diplomacy a shot before resorting to actual shooting.