Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2408139" data-attributes="member: 4937">I hate to get semi-political, but 'pacifism' has a very specific meaning and I hate it when the term is misused.  It doesn't sound like from the description that any character in the group is motivated by spirituality or ideology.   If it did, I would give a different sort of advice.The basic test of whether or not someone is a pacifist is to ask them, if when they are attacked they would desire that their attacker be arrested.   If the answer is 'Yes', then they are not a true pacifist.   The reason is quite simple.   If you believe that violence is always wrong, then it must also be always wrong for everyone.   If it is always wrong for everyone, then you can't possibly desire that your attacker be arrested because, your attacker would likely resist arrest and in asking someone else to arrest your attacker you are desiring that someone else commit violence (to subdue your attacker) on your behalf.  A true pacifist cannot desire that violence be committed on his behalf.   If you aren't going to defend yourself, then you can't desire that anyone else defend you either.Now, there is a such a thing as 'diplomatic pacifism' or 'functional pacifism'.   This is when a person forgoes violence not because he believes it is wrong, but because he feels that a public commitment or vow of non-violence is the only way to protect the office that he holds from becoming mired in conflict and then unable to fulfill the necessary humanitarian mission it fulfills.   This is the sort of pacifism which is commonly held by priests, doctors, social workers, diplomats and so forth.   These sorts of people can feel that other people should defend them even though they cannot defend themselves, but not that they don't believe that it is _wrong_ for them to defend themselves - only that it is impractical for them to do so.   Note further that in extremis, when it is clear that a wrong is being perpetrated and they and they only have the power to intervene, that all the above groups will generally use violence as a last resort.    So, this is not exactly 'pacifism' either as you can't very well be a pacifist and then say violence is ok under the vague standard of 'as a last resort'. Any way, that out in the way, I basically agree with your post.Absolutely.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with going several sessions without combat.   I've done that on several occassions.   As long as everyone is having fun, what's the problem?Granted, non-combat encounters can be more difficult to create than combat encounters, but if your players are mature then its your responcibility to start developing more mature skills as a DM.   It's worth noting that although JRRT was no pacifist (he was an officer in WWI), that he felt of his works that the combat sequences were the most boring parts to write and the least interesting overall to read.   If you pay close attention to the LotR, you'll note that unlike many of his immmitators, JRRT spends virtually no time on combat sequences.   Note that JRRT always has his heroes banter with villians, and spends alot more time on the banter/confrontation than on the action and combat.   Indeed, even for battle sequences Tolkein spends far more time developing the suspence in the run up to the battle than he actually does on the battle itself.   He might spend 3-4 chapters developing the stage for the battle, and only 3-4 pages on the whole of the battle itself.   And generally, even within the battle he's far more interested in the dialogue between characters than the slaughter that those characters actually do.</blockquote>

Verification