Pathfinder 1E Losing my Pathfinder virginity ^_^

[Alishea]

So sorry if this post comes out messed up, I'm new here so give me some slack ok?

Anyway, we are starting our first pathfinder campaign in a couple weeks and I came up with a character idea finally.

I was thinking about playing a pacifist cleric. But I'm wondering what alignment would this be? I'm thinking about her having a personal philosophy much like this:

Evil is meant to be in the world, it will never end. I pity the people who end up being evil because they have to face guilt and hatred from others, this doesn't make evil ok, but it just IS. Good is easier for people to handle and is an easier path to take. Laws were created by man in order to measure actions on a scale of good-evil but laws don't always match what is morally right or wrong.

She wouldn't protest the use of violence on any side, but won't partake. She would be willing to heal the evil or good NPCs or PCs. She doesn't care that good or evil are in a balance or not.

So what does this sound like to you? Does it sound playable without being a pain the butt for the DM and the party?

This game is meant to convert a group we play D&D with into more RPers. As it stands there is NO RP in their games. It's ALL hack and slash. So I'm hoping if I take an ambitious role that they will open up too.

What do you think?

*And sorry this is long!*

 

[billd91]

Playing a pacifist is really tough in most RPGs. There's usually too much combat, even in a fairly RP-heavy one, for it to remain particularly interesting for the pacifist. There's only so much healing and supporting you can do before it gets kind of dull. There may be situations in which you really don't need to give any support (few probably, but it could happen).

Maybe consider a character who won't directly engage in hostilities but does it all by proxy - summoned creatures.

 

[Elephant]

First, welcome to ENWorld!

Second, I think a pacifist Cleric is VERY ambitious in any D&D game. It's a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, after all.

Third, going with a pacifist character in a group that's all about hack'n'slash won't go well. If they're interested in a change of pace, you might have some leverage to get them going on a different gaming style, but you definitely can't force it on them or twist their arms into changing their game plan because of your character -- think about how well a CE mass murderer would work in a party full of Paladins and LG Clerics.

I can definitely see what you're getting at, but I think you'll have better luck sitting down and talking about gaming style ("hey, can we add more social interaction and some intrigue to the game?") than trying to "push" them with character restrictions.

When that fails, kill them and take their stuff. This is D&D we're talking about, after all (Okay, Pathfinder, but "close enough").

Fourth, don't worry; your post isn't too long. This isn't a Twitter feed

 

[Alishea]

Thank you all for the welcoming!

I didn't specify, my husband is running the game since we've talked to them about needing more RP but the current DMs won't silence the people who are complaining about RP. Literally, there is one guy that will tell one of the other women to "shut up" when she attempts to do anything other than role the dice. I've never been in such a dysfunctional group but since we are new in the area this is our only option We've been looking for a year.

I think it might get monotonous as well, summoning doesn't sound like my style though. I tend to make a characters personal philosophy then pick their class and race. The DM is requiring us to have a history, a list of likes and dislikes and a fear. (This is to add more opportunity to role play as well). So I'd like something that is well thought out, but I'm having a creative block.

I've played the rouge types, I do well with high charisma characters, and I play mostly support roles (bards, warlock etc). I'd like to do something out of the box, I had initially thought Barbarian but was heavily suggested to play the Cleric (possibly because we may not have someone willing to play one). So I just don't know! I'd like to play something mildly quirky, without being a pain in the butt (I don't want to be the CE in a group of LG!)

So any advice is GREATLY appreciated!!

 

[OnlineDM]

First, welcome!

Second, I think you and your husband will be happier if you can find a different group to play with, but that's more of a long-term goal rather than something for this particular campaign. Don't give up on that, though!

Third, if you plan to play your cleric as someone who opposes violence but won't stop others from committing it, give some thought to her motivation for adventuring. If that's her view on the world, why is she tagging along with a bunch of people who, in her mind, are senseless slaughterers? Is she trying to convert them to pacifism? Is that really the way she would want to spend her time?

If this character were a real person, I can't see her spending her time with adventurers who are comfortable killing bad guys. I can see her as an interesting NPC to interact with, but it's hard to envision her as a PC who goes on adventures.

So there's your challenge, from my point of view: Establish why this character is adventuring with a group that's comfortable with violence. If you can do that convincingly, then you can find a way to make her fit into the party. If not, she's going to have a hard time meshing, I think, and will probably lead to a lot of intra-party conflict.

Are you envisioning her as healing the "bad guys" during or after a battle just as much as she heals the other PCs? How will the other PCs react to that?

 

[Tovec]

I have done a semi-pacifist and I think either Monk or Cleric is the way to go wit that in mind.

As far as alignment I would say Neutral, the Obad-Hai, get off my lawn neutral or the Io all other alignments are extremes neutral are two such examples.

I would say neutral devoted to neutrality neutral.

As far as what it means to play the character, I would just try and council then, remind them that evil has always existed and will always exist and while they may try and struggle against it, it is better to try and find a way to live with it.

If you can keep the character cohesively in your mind, and find a DM who wouldn't penalize your choice by making every fight one you must engage in or die then you'll be fine.

 

[Erelamar]

I played a form of pacifist character before. I was a Diviner that would not physically harm (hit point damage) anyone/anything. It was challenging, but ultimately very rewarding. But to play such a character you almost definitely must be a spellcaster.

My duties in the group involved the majority of information gathering, movement, and utility (Detect Thoughts, Locate Object, Featherfall, Spider Climb, Detect Secret Doors, Knock, Rope Trick, etc) because I didn't have to load up any slots on combat spells. That being said I would also buff the party (Haste, Heroism, Magic Weapon, Bear's Endurance, etc), and had a small amount of offense for the first part of the game (Suggestion, Hold Person, Glitterdust, Color Spray). Spells that would incapacitate without injury. This was made easier by the use of the Persistent Spell metamagic feat (APG, pg 167) and a lesser rod of.

In the second half of the game I did pick up Merciful Spell (APG, pg 165) that allowed me to start chucking out Fireballs and the like that would do non-lethal damage.

The party did have a tendency to gripe during some combats when I was hiding after running out of buffs and enchantments, but that eventually tappered off.

My alignment was Neutral Good as I tried to help most people and do the right thing, but occasionally broke the law to do it. At the same time not being ideologically opposed to the laws themselves.

The description you have given of your character makes me think that you are going to be Lawful Neutral. Not caring about good or evil, and having a strict code of conduct that you submit yourself to.

As a Cleric it should not be difficult to get away with this type of character. If you heal your fellow party members and get rid of their status conditions they really don't have much to complain about as you are doing your primary job.

 

[Alishea]

Third, if you plan to play your cleric as someone who opposes violence but won't stop others from committing it, give some thought to her motivation for adventuring. If that's her view on the world, why is she tagging along with a bunch of people who, in her mind, are senseless slaughterers? Is she trying to convert them to pacifism? Is that really the way she would want to spend her time?


So there's your challenge, from my point of view: Establish why this character is adventuring with a group that's comfortable with violence.

Are you envisioning her as healing the "bad guys" during or after a battle just as much as she heals the other PCs? How will the other PCs react to that?

WOW thank you so much. I didn't think of it that way. It wouldn't make sense for her to parade around with them while they slaughter things. This does sound harder than I intially thought it would be! The world that the DM has created is like Pre-Apocalyptic and we are trying to prevent the Apocalypse (there is more to it than just that, but that sums it up). So maybe I could have her looking for lost family members, because she wouldn't care if evil took over the world.

I think she would heal the bad guys after battle and she knew she could keep them safe (knowing that if they tried to attack again that they would be killed by the party)

But you've given me a lot to think about and I appreciate that! This idea is so out of my norm that I'm having difficulty grasping it, kwim?

 

[Alishea]

Erelamar, did you have any issues with the "why" of the adventuring? Like OnlineDM was saying it doesn't make a lot of sense for her to even travel with these ruffians (lol).

My other idea was for her to travel in order to "lead by example" she doesn't have to be preachy but maybe she is running around trying to show a different way of being?

I dunno lol everything is getting muddled in my head.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

One of the characters in the Legacy of Fire game I run is a half-orc rogue. He's got a really good backstory where-in the persecution he suffered as a child because of his race gave him a very strong appreciation for the value of every race - even the monstrous ones. So he refuses to do lethal damage, and speaks out strongly against slaying any but the most evil creatures once they're rendered helpless. It's created some very good role play with the party, introducing some real moral struggles and even leading the other members to think a bit before slaying foes outright.

This dynamic is enhanced by the fact that he's one of the most effective combatants in the party - he uses a sap and sets himself up to do non-lethal precision damage on top of his regular damage. Additionally, he's got the half-orc's Intimidate bonus and a decent Charisma, and took the Enforcer feat from the APG. So he goes in and smacks the foe about the head and shoulders and gives them the Shaken condition for most if not all of the encounter. Most of the enemies end up unconscious rather than dead, and he (and the party) then try to figure out how to render them harmless rather than slaying them outright.

There've been a few instances where this led to party disagreement, but the group expects a certain amount of that and are really good about keeping it limited to role play and not personal. On at least one occasion it worked very much to their benefit (extra XP for rescuing the lycanthrope and turning him over for treatment). They fought a Peryton and knocked it out, but the creature's madness made it irredeemably evil, causing much angst as the group decided that it had to be put down - then they snuck the corpse out of the village and gave it a funeral.

 

[Caerin]

How does your character feel about enchantments? That might be another way you can participate- you can try to charm or stop enemies from fighting.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Some good things pointed out -- most of the stuff I would have already.

A pacifist is fine ... but difficult, as stated before. Consider this: if you're trying to prevent the apocalypse, by standing by and not actively stopping agents of evil, are YOU helping to further the apocalypse? Are you making the world a worse place? I think the character could be interesting if she struggles with her philosophy, and finds that keeping to it strictly may do more harm than good.

There are PLENTY of cleric-y ways to deal with enemies that do not kill them. Hold person is your friend. Silence can help shut down evil spellcasters harming your friends. You might choose a domain that grants you spells that enthrall people -- Oracle of the Heavens, if you choose to go Oracle, has a couple of these that could really shut bad guys down WITHOUT massacres.

Are you willing to consider an arcane caster, at all? The Witch has a really nice selection of charm spells, plus pretty good healing ability ... you could really have lots of options for buffing your party, debuffing enemies, and NOT actively harming anyone.

Also: if ANYONE in your group tells someone else to shut up, tell THEM to shut up and tell the person to keep doing what they want to do. That is completely inappropriate. If they continue, ask a paladin to come smite them.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

There are a few other threads here on ENWorld that deal with the issue of too much violence and how to tone it down. Here's one that I was involved in:

Always With The Killing

It might have some advice about how to calm down the belligerent.

And yeah, I have no respect for the guy who shouts other people down. Especially if he's only shouting the women down. He needs to shape up and be a decent social creature, or be shunned completely.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

Also: if ANYONE in your group tells someone else to shut up, tell THEM to shut up and tell the person to keep doing what they want to do. That is completely inappropriate. If they continue, ask a paladin to come smite them.

And yeah, I have no respect for the guy who shouts other people down. Especially if he's only shouting the women down. He needs to shape up and be a decent social creature, or be shunned completely.

This.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Literally, there is one guy that will tell one of the other women to "shut up" when she attempts to do anything other than role the dice.

If you can't get rid of this guy, your husband needs to talk with him out of game, away from everyone else, before the game gets started. He should say "I'm going to run something different, something that isn't that combat-oriented. [The shouted-at player] is role-playing like how I'm going to run my game and I don't want you telling her to stop." Hopefully he'll volunteer to not play, but if that doesn't work, maybe he'll change his style (yeah, probably not). The DM should get him to agree beforehand that he won't shut other people up. If he does, the DM should say "Mr. X, you agreed to not do that. If you do it again I'm going to ask you to leave."

This is a rather simplified/childish way of presenting it, but the basic premises are sound. Get the difficult player's agreement before the game that he will cooperate AND get him to agree what will happen if he doesn't.

So I just don't know! I'd like to play something mildly quirky, without being a pain in the butt (I don't want to be the CE in a group of LG!)

So any advice is GREATLY appreciated!!

What about playing a Lawful Evil Cleric who needs to keep everyone alive until, on a major holiday, her deity swoops in on a fiery chariot to collect their living souls?

This might not be practical, but it sounds like a fun "secret" as to why your cleric would keep enemies alive.

 

[Alishea]

Thank you all so much for your input!! I talked with my husband about it to and he thinks much of the same things as you all do. So I guess I'm back to the drawing board, simply because I can't seem to find a reason that she would even be adventuring. At least nothing that makes sense to me.

But I appreciate all the help! It's been so nice to talk to REAL people that understand D&D to be more than hack and slash. I think making the back story and the character's personality is the most appealing part of character creation, except in this instance when I'm stuck LOL

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Thank you all so much for your input!! I talked with my husband about it to and he thinks much of the same things as you all do. So I guess I'm back to the drawing board, simply because I can't seem to find a reason that she would even be adventuring. At least nothing that makes sense to me.

Oh, good - pacifism as a defining character trait tends to work much better in novels than it does in an actual RPG.

 

[Alishea]

There are a few other threads here on ENWorld that deal with the issue of too much violence and how to tone it down. Here's one that I was involved in:

Always With The Killing

It might have some advice about how to calm down the belligerent.

And yeah, I have no respect for the guy who shouts other people down. Especially if he's only shouting the women down. He needs to shape up and be a decent social creature, or be shunned completely.

Ugh I KNOW!! He bothers me so much. And I'm kind of a pacifist myself but I told my husband that if he talked to me that way there would be fist to cuffs lol. I'm used to playing in groups that are excited to have a female in the group (I assume you all like our unique perspective on things), so I've never been so shocked! But this group has problems playing their own character as well, apparently women are incapable of playing D&D properly . I'm not the kind to just roll over and take it so there have been quite a few times when they will say "The bard wants to move here and cast..." And I will jump in and ask when their character died and became a bard. Hands off my mini, and leave my character sheet alone!

I will check out that link as well and probably get my husband to look at it too. Thank you!

 

[Alishea]

If you can't get rid of this guy, your husband needs to talk with him out of game, away from everyone else, before the game gets started. He should say "I'm going to run something different, something that isn't that combat-oriented. [The shouted-at player] is role-playing like how I'm going to run my game and I don't want you telling her to stop." Hopefully he'll volunteer to not play, but if that doesn't work, maybe he'll change his style (yeah, probably not). The DM should get him to agree beforehand that he won't shut other people up. If he does, the DM should say "Mr. X, you agreed to not do that. If you do it again I'm going to ask you to leave."

This is a rather simplified/childish way of presenting it, but the basic premises are sound. Get the difficult player's agreement before the game that he will cooperate AND get him to agree what will happen if he doesn't.

What about playing a Lawful Evil Cleric who needs to keep everyone alive until, on a major holiday, her deity swoops in on a fiery chariot to collect their living souls?

This might not be practical, but it sounds like a fun "secret" as to why your cleric would keep enemies alive.

I think my hubby would nix that, he is wanting no evil characters for our first learning campaign. But I do have to say that is HILARIOUS, and I will be storing it for later use.

 

[Alishea]

Oh and I do have to say, that if I could get the chance I would totally kill that dudes character.

I know it breaks all the player/character knowledge rules, but I just want to do it ONCE.

lol