Psychopacifist clerics

[ValhallaGH]

And yet none of this discussion adresses the problematic feat (Pacifist Healer, from Divine Power). With that feat, your healing powers heal an additional 1d6 + Cha; however if you deal any damage to a bloodied foe then you are Stunned.

...

That makes no sense, at all. Which is why I refer people to my six step program.

 

[Turtlejay]

I know that hearing 'a wizard did it' is tiresome, but really. . .that is the explanation. It is magic. Divine magic. Your PC takes a feat. That feat is an expression of a skill or ability that they are developing. In this case, the skill is Healing. The exact mechanics for how they are developing or learning this skill are left vague. This is a good thing. It is up to the PC and the DM, as cobuilders of the world, to establish what this means. Is it a pact? A sect of the religion? A word or power uttered during each invocation or prayer? An artifact or divine power? It could be almost anything. The result of them being a better healer is a compulsion. Divine, psychological, moral, financial, social, whatever, but it is a tradeoff like any other in the game. A Warlock can choose a pact, a fighter can choose 1 or 2 handed weapons, and a cleric can choose to be a healer over a damage dealer. That the penalty is severe is kind of moot, since DP introduced powers that do no damage and allow you to still contribute when facing bloodied enemies.

Jay

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Obviously the idea is to attach a cost to the extra healing. How about this as a House Rule?

1. Remove the clause about stunning.

2a. If the creature being attacked is not already bloodied, damage from any attack cannot reduce the creature's HP beyond bloodied during that turn.

2b. If the creature being attacked is already bloodied, damage from any attack is reduced by half.

Alternatively, either 2a or 2b (or both) could inflict a penalty to hit instead of to damage.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

You know what? I just had another idea I like even better:

If you have the Pacifist Healer feat, you have a -4 penalty to hit against creatures that have not damaged you in the encounter.

The -4 penalty is substantial, but goes away once the situation is clearly one of self defense. Granted, it adds to the bookkeeping, but I think it's more consistent with the idea of the feat.

 

[Nytmare]

I can't help but feel as though I'm missing something. What is it that doesn't make sense?

If you're a pacifist, it isn't killing that you dislike, it's any kind of violence at all. Just because there isn't a mechanic attached to all forms of violence, top to bottom, I don't see it as a fault of the class.

For just about every scenario I can think of, a pacifist character should have a problem hitting things. Even undead, even minions, and even a trap. A pacifist character should be bothered by anyone resorting to violence, even if they know that it's a necessary evil. Just because there isn't a mechanical penalty attached to it, that doesn't mean that it's okay.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can't help but feel as though I'm missing something. What is it that doesn't make sense?

If you're a pacifist, it isn't killing that you dislike, it's any kind of violence at all. Just because there isn't a mechanic attached to all forms of violence, top to bottom, I don't see it as a fault of the class.

For just about every scenario I can think of, a pacifist character should have a problem hitting things. Even undead, even minions, and even a trap. A pacifist character should be bothered by anyone resorting to violence, even if they know that it's a necessary evil. Just because there isn't a mechanical penalty attached to it, that doesn't mean that it's okay.

Well, I could easily see a pacifist not having a problem with a lot of things.

Undead aren't living things and can't be killed. Certainly wiping out a bunch of zombies might be no more morally objectionable than cutting down trees to build a road or draining a swamp. It could well depend on the type of undead and the context. Fighting a huge war against a kingdom of intelligent undead might well exceed what a pacifist might find acceptable, especially if some other option is available.

I can't see disarming a trap as even falling within the concept of violence or non-violence. Its simply a device which is hazardous. Beating on a trap with a weapon has no more moral connotations than using any other tool to accomplish a task.

I could even see a somewhat pacifist philosophy that only holds that violence between humans or maybe between certain races is objectionable and killing monsters or at least say monsters that could be considered "animals" in a loose sense was perfectly acceptable.

Overall though the whole notion of pacifism in a world filled with violently hostile monsters who by their very nature cannot be lived with peacefully is fairly untenable. In the real world pacifism makes sense. Real-world violence is essentially pointless and unproductive and it IS possible for everyone to get along without it, even if only in theory. You can't ever get along with demons, vampires, devils, and mind flayers. Maybe at best you can make some kind of truce with some of them but they are fundamentally "other" and it would be a lot like a pacifist in the real world claiming he can get along peacefully with polar bears. Those bears will simply eat you if they're hungry, its their nature.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I can't help but feel as though I'm missing something. What is it that doesn't make sense?

If you're a pacifist, it isn't killing that you dislike, it's any kind of violence at all. Just because there isn't a mechanic attached to all forms of violence, top to bottom, I don't see it as a fault of the class.

For just about every scenario I can think of, a pacifist character should have a problem hitting things. Even undead, even minions, and even a trap. A pacifist character should be bothered by anyone resorting to violence, even if they know that it's a necessary evil. Just because there isn't a mechanical penalty attached to it, that doesn't mean that it's okay.

Your conception of a pacifist character is quite narrow. In a D&D campaign, pacifism could have all sorts of meanings in addition to the one you describe: Don't kill; don't harm creatures who are not evil; don't harm creatures that have not harmed you; etc. The exact details will stem from the religious or philosophical beliefs of the pacifist. For example, a pacifist cleric of the Raven Queen would definitely have an exception for the undead -- after all, you aren't harming them, you are just sending them where they belong.

Though I have to say, I can't imagine a pacifist who isn't supposed to damage an inanimate trap. Were you serious about that part?

In any case, this is the kind of rule that brings with it all sorts of "philosophy of the game" questions that most of the rest of the rules do not. You can either accept the rule as written, house rule it, ban it, or restrict its availability to characters who meet the DM's approval. The one thing you really can't do is argue whether it makes sense outside of the context of a particular campaign.

 

[tiornys]

And yet none of this discussion adresses the problematic feat (Pacifist Healer, from Divine Power). With that feat, your healing powers heal an additional 1d6 + Cha; however if you deal any damage to a bloodied foe then you are Stunned.

...

That makes no sense, at all. Which is why I refer people to my six step program.

Pacifist Healer requires you to be a Cleric, and it only works on divine powers. One way to view it is as an oath you've taken to avoid violence against obviously weakened creatures. When you violate the oath, your deity punishes you.

t~

 

[ValhallaGH]

Pacifist Healer requires you to be a Cleric, and it only works on divine powers. One way to view it is as an oath you've taken to avoid violence against obviously weakened creatures. When you violate the oath, your deity punishes you.

t~

But, it's cool when you vaporize 537 creatures in a murderous orgy of divine fire. They weren't bloodied because minions don't get bloodied, so no foul. Please explain that.
That's the problem with Prestidigitalis's first suggestion, it ignores the whole minion issue. That's why I say you should be required to knock foes out; dealing with the complications of living but defeated foes is a major source of drawback and role playing difficulty. Certainly enough to balance an extra 1d6 / tier + Cha extra healing.

I can't help but feel as though I'm missing something. What is it that doesn't make sense?

My preceding statement should clarify it some for you, as should the OP.

If you're a pacifist, it isn't killing that you dislike, it's any kind of violence at all. ... A pacifist character should be bothered by anyone resorting to violence, even if they know that it's a necessary evil.

And for a strict pacifist, you're absolutely correct.
True pacifism is a very difficult road to walk, and I have nothing but respect for those (extremely rare) individuals that have the courage and strength of character to follow it no matter the circumstances. I'm not speaking of cowards that run but of courageous individuals that refuse to use violence but also refuse to back down from bullies and criminals.
I can't do what they do, and I respect them for it. I also think they're crazy, but it's a kind of crazy the world would probably benefit from more of.

The thing is, a strict pacifist shouldn't be an adventurer. They probably shouldn't even associate with adventurers.
Now, a loose pacifist or even a technical pacifist (the posers) could easily associate with adventurers, or even be an adventurer. I made such a character as a failed Jedi in a Saga game, and he worked out really well*; he deplored killing as a tragic destruction of a Force creature and avoided it as much as he could, to the point of wanting to dissociate himself from killers (including 3 new PCs), though he was responsible for a few deaths himself (7 over 13 levels); that didn't stop him from doing combat and doing it well.
As such, I'm cool with the concept this feat stems from but the execution is flawed. One of those instances of the mechanics not representing the flavor text, which is simply poor rules design (not insurmountable, simply poor).

*He used blasters on Stun and Stun grenades, until his ways redeemed a Sith Lord and got him one of the few Stun-setting light sabers in existence.

 

[Turtlejay]

The feat has no flavor text. A feat is all crunch, the player provides the flavor text. If your cleric can't justify why he took a feat that fundamentally alters his combat abilities, maybe he should play a more simple class, like a bow ranger.

I think getting stuck on the 'one true definition of pacifist' is just as silly as shoehorning all adventurers into one category or violent kleptomaniacs. Just because game rules dictate rules for killing and looting, that doesn't mean that your character is that paper thin:

DM: What does your character want to do.
PC: Kill things and take its stuff.
DM: But *why*?
PC: Because the rules say so?
DM: Please go. . .before I kill you and take your stuff.

PC's have goals, personalities, lives, etc. Just because a Pacifist joins an adventuing group, he is no longer a Pacifist? Maybe he is on a personal quest to uncover secret knowledge, or to spread his message. I have a hard time with a pacifist being so intolerant that he can't associate with others who kill.

Jay