Psychopacifist clerics

I have a hard time with a pacifist being so intolerant that he can't associate with others who kill.

I have a hard time with a pacifist being so tolerant that he can associate with others who kill.

We are not talking jaywalking here. We are talking killing.

I think that we have so much violence in our media (games, TV, movies, etc.) that some people have no comprehension what real violence is and what real pacifism is. Many people would crap their pants if faced with real violence, let alone how a pacifist would react to it.

I think your opinion that it's reasonable for pacifists to adventure in D&D here has no real moral compass to it. It's like roleplaying a Lawful Good baby killer. Err, what??? The concepts are diametrically opposed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's that hard to believe?

Explain how doctors--who take the Hippocratic Oath--are able to operate as medics in times of war?

Your answer, and reconciliation of this seeming paradox, will enlighten and explain all.
 

I have a lot of trouble with the pacifist healer, and in my games I have strongly discouraged it (and when I strongly discourage something, my players are smart enough to avoid it).

I can't figure out how it can be role played, and I utterly hate the mechanics. You hit that goblin who took some damage but wasn't yet bloodied, and you obliterated it doing enough damage. Two thumbs up you're good to go. But that bloodied zombie hulk over there, happened to walk into your zone and took 9 points of damage that doesn't even appear as a scratch on his hit point tally, doesn't matter you're stunned.

I know it's not a popular idea to ban stuff, but I'm really not fond of the healic builds with pacifist healer and optimized astral seals. One person says, hey let's focus fire and take this guy down quick, cleric says no can do, he's bloodied, I'm just gonna hit this dude over here, or give you guys some healing. Sigh, fine we'll take the healing, I wonder why I have these 8 surges on my character sheet. Hey can I spend a surge to do extra damage to that guy? No. Can I spend it so this healic can hurt that guy without being stunned. No. Fine, I attack. Oh look I got some more healing I didn't need, and get to make a saving throw I didn't need, yippee dogs. 8 more rounds of this and he should be dead.

Sorry to be melodramatic. The pacifist healic build just rubs me the wrong way.
 

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.
They weren't significantly injured when I attacked them. Sure, the divine power of my god was overwhelming and it's certainly sad that they were so overcome that they fell unconscious/died from the experience, but I didn't violate my oath, so no divine retribution.

Or, you know, basically anything similar.

(Please note that I'm just fluffing to the mechanics. I'm not trying to justify the use of the word "pacifist", as that is probably unjustifiable for reasons explained by KarinsDad and others.)

I know it's not a popular idea to ban stuff, but I'm really not fond of the healic builds with pacifist healer and optimized astral seals. One person says, hey let's focus fire and take this guy down quick, cleric says no can do, he's bloodied, I'm just gonna hit this dude over here, or give you guys some healing. Sigh, fine we'll take the healing, I wonder why I have these 8 surges on my character sheet. Hey can I spend a surge to do extra damage to that guy? No. Can I spend it so this healic can hurt that guy without being stunned. No. Fine, I attack. Oh look I got some more healing I didn't need, and get to make a saving throw I didn't need, yippee dogs. 8 more rounds of this and he should be dead.

Sorry to be melodramatic. The pacifist healic build just rubs me the wrong way.
From a mechanical point of view, the Pacifist Cleric build is quite viable in a 6 member party and decent in a 5 member party, as long as the rest of the party is willing to follow his lead. Astral Seal, on a hit, lowers an enemy's defenses by 2. If the enemy is normally hit 50% of the time, he is now hit 60% of the time, an increase of 20%. So, against a standard enemy, the Cleric can claim 20% of the damage dealt by those allies who attack the penalized enemy--in a 5 man party where everyone focuses fire, that averages 100% of an ally's damage that the Cleric has contributed (on average, he'll have turned 1 of 5 attacks from a miss to a hit). In a 4 man party, it's 80%, which is reasonable for a leader. Of course, there's a decent amount of variance on exactly what percentage the Cleric is helping with as enemy defenses will vary, and a huge amount of variance on how much his allies will focus fire (or can--if three attacks kill the enemy, obviously the 4th and 5th can't target it). However, those considerations are partially offset by Astral Seal being extra accurate, and further compensated by the healing the power provides.

Similarly, encounter powers that grant stat-mod penalties to defenses (Bane) have a multiplicative effect on party damage, and can be devastating if the party focuses fire. Encounter powers that inflict vulnerability all damage (Exacting Utterance) are nowhere near as potent, but can contribute a large enough amount of damage to be worthwhile, and are potentially superior in an extremely accurate party. Other pacifist powers are probably not worth bothering with from a party DPR standpoint; whether the control and buffing they offer is worth the damage loss is hard to judge, but I believe it is not, and I believe the popularity of these powers contributes to the negative image that "Healics" suffer from.

Built well, placed in a large enough group, and played in a similar style to that of a Warlord--pick the priority accessible target, grant the party large bonuses against that target, get the party to focus fire on the target to exercise those bonuses--the Pacifist Cleric can more than hold his own on the DPR front despite a negligible direct contribution of damage. After all, Bane is essentially the bonus from Warlord's Favor, but applied to the whole party (including the Cleric), with no range limitations, and an extra bonus of a potent debuff to the enemy's attacks should it manage to live long enough to make any. That's worth the loss of 2[W]+stat direct damage.

t~
 

I have a hard time with a pacifist being so tolerant that he can associate with others who kill.

But nowhere in D&D 4e is the term "pacifist" defined, so we are stuck using real world definitions, and that just doesn't work here.

There are plenty of real world pacifists who see nothing wrong with eating meat, but to Jainism the practice is abhorrent. Which one qualifies for Pacifist Healer in your book?

Black and White distinctions work fine in D&D, but they have to make sense in the specific campaign world in question. Just think of the Melnibonean ethos, where the grand cosmic war is between Law and Chaos rather than between Good and Evil.

In short, if a particular DM believes that Pacifism in the campaign world means "not killing members of one's own species" then THAT is what Pacifism means, and THAT is the most sensible basis for deciding whether Pacifist Healer makes sense.
 


It's that hard to believe?

Explain how doctors--who take the Hippocratic Oath--are able to operate as medics in times of war?

Your answer, and reconciliation of this seeming paradox, will enlighten and explain all.

Are we reading the same Hippocratic Oath? What part of it indicates that a medic should not take care of his patients in times of war? Vowing to not harm patients in the practice of medicine is not the same as being opposed to violence. Not all doctors are pacifists. In fact, many doctors are probably pragmatists.

There is no paradox here.
 


I have a hard time with a pacifist being so intolerant that he can't associate with others who kill.

Jay

It's the same concept as a person who is vehemently opposed to rape, and how frequently and intimately they choose to associate with people they know to be or have been rapists. The specifics are different, and it's possible that their moral weight is different, but the concepts are the same.

And now I'm done.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top