Psychopacifist clerics

[honeybunch]

On the earlier pacifism debate, I think there are a number of definitions. The only one I could see fitting a playable D&D character would be a sort of religious pacifism. A sort of vow of pacifism, if you will.

For example, monks who take vows of silence do so to show their devotion to their God. They don't expect all the people they interact with to be silent. They simply do it out of personal devotion.

Similarly, a D&D cleric who took a "vow of pacifism" might be willing to help or even join a group of adventurers, as long as they were fighting for a cause he believed in.

Of course, even this explanation makes no sense with the current mechanics. If I were to play a pacifist cleric in D&D, I think I would not attack at all.

 

[ValhallaGH]

The problem is that it becomes mechanically unbalanced - the feat provides an overwhelming amount of healing with the downside of preventing you from damaging bloodied enemies.

A DM should be able to turn a pile of defeated-but-alive enemies into a major complication (or forty-seven). In fact, as a DM, I welcome such opportunities to make the PCs lives more difficult; they have defeated but living foes. How do they handle them? Do they take them prisoner, and if so how do they safely transport and control their prisoners? How many seek revenge? How do they seek revenge (violence, politics, defamation, alliances of power, etc)?

That's a boatload of plot hooks and RP opportunities created by the Pacifist Cleric that defeated and humiliated his foes, but didn't kill them.

In my eyes, that is at least as balanced as the original feat, and a great deal more fun to play.

 

[On Puget Sound]

One problem with that approach is that gaming groups rarely sit down together and design a party; instead, everyone makes their own character (if you're lucky, with a bit of discussion of roles) and then they find themselves together. So the shadar-kai assassin/ raven queen avenger ends up in the same party with the pacifist cleric, and every battle ends with a 45 minute argument about what to do with the prisoners.

 

[DracoSuave]

One problem with that approach is that gaming groups rarely sit down together and design a party; instead, everyone makes their own character (if you're lucky, with a bit of discussion of roles) and then they find themselves together. So the shadar-kai assassin/ raven queen avenger ends up in the same party with the pacifist cleric, and every battle ends with a 45 minute argument about what to do with the prisoners.

Sadly, designing a -party- is a lost art form.

And yet, it saves so much trouble.

 

[renau1g]

And how has D&D historically gotten around the moral dilemma of PCs fighting sentient NPCs? They called most of them evil (monsters, bandits, outlaws, cultists). When the NPC has evil tattooed on his forehead, it's all good as far as many players of PCs are concerned.
.

This reminds me of my first PC ever, a 2e paladin of Tyr. With the auto-detect evil ability I would always ask when we encountered another group on the road "Are they evil?" If so, they were smited. We were little more than bandits in that game, although we were "cleansing the land" of evil doers... with extreme prejudice.

 

[MrMyth]

A DM should be able to turn a pile of defeated-but-alive enemies into a major complication (or forty-seven). In fact, as a DM, I welcome such opportunities to make the PCs lives more difficult; they have defeated but living foes. How do they handle them? Do they take them prisoner, and if so how do they safely transport and control their prisoners? How many seek revenge? How do they seek revenge (violence, politics, defamation, alliances of power, etc)?

That's a boatload of plot hooks and RP opportunities created by the Pacifist Cleric that defeated and humiliated his foes, but didn't kill them.

Well, the party could always kill the captives later. More seriously, the DM can make interesting opportunities out of any decision the players make, and killing enemies instead of capturing them can yield similar plots from family members, organizations upset over their actions, their own newly acquired reputations, etc. The potential for what the DM might do with a plot should never serve as an excuse for the mechanical power level of a feat.

In my eyes, that is at least as balanced as the original feat, and a great deal more fun to play.

A feat such as you propose - with one of the most powerful mechanical benefits in the game, and no mechanical downsides - goes 100% against the design philosophy of 4th Edition, and I don't think any serious game designer would consider it anything close to balanced by 4E standards. Taking enemies captive has been almost entirely divorced from mechanical consequences, and done so quite deliberately, so as to allow RP, not mechanical reasons, to let a group decide whether to be taking captives or not.

If the idea of a pacifist cleric who takes people captive seems a great deal more fun to play, then play it. You don't need a feat to make such a decision for the character. And you don't need an extremely powerful bonus to healing if all it 'costs' you is roleplaying your character the way you already intended to. There needs to be a distinct mechanical cost to compensate for that, and not letting you attack bloodied enemies is the one the designers settled on. That seems fair to me.

Yes, it causes issues with minions - which I can see a variety of ways to resolve. Other than that... if all you are looking for is an excuse to RP pacifism in the way you feel is best, you can do that without ever taking this feat. If what you are looking for is all the advantages of this feat and none of the disadvantages, then I honestly don't think you'll have much sympathy in winning folks over to your cause. And if your goal is something else entirely, then I really don't know what it is.

 

[ValhallaGH]

You don't need a feat to make such a decision for the character.

So, I guess the real question is why does he feat exist at all? It is very powerful (though I hesitate to call it the most powerful in the game) and encourages a very ... odd style of gameplay, one that many find jarring and unfun.

But that is really a question for a different thread. So I'll just never take that feat, and forbid it from games I run.

Thank you, MrMyth, for helping me decide to ban this feat. Without your input I may have allowed a player to take it at some point in the future, and that would have lowered my enjoyment of the game.

 

[MrMyth]

So, I guess the real question is why does he feat exist at all?

Why do feats exist to represent being particularly skilled, or coming from a certain background, or having certain styles of training, or any other elements connected to character background? To enhance choices already made by the player. I don't need Heavy Blade Opportunity to claim my character is a master swordsman, but taking it reinforces the concept I already have in mind.

A character can play a pacifistic character without needing a feat to back it up - but taking the feat reinforces the concept and in some ways rewards them for that style of play. But it isn't required for it, and you can take people captive all day long without needing any specific feat that demands you do so.

It is very powerful (though I hesitate to call it the most powerful in the game) and encourages a very ... odd style of gameplay, one that many find jarring and unfun.

Not necessarily the most powerful in the game, but the benefit it offered is clearly among the most potent you can find in terms of raw numbers - which is why it has the downside to compensate for it.

I'm not sure what the 'odd style of gameplay' you refer to is, however. If you are referring to playing a character who uses attacks that hinder foes without dealing damage, that is something that quite a few people were rather vocally demanding before Divine Power came out, and that Divine Power finally made truly viable. This feat is obviously intended to work with that.

Obvious if someone took the feat without wanting to be in that situation, it would be jarring - but I have to imagine that's unlikely to happen. So I don't see what situation it could cause that is 'jarring' and 'unfun'? It never forces anyone to avoid dealing damage - the player does that, by choosing the feat. It doesn't enforce their behavior on anyone else in the party. What 'unfun' gameplay do you see it encouraging?

But that is really a question for a different thread. So I'll just never take that feat, and forbid it from games I run.

Thank you, MrMyth, for helping me decide to ban this feat. Without your input I may have allowed a player to take it at some point in the future, and that would have lowered my enjoyment of the game.

That's certainly your call to make, and if a feat (or other game element) does present irreconcilable differences with the DMs vision of their game, removing it is one way around it.

I'm just... still confused as to what it is about it that lessens your enjoyment of the game. Is it that you would prefer a different feat for pacifistic clerics? I can certainly understand that desire, but not sure how the mere presence of a feat that functions differently would inspire such frustration - especially if it will be your player dealing with it, rather than yourself. Do you feel the bonus it will give your player is too strong? I could understand that reasoning, perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be what you are getting at.

Opposite that, is it that the feat offends you by demanding so much for its benefit? Do you feel entitled to the power it gives you and upset at having to put up with a penalty in return for that power? Again, I could see the logic there, but it doesn't seem to fit the arguments you are making nor the concerns you have.

Is it that you feel opposed to a player refusing to damage bloodied enemies? Getting rid of the feat won't stop players from still using non-damaging powers if that fits their concept. Are you planning to remove the option entirely, and forbid PCs from using non-damaging powers? I'm still not sure why you would be opposed to that, or feel that taking away that choice for your players would substantially improve your game.

Or is it simply the potential minion issue that you find unacceptable? I can see, from your original description, how that would potentially lead to odd situations that break suspension of disbelief. But... I've always mentioned several incredibly easy ways to fix that. Surely any of those would seem a better option than just forbidding the feat to a player who wants to take it, yes? Since doing so would both remove the problem you have with it while making the player happy, after all.

I can understand not having access to that option if you are the player, and thus avoiding the feat if playing in a game where you feel it will result in weird situations for your pacifistic character. But given how easy it is to remove that possibility as a DM, what is it that makes you feel so strongly that the only answer is to forbid the feat, now and forever, for any player who might want to take it?

 

[ValhallaGH]

what is it that makes you feel so strongly that the only answer is to forbid the feat, now and forever, for any player who might want to take it?

The fact that I don't have a balanced replacement for an ability whose in-play flavor text bugs the crap out of me. By which I refer to the happily healing murderer that specializes in wiping minions and blasting foes from not bloodied to dead because beating up bloodied foes hurts his brain.

Since, as you rightly point out, the benefits are a bit too big to be balanced by lesser drawbacks (though it's not as bad as some posters claim because it only works on powers that cause the target to spend a healing surge, not healing powers like Astral Seal that merely restore a set number of hit points), the whole feat would need to be redesigned. If I'm doing that, I might as well go ahead and make it a feat that I like instead of one I can tolerate.

Until I get around to that, I'm not going to allow it.
I'm not impressed by a feat that claims to make a character into a pacifist healer and simply makes him a healer that won't deal hp damage to bloodied foes without a serious cost; there's simply too much leeway to violate the (titled) spirit while following the letter, and I don't like what that says about the actual spirit of the feat.

 

[MrMyth]

The fact that I don't have a balanced replacement for an ability whose in-play flavor text bugs the crap out of me. By which I refer to the happily healing murderer that specializes in wiping minions and blasting foes from not bloodied to dead because beating up bloodied foes hurts his brain.

Since, as you rightly point out, the benefits are a bit too big to be balanced by lesser drawbacks (though it's not as bad as some posters claim because it only works on powers that cause the target to spend a healing surge, not healing powers like Astral Seal that merely restore a set number of hit points), the whole feat would need to be redesigned. If I'm doing that, I might as well go ahead and make it a feat that I like instead of one I can tolerate.

Until I get around to that, I'm not going to allow it.
I'm not impressed by a feat that claims to make a character into a pacifist healer and simply makes him a healer that won't deal hp damage to bloodied foes without a serious cost; there's simply too much leeway to violate the (titled) spirit while following the letter, and I don't like what that says about the actual spirit of the feat.

Ok, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. Though banning the feat over a player hypothetically abusing it seems rather extreme, unless you play with particularly odd players.

But even then, why not just add your limitations to the feat? Say that any attack the player does that would actually drop an enemy must knock that enemy unconscious, or the player is stunned until the end of their next turn? So if they hit a minion without realizing it, they can choose to knock them out. If an attack somehow bypasses bloodied completely, same thing. So they can neither hurry enemies to the brink of death, nor cause death directly on their own - that would seem to satisfy your concerns without needing any great overhaul of the feat, nor require removing it entirely.

And again, I imagine that is likely to be how most players who take the feat would act anyway, so doesn't present any issues with actual balance.