[waxing philosophical] senseless violence

[der_kluge]

In the campaign we just started, we have a fighter, rogue and cleric. I'm the cleric. He's a cloistered cleric (from UA) with vow of chastity and will be taking vow of poverty at 3rd. He's already role-playing vow of poverty now, since he's already given all his money to the church, and keeps only about 5 pence on him at a time.

In this game of 1st level characters, we've seen the deaths of numerous folks. A few we were responsible for, and some we weren't. This strikes me as somewhat unrealistic. Now, granted this is a game we play, so I'm willing to overlook the fact that my character casts spells, but in real-life, most villains don't go around slitting the throats of people while they sleep as happened in our game last session. I mean, that's like a Valentine's Day Massacre level serial killing. It was easily 20 people.

It got me to thinking about the campaign that I've been ruminating on. I wanted to create a story that could be told without any violence. Or at least, miniscule amounts. I wanted to have alternatives to every confrontation. In real life, people don't want to die. Most don't even want to fight. But in these games, people fight to the death all the time - senselessly.

In our game, my character bargained with this villain - he agreed to let him go free in exchange for the same amount of money as his bounty, in addition the villain gave my character a promisary note for more money, which turned out to be a forgery. My character is greedy in the sense that he sees money as a way to feed starving people. So, in a sense, he's greedy, but for altruistic reasons. I'm also playing him as good in the medieval sense, not good in our modern sense. Most would see him allowing the villain to leave as not good, but I viewed it as a way to avoid bloodshed. I could see my character easily becoming a pacifist at some point, although I've never had any success with that in any game because the violence level is just so high.

So, this is a two-pronged question - have you played in a story-driven, non-violent campaign, and was it successful? Well-received? What was the story? And have you, or known anyone to play a pacifist character, and were they able to pull it off?

 

[diaglo]

it is hard. most campaigns tend toward the on the brink of or in the middle of a war theme.

so death and fighting are commonplace.

even the florence nightingale style character still must face the prospect of dieing for their beliefs or fighting.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

In my games both PCs (well sometimes any way ), BBEG and lackeys will retreat if they feel the odds are against them. I only have my most fanatical lackeys fight to the last man. And most BBEGs will retreat (unless they see no way of retreating).

I don't think you can have a non violent campaign very easily. I certainly have never ran one or seen one run.

Once a player in my game played a 'pacifist' cleric who healed and buffed the party. He always seemed like a hypocrite to me and the rest of the group because he was simply allowing other people to kill for him.

 

[Wombat]

There are certain game systems that allow you go get around the constant violence aspect of rpgs (Over The Edge is great that way -- I actually had one session where two characters had 45 minute real time (!) argument over whether they should kill a murder they had caught). D&D is not really one of those games. Sure, there is the bit of "defeating" rather than "killing" monsters still giving you XP, but for the most part D&D is built around Conan, Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and other similar "high bodycount" bits of literature. I like those stories and the games are fun, but this means that D&D leans more in the direction of "excused mindless violence".

One of my players has started to keep track of all the individuals his character (AU Mage Blade) has killed. He is second level now and is up to 4 confirmed kills, 6 assists, and several more wounded. (Sounds like bad basketball stats, doesn't it?) He is thinking that these numbers will start going up dramatically soon and, oddly, he is now worried about that. There may be a crisis of conscience in our group...

 

[chrisnd]

Senseless violence

it certianly is an interesting proposition - rollplaying a pacifist in a fantasy realm designed around killing the bad guys. How can it be done? And even more importantly, how can it be done effectively? Clerics, moreso than any other class, should be the most pacifistic of any of the classes (at least the good aligned ones).

However, here is my thought as to why a pacifist might not work in a fantasy setting as compared to the real world. In the fantasy setting, or at least in the case of D&D, you have races that are inherently evil. Their intent is to cause mayhem and evil by engaging in murderous, treacherous acts. Think about what makes up the semi-intelligent, or fully intelligent, evil races (those that can determine right and wrong). Orcs - evil. Drow elves - Evil. Dragons - evil (at least half of them). Undead - evil (for the most part, except for the mindless skeletons and the like). These are evil races, bent and shaped in the environment in which they grew up, to be evil (read "Homeland" by R.A. Salvatore about Drizz't to understand what I am talking about).

In the real world, there is no such thing as an inherently EVIL race of creatures. Not the animals. Not the plants. They both operate on instinct, not choice. So, that leaves humans, the only semi-intelligent race (and I use that term loosely). Sure, there are humans that engage in evil acts - but as a whole, we (humans) are not evil, per se.

Based on that, it is easy to be a pacifist in the real world. It would be a fine and excellent (as well as admirable) effort to be a pacifist in a fantasy D&D setting. I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that your DM and your friends enjoy the stretch of rollplaying that you are going for.

 

[fredramsey]

While your aspirations are noble, you're trying to go against human (animal) nature.

A majority of our lesuire activities are based on conflict. From chess to football, from video games to RPGs, from playing cards to watching films to reading, conflict plays a part.

Stories, in order to be interesting, have conflict. Even if it is inner conflict, someone struggling with morals or emotions, it is still there. However, the more visceral, the more violent the conflict, the more our heartbeats speed up, the more adrenaline is produced, and - for most of us, whether we admit it or not - the more we enjoy it.

The great thing about D&D as opposed to real conflict, is that nobody comes home in a body bag. It is a world were evil can be identified, battled, and eliminated. That is why we enjoy it, that is why we remain fans of it year after year.

Striving for non-violence is real life is hard enough. To eliminate it from our entertainment is robbing us of part of what it means to be human.

 

[francisca]

This strikes me as somewhat unrealistic. Now, granted this is a game we play, so I'm willing to overlook the fact that my character casts spells, but in real-life, most villains don't go around slitting the throats of people while they sleep as happened in our game last session.

Yes. They. Do.

The safety of civilization has never been the norm in the world, moreso in the past, but a quick perusal of world events will point out that even today, life is cheap, and strength and/or guile win. Life is a struggle in many, many places around the globe and conflict is pervasive.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think that a pacifistic campaign can be done, but it would be difficult. It would require the cooperation of everyone involved. It would also have to have a well-defined system of law and authority to work, I would think. Honestly I don't know how long you could maintain it and keep it fresh and interesting since the variety of challenges posed in D&D come from the combat abilities of the opponents.

In terms of having played a pacifist character, I have not, but my wife tried one for her first D&D character. She was hesitant to play a character that killed, so she created an Enchantress who was a pacifist. The character did not object to others killing, although she felt it was an inferior and barbaric method for dealing with problems. She found herself often sidelined during the games and was a bit frustrated. Then, in one encounter, the entire party except her was either dead or unconscious. The last surviving creature came at her and she had no spells that would have affected the creature. In desparation she scooped up a dagger from the hand of a fallen party member and struck at the creature. She rolled a critical hit and the DM described the wound gushing blood all over her hands as it died. My wife got quite a rush from this kill and with that the pacifist Enchantress transformed into one bloodthirsty little elf.

 

[Turanil]

Senseless violence and pacifist campaign are two extremes. Why choose one over the other? For one thing, wanton murder is totally unrealistic, while a pacifist game doesn't work well with D&D. But you can make a campaign where fight is common, but don't necessarily end in death.

- Knight Tournaments: non-lethal damage only, so plenty of combat, no deaths.

- Medieval Battlefields: in the medieval era in Europe, combatants strived for capturing noble knights alive (in order to ransom them), rather than killing wantonly. Even if the battlefield was a grisly death field.

- Bandits and brigands could be violent, they would rather scare people (thus beating them, so plenty of combat) than kill them. Otherwise, if they kill everybody, from whom they are going to live off?

- Foes should surrender or try to flee, rather than fight to the death. Likewise, PCs who surrender should be left alive, even if they end as slaves or prisoners.

etc.

 

[Wombat]

- Knight Tournaments: non-lethal damage only, so plenty of combat, no deaths.

Sadly, this was not always the case. Early tournaments were very rough, sometimes with pretty high bodycounts, and even later tournaments saw deaths, including one of the kings of France.