Is Pacifism doable?


Advice

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

We have a player that wants to be completely nonviolent. How viable is that? She wants to play druid. Can she never harm an enemy and still feel useful? What would you guys suggest in terms of a build?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Such characters are fun in novels, not so much in a game. Arethe other players able to take up the slack?

Is the druid a hypocrite who will support those who do violence but claim to be a pacifist?

And what is the theme of the game? It's easier to be a pacifist if you're a diplomatic envoy, not so much in Wrath of the Righteous.


TBH, I don't know. I'm the only one in the group that has played in a game before. Tonight is our first game. I'm playing a gimmicky trip/sneak attack flowing monk. I think she's a samsaran, or whatever, that has been reincarnated so many times that this time, she's vowed to live a life causing no harm. Could she have a niche as a pure healer/party face? I don't know a lot about the campaign yet, except that it's a nature vs industry sort of theme and that we've all been having dreams about some lady and an intelligent tree.


Druids have plenty of buff spells, battlefield control spells, and debuffs that he could possibly pull it off, especially if his code only applies to his personal actions and he buffs his animal companion to hell and back.


You could have her be a pure healer support class. Also, perhaps she could take protection feats to soak up some damage for others. And if she does have to fight, she could opt to do non lethal damage.

Though honestly if this character's gonna go on a long term adventure it wouldn't make sense. Well, maybe it would. Why would a pacifist go with these kinds of people? It would be like a vegetarian going to a slaughterhouse. She needs a good character reason for this IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pacifism is not very doable in pathfinder. Now if u say that pacifism is refusing to harm sentient beings it is less ridiculous as there are a number of beasts that can be fought and killed. Even so, between demons, devils, fey, dragons, and more sentient species are widely spread.

It is possible with oracles and clerics to help in battle without ever harming anyone but that can get boring. Life oracle healing, evangelist cleric, and perhaps more can fill such a role. But if u consider aiding ur friends in killing someone against ur pacifist beliefs then ur out of luck.

Failing all that, build the best skill monkey and mouth piece u possibly can and let everyone stare at that player every time there is a skill check. If u need a quick build I can get u a rough draft.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny thing is, two of the other guys in the group are vegan. Not the girl playing the pacifist, though. I think she's good friends with the elf, or something. Maybe she could have sworn to protect him or something. Like I said, I'm the only PC that has ever played before, so chances are, she just hasn't thought this through. I do know we're using Samsarans as basically 4e devas. So she's an angel that a loooong time ago elected to live a mortal life. I'm pretty sure her shtick is that she wants this to be her last reincarnation, and in some past lives she's been a part of the pretty nasty wars. It's probably along the lines of some last divine quest, but to fully purify her soul, she must cause no harm directly.


How seriously does she take the non-violence: Can an animal companion or summoned ally attack on her behalf? Can she aid other players who are engaged in violence? Can she cast spells like sleep which do not do physical damage? Can she trip/grapple/disarm enemies without doing physical damage? Can she do non-lethal damage? Can she create situations where enemies harm themselves?

If the answer to all these questions is "no", then she cannot feel useful. Otherwise, depending on what is allowed by her philosophy, she can be a useful and even essential part of a party, although perhaps not as a druid. Without knowing the specifics of the pacifism and the campaign I recommend looking at a witch with the slumber hex.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

I played in a game where a character would not harm living creatures from our plane. So she could fight undead and outsiders, and due to her character's philosophy, fighting outsiders was limited to evil outsiders.

It was actually a lot of fun, but a) it took a lot of work on the DMs end b) we (the other players) all had to keep her character's restrictions in mind and c) she came in understanding that she was going to be pretty useless in our combat situations, save for buffing and healing.

I think that c above is the most important. The player really needs to understand what they are getting themselves into, or they are going to have a bad time.

Dark Archive

There are plenty of ways to take out an enemy without harming him. I'm not sure if Druid would be the best choice to do that, but it's possible. Entangle can be usefull, and uhm... A little help here guys? I don't think I've ever played a Druid.

Beside that, she can still attack X, where X is any nonliving thing. (That would be constructs and undead. This may be expanded to other creatures depending on what she believes to be right.)

Healing and party face? There are other classes that do it better. You might be able to change her mind to playing a nature Cleric.


When it comes to viability of pacifism in Pathfinder, a lot depends on the definition the player is using. As a general rule, the more extreme the pacifism, the harder it is to make it work.

To give some context, I would say a character who had a rule about never personally inflicting lethal damage against living beings qualifies as a pacifist while still being perfectly viable in combat. Nonlethal damage is a thing, and a spell caster will have plenty of combat options like buffing, debuffing, and battlefield control that will still allow him to make useful contributions. The "living beings" qualifier also means things like undead and constructs that are immune to nonlethal damage can be engaged without any qualms.

However, if the character takes pacifism to the point of being unwilling to support the party in combat because that would be enabling violence, then I have a hard time seeing how that could work. Unless the party is doing a zero-combat campaign, the player and character would have to spend long stretches of gametime not really doing anything.


That sounds pretty good then. She should focus on her Int, Wis and to a lesser extent Cha. Int for skills, seeing as she's not going to need Str. Wis for the casting and Cha for diplomacy. I'm thinking diplomacy would be the go to skill for this kind of character.

DEX and Con will not be as vital as it would be on a dedicated warrior character. But they shouldn't be very low either. After all she wants to stay alive as long as possible I assume.

Woah I got ninja'd!


I think she's going to probably protest a lot of the time when fighting happens and try to at least resolve things peacefully when possible. I think it'll be important for her character if the following two things are guaranteed.
A) We have a damn good cause
B) She is at least in some way fiercely loyal to the rest of the PCs. My character has room in his backstory to be a childhood friend, or have been mentored by her character in some way. I'll talk to her about it.

It helps that no one, except the dwarf paladin and urban ninja/robin hood ranger are particularly violent to begin with. My character, at least, is a whimsical LG undine who tends to not take things very seriously and focuses on misdirection and being a slippery bastard in combat. I think he could be talked out of taking a finishing blow when an enemy could be spared in most situations. So long as it isn't a sahaugin.


I'll try to convince her to look at nature cleric. That was what I was initially thinking she'd do in the first place. I doubt she'd have any qualms about fighting the undead, or demons, or things that can't be reasoned with. At least, it'd be silly if she did IMO. I'll talk to her about building around nonlethal attacks and grapples and stuff in case things get hairy. I think it'd be kind of neat if she had a few "I'm sorry I have to do this" moments.

Grand Lodge

I have no idea why everyone who is Vegan, really needs to let you know that they are Vegan, and remind you they are Vegan, even when it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

If every time someone brought up any subject, whatsoever, I had to add the fact that I wore wool socks, I would likely piss everyone off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I have no idea why everyone who is Vegan, really needs to let you know that they are Vegan, and remind you they are Vegan, even when it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

Not all do.

Not everybody who has a strongly held belief feels required to mention it and try to force it on others.


Eh, I have lots of vegan friends, and very very few of them are sanctimonious about it. I have a lot of respect for someone that can really stick to it. My last girlfriend was vegan, and she was never ever judgy about the fact that I'm not. She was always really polite about it when we'd have dinner with my parents, and my grandmother adored her. We've been broken up for a month now and my grandmother still makes a vegan dish at our family dinners "just in case." Total non-sequitur. Just to note, the girl playing the pacifist is not vegan. The dwarf and the elf are, however.


I would say pure pacifism based on a personal conviction will not work. In that case the druid would be unwilling likely to even have her companion attack and would unlikely be willing to support those causing harm.

More interesting alternatives would be:

1)unwilling to attack living creatures
2) or unwilling to attack beings native to the world or plane

or my favorite

3)forced pacifism from a curse or some such. A forced pacifist might not personally be able to cause harm but her companion or summoned creatures might be able to under some circumstances.


Druid is alright. Witch and Wizard can also do plenty of battlefield control without doing any damage. Pick up merciful spell for any really good control spells that would deal damage, like black tentacles, it's a +0 level adjustment.


I find it amusing when someone is a vegetarian and has this smug I'm healthier attitude than you but is still obese. You'd be surprised how much I see it.

But to op it really depends on how far the character takes it. A fervorent pacifist wouldn't even go out with the group to begin with. the pc is basically saying its ok for me to help cause violence as long as I don't get my hands dirty. They obviously have some acceptance of violence.

As was said a pure healer or someone who doesn't damage could work. Sleep spells and enchantments and all that would be her friend.

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I have no idea why everyone who is Vegan, really needs to let you know that they are Vegan, and remind you they are Vegan, even when it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

Not all do.

Not everybody who has a strongly held belief feels required to mention it and try to force it on others.

You're right. Only the vocal ones stick out in my mind, so it is unfair blanket statement, borne of poor experiences, with likely a select few.

I just have no idea how personal dietary restrictions have anything to do with pacifism, or tabletop gaming.

Like my wool socks.


Someone was trying to draw a poor analogy, saying 'a pacifist wouldn't go with an adventuring party because a vegan wouldn't go to a slaughterhouse', which is ...

a. wrong and
b. comparing apples to carburetors.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I have no idea why everyone who is Vegan, really needs to let you know that they are Vegan, and remind you they are Vegan, even when it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

If every time someone brought up any subject, whatsoever, I had to add the fact that I wore wool socks, I would likely piss everyone off.

Maybe it came up when ordering pizza. Had that happen before. "So, two slices for everybody?" "No thanks." "You dislike pizza?" *Le gasp* "I'm vegan." "Oh. Cool."

As for the character, maybe have her and the DM take a took at the dreamweaver witch. A sleep, a non-lethal takedown, focused caster who can mess with your mind!

Grand Lodge

Does the Druid have an animal companion?

Grand Lodge

I actually suggest a Witch, with a Druid flavor.

Hedge Witch archetype will keep with the flavor she wants.

Focus on things like the Sleep Hex, and debuffs, and have a bit healing/recovery to back it.

Reincarnate is a Witch spell.


Looking at witch right now. This seems promising. Thanks for the advice guys. The impression I'm getting is that viable or not, this is going to be really hard for a complete newbie to pull off and have fun. I guess we'll see. Anybody feel like popping over to my other thread and helping me out with my character?

Grand Lodge

Halfrican wrote:
Looking at witch right now. This seems promising. Thanks for the advice guys. The impression I'm getting is that viable or not, this is going to be really hard for a complete newbie to pull off and have fun. I guess we'll see. Anybody feel like popping over to my other thread and helping me out with my character?

Very difficult, but could be doable, with help from the group.

Sure. Link it.


http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qw1c?Help-with-Undine-Flowing-MonkRogue
Not optimal by any means, but should be fun to play. Considering the group is nothing but newbies, I'm not expecting it to bee too terribly difficult.


I think druid is an interesting choice. Animals can be trained to use specific combat maneuvers or to aid another (to buff an ally's AC). While most people wouldn't bother, I think an animal with a grab ability or something similar that happens on an attack could probably be trained to attempt to initiate the maneuver without actually attacking for damage. Or similarly, for instance a constrictor snake could probably be trained to grapple/pin without using its constrict damage - I kind of like the idea.

Although the thing is, if the player is really going to try to talk their way out of encounters (like the Diplomancers of olde) it's really a campaign decision that the other players and GM should agree to. Sounds like the group will be OK with it, so however you folks want to play the game, as long as everyone's having fun that's the important part. :)


This could be tough.

Remember, Pathfinder is essentially a combat miniatures game. Yes, there are other aspects to it, like skills and roleplaying; however, the main focus of the game is fighting on a grid. Most of the rules exist to help adjudicate this. There are potentially other game systems that are better suited to playing non-combat oriented characters.

The bigger hurdle is going to be balancing player expectations, however. Let's say you figure out a non-combative character this player can personify. Is this character going to be happy if every other party member has no qualms about violence and combat? Is it "nonviolent" to buff your violent teammates and let them commit atrocities? Or is this character going to sit out of combat entirely? Would this conflict with the other player's expectations as their characters slog it out in combat while one character is sitting on the sidelines?

I'm not sure if your player's styles jive on this one. I'd never tell anyone how to play the game, as there is no right or wrong way to play, but they players have to play *together.* It feels like that *togetherness* might be missing here. I would suggest that everyone needs to realize that Pathfinder is a game about conflict (that usually ends up in combat) and that they should play characters that reflect that, or find a game system that caters better to their low-combat concepts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This definitely seems something that needs buy-in from the GM and other players; as others have noted, Pathfinder is somewhat poorly optimized for non-combative play. That said, perhaps the player's definition of pacifism could be tweaked a little bit as well -- utilitarian ethics might be useful here.(1)

Definitely, "I'm not going to attack, but I'll buff my allies so that they can wreak carnage more effectively" is a completely lame (and ethically useless) pacifism, as is "I won't attack, but my animal companion and hordes of summoned allies will!" That's like saying a pacifist can't serve as an infantryman, but can push the button on an ICBM.

On the other hand, a utilitarian approach to the character might recognize that violence is inescapable in the world she inhabits--and that she is inherently party to it by accompanying her, uh, party--but that the /harm/ inflicted by this violence can be minimized. Consider the conscientious objector who won't carry a weapon, but agrees to enlist as a combat medic: still participating in the war, but in the role that focuses on minimizing casualties.

With this focus, the character could focus on actions that achieve the goal of ending combat with the least total harm. Subdual damage. Maneuvers and spells that incapacitate or debuff, with the goal of making the target easier to subdue without killing.

Philosophically, a druid could be the perfect fit for such a class--focusing on nature's ability to eke out every bit of life value by propogating species to thrive in every imaginable niche, no matter how small, rather than on the "law of the jungle" side of nature. Perhaps the GM would let the player trade in some of her starting weapon proficiencies for things like the net and whip as part of this concept.

Sure, there's going to be some interplay and occasional friction among the characters about methods -- but honestly, I don't think it would be any different at this point than the constant, "Dude, I know the captive bandit is evil, but would you please stop coup d'graceing them while I'm trying to question them?"

(1) It's probably the discussion of veganism that brings utilitarian ethics to mind, where you can make arguments like, "eating beef is actually more moral than eating chicken, because you only have to cause the suffering and death of 1 cow to make as much meat as the suffering and death of 100 chickens."


I'm not sure that druid is the best class for pacifism. I play a level 7 dual cursed life oracle in society right now who I consider s pacifist. The worst "attacks" she has ever done to an enemy are prayer and pilfering hand. By this point she spends most of her time buffing or other things to heal the party (like healing). At lower levels if I didn't think delaying would be my best tactical option I'd usually aid another to raise the armor class.

Now depending on my party make-up I may have a game where I feel more or less like a 5th.wheel, but thas not too often, and hasn't.happened for a few levels now. The higher level you get, the easier it actually becomes to be a pacifist, as you have more and more ways to help the party that aren't violent.

In short, I'd say its doable, and can be fun, but it takes a pretty high degree of system mastery. I would recommend she go some kind of spontaneous caster if possible because spell selection for a pacifist seems it would be very very difficult.


Yes, it is absolutely doable, but it's not easy. On the one hand, worrying less about offensive capability when selecting feats, skills, and spells can be a liberating experience.

Combat is all but inevitable, though. A pacifist druid should find something useful to do during combat. If the character is okay with casting spells to protect her allies during combat or hinder opponents without hurting them, that's certainly an option. If not, there are other things, such as healing, Aid Another, or spells that shut down the opponent's ability to fight/pursue (entangle, obscuring mist, longstrider).

Other classes such as cleric, enchanter, or maybe bard might be more effective for this.


Zhayne wrote:

Someone was trying to draw a poor analogy, saying 'a pacifist wouldn't go with an adventuring party because a vegan wouldn't go to a slaughterhouse', which is ...

a. wrong and
b. comparing apples to carburetors.

Hey man, lots of vegans wouldn't go to one. Course some would. I'm not totally wrong lol!


Domestichauscat wrote:

That sounds pretty good then. She should focus on her Int, Wis and to a lesser extent Cha. Int for skills, seeing as she's not going to need Str. Wis for the casting and Cha for diplomacy. I'm thinking diplomacy would be the go to skill for this kind of character.

DEX and Con will not be as vital as it would be on a dedicated warrior character. But they shouldn't be very low either. After all she wants to stay alive as long as possible I assume.

Woah I got ninja'd!

She will still need con for hit points and fort saves. Just because she wont kill the enemy that does not mean they wont kill her.

Grand Lodge

Domestichauscat wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Someone was trying to draw a poor analogy, saying 'a pacifist wouldn't go with an adventuring party because a vegan wouldn't go to a slaughterhouse', which is ...

a. wrong and
b. comparing apples to carburetors.

Hey man, lots of vegans wouldn't go to one. Course some would. I'm not totally wrong lol!

A lot of people who wear wool socks won't drink diet soda.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Halfrican wrote:
We have a player that wants to be completely nonviolent. How viable is that? She wants to play druid. Can she never harm an enemy and still feel useful? What would you guys suggest in terms of a build?

If she plays a Life Oracle she at least has an excuse. A Druid is supposed to be in touch with the natural world which is all about predator and prey relationships. Druid is not the right class to play a pacifist.

If she plays a Life Oracle, she can get away with being nonviolent as she's got a major purpose as a Healer and status remover with the right spells. Plus she can be the face for the group in social interactions.


Heck, you could make a combat maneuver specialist that just hogties everything up after disarming and subduing them and call it a pacifist.

Or go heavy on charm and dominate spells with a caster.

Or make a life oracle that heals everything and always stabilizes the enemies and leaves them unconscious after the party works them over.

Id probably make a maneuver master or lore warden and go for the incapacitation approach myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

If she plays a Life Oracle she at least has an excuse. A Druid is supposed to be in touch with the natural world which is all about predator and prey relationships. Druid is not the right class to play a pacifist.

Classes don't come with built-in personalities.

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:

If she plays a Life Oracle she at least has an excuse. A Druid is supposed to be in touch with the natural world which is all about predator and prey relationships. Druid is not the right class to play a pacifist.

Classes don't come with built-in personalities.

Damn right!


I think a Bard or Enchanter can do this best. The trick is that pacifism has no problem with mind control. Making someone focused on charming the problem before combat ever happens can be both scary effective and totally non-violent. We have a group that uses this strategy often and it can cause GM headaches but we get through the encounters just fine. We filled up the local jail to overflowing with evil humaniods and decided to try to reform a dragon turtle rather than kill it.

The Exchange

Though a pacifist Barbarian would be a bit of a stretch. ;)


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Though a pacifist Barbarian would be a bit of a stretch. ;)

Eh. You want to knock them out quickly to minimize the damage they can do. Get a Merciful weapon ASAP and rock out. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:

If she plays a Life Oracle she at least has an excuse. A Druid is supposed to be in touch with the natural world which is all about predator and prey relationships. Druid is not the right class to play a pacifist.

Classes don't come with built-in personalities.

That makes as much sense as saying a Cleric can be an atheist.

Classes DO COME with built in assumptions. If you're a Druid, you're a guardian of nature and you identify with natural processes and the place that creatures have in nature. If you start as a wizard, it's not because you refuse to practise all magic.

Classes don't exist in a vacuum, they have a background and a purpose for being.

You simply can NOT be a Druid and not be aware that violence is an essential part of nature. Even if you're a Treesinger, you're aware that even plants can take on the role of predator, whether it's a venus fly trap that swallows flies, or a vine that strangles the life out of a tree.


LazarX wrote:

That makes as much sense as saying a Cleric can be an atheist.

They can. Cleric of an ideal/philosophy.

Quote:
Classes don't exist in a vacuum, they have a background and a purpose for being.

Classes are mechanical constructs used in tandem with other game elements to realize a character concept.

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:

That makes as much sense as saying a Cleric can be an atheist.

They can. Cleric of an ideal/philosophy.

Quote:
Classes don't exist in a vacuum, they have a background and a purpose for being.
Classes are mechanical constructs used in tandem with other game elements to realize a character concept.

Also, +1.

The Exchange

I think it would be a team effort, after all if you are helping the killers kill you are not much of a pacifist...


maybe so, but such a druid might say that it is the role of enlightened beings to rise above the natural state of violence and be guardians of life.

Consider Vash the Stampede from Trigun if you have seen it. Vash is aware of the brutality of nature, and yet still seeks to protect all life, in a memorable scene he tries to save a butterfly caught in a spider's web, delicately trying to remove the caught creature. His brother Knives walks up and kills the spider, informing Vash that he has accomplished Vash's goal of saving the butterfly, and after Vash objects, reminds him that saving the Spider's prey from its clutches is equivalent to killing the spider as the spider must eat to survive.

Maybe Vash's stance is paradoxical, but his desire to save everyone -even the wicked- is what makes him an interesting and ultimately likable character.


Andrew R wrote:
I think it would be a team effort, after all if you are helping the killers kill you are not much of a pacifist...

There are different levels of pacifism. Not everybody who holds a belief feels compelled to force their views on others.

The Exchange

Zhayne wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think it would be a team effort, after all if you are helping the killers kill you are not much of a pacifist...
There are different levels of pacifism. Not everybody who holds a belief feels compelled to force their views on others.

Reminds me of the villain that swears i won't hurt you, then his lackey beats them to death

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is Pacifism doable? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.