Hello!
I'll say it simple: a character that doesn't fight.
The idea came to me while playing a large party. Every role is covered, there is always someone else able to do what you do, and that makes it the perfect place to try out the weirdest concepts you can come up with. Worst case scenario, you commit suicide and roll in with a new character.
I want to build something that makes talking its primary focus. Someone that avoids fighting at all costs: it could be for any reason, from something simple like fear of blood, to a higher reason like a religious call. As for why he goes on adventures, there could be a million reasons: maybe he's a book-writer, or he's a relic hunter, or whatever...
I want to build a character, from lvl 1 to 10, that doesn't just fit the role of "party face", but goes above and beyond when it comes to talking his way through (or out) anything. So I'm here to gather suggestions and tips.
I'm thinking multi-classing for sure. Focus will be on CHA and INT, of course. I could even go with a custom race, but nothing too far from the core races as for race points. My only limit is no 3p material.
While I'm all for mind-reading and maybe even charm when in "social" situations, I don't plan on using anything like that in combat. Most likely the character would hide, or just freeze in fear, or keep trying to talk people out of combat..
So let's hear what you suggest, and then we can begin laying out a character more in details.
Nothing specific at the moment, but a bard or Investigator would be good choices and depending on the archetype used, if any, you can have quite a lot of RPG potential as a knowledge/skill build charcter with non-lethal option in combat via spell, poison or infusion.
Sleep, Web, Proficiency in mancatcher, lasso or net could work too. Maybe trip or entangling route might work too.
true profesional rogue vmc bard
If you want to be a professional non-combatant, sleep, etc. probably don't appeal. You WILL need a way to step out of combat really well, or you'll end up rolling up a new character willy-nilly. Is there a way to get incorporeality early? Failing that, invisibility? Heh. Can you play a ghost?
2 ideas
1. Recently played an arcanist hellknight that had a ring of continuation. Used a combination of a ton of diffrent AC boosting items and spells to jack up AC ridiculously high(63 by lv15). Used ring on continuation for the spell deflection so all attacks that miss me are reflected
2. There was a prestige class from 3.5 book of exalted deeds Apostle of Peace that used nothing but spells that stop people from fighting. A pathfinder conversion would not be that hard
A pacifist who doesn't want to be a total face?
Monk Of The Lotus.
Super helpful aid another fighting defensively halfling.
Focusing on combat manoeuvres really avoids damaging violence.
Illusionist!
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think you've missed something: why does the rest of the party want you around?
I think your best bet is to make a character who doesn't kill anyone. You could easily make an illusionist or a sap-wielder.
Otherwise, other players might just say " wait, that's just more work for me? "
1/2 orc Redeemer archetype paladin with a bunch of diplomacy? You aren't here to kill them, but to save them. And if you really have to smite something you can do it nonlethally with no penalty.
Yes, the character will be skill focused. I'll have to find a way to get a ton of skill points, because I'll need social skills, knowledges and linguistics for sure (to be able to speak with as many creatures as possible). I'm also thinking somewhere along the line to get a dip in a class that grants me wild empathy. Being able to "roll diplomacy" on animals, would make it more likely for me to manage to avoid a fight even with animals.
I really like the idea of playing a ghost, or some other incorporeal entity, but I'll have to discuss with the GM about it. At the lowest levels all I could do is go with stealth (being small or even tiny would give a nice boost to it) or disguise...
Another way to make myself less appealing to enemies could be shapeshifting into something really "unimportant". Let's say a rat if you are in a cave, or a cat if you are in a town, or a rabbit in the forest.. anything that would make me blend with the environment would make me almost invisible to the enemies, since they would focus on my party because they are a threat.
Boosting AC is not going to be my main focus. I plan on avoiding combat, rather than just avoiding being hit.
I'll take a look at the Apostole of Peace, and see what it's about.
The monk of the Lotus has a nice ring to it, but in practice it doesn't do much to avoid combat. Touch of serenity only works for 1 round, and can be done only once a day. Not really worth it..
The idea behind this character is not just to go non-lethal. He's going to avoid combat situations, to the point of fainting if he doesn't have another choice.
Why would they want me? Because I could be of great help in social situations. Just like some characters are useless in social but great in combat, I'll be great in social and useless in combat. I don't know the party composition yet, so I don't know if they lack some useful non-combat skill, but I could cover those too. For example they might not have someone able to spot traps, or to track...
As I said this is going to be played in a large party, so it won't be a big deal for them. And of course I'll talk to them about it, as soon as I have more than just a vague idea.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bober wrote: Yes, the character will be skill focused. I'll have to find a way to get a ton of skill points, because I'll need social skills, knowledges and linguistics for sure (to be able to speak with as many creatures as possible). I'm also thinking somewhere along the line to get a dip in a class that grants me wild empathy. Being able to "roll diplomacy" on animals, would make it more likely for me to manage to avoid a fight even with animals.
I really like the idea of playing a ghost, or some other incorporeal entity, but I'll have to discuss with the GM about it. At the lowest levels all I could do is go with stealth (being small or even tiny would give a nice boost to it) or disguise...
Another way to make myself less appealing to enemies could be shapeshifting into something really "unimportant". Let's say a rat if you are in a cave, or a cat if you are in a town, or a rabbit in the forest.. anything that would make me blend with the environment would make me almost invisible to the enemies, since they would focus on my party because they are a threat.
Boosting AC is not going to be my main focus. I plan on avoiding combat, rather than just avoiding being hit.
I'll take a look at the Apostole of Peace, and see what it's about.
The monk of the Lotus has a nice ring to it, but in practice it doesn't do much to avoid combat. Touch of serenity only works for 1 round, and can be done only once a day. Not really worth it..
The idea behind this character is not just to go non-lethal. He's going to avoid combat situations, to the point of fainting if he doesn't have another choice.
Why would they want me? Because I could be of great help in social situations. Just like some characters are useless in social but great in combat, I'll be great in social and useless in combat. I don't know the party composition yet, so I don't know if they lack some useful non-combat skill, but I could cover those too. For example they might not have someone able to spot traps, or to track...
As I said this is going to be...
So your character is a Technical Pacifist then. They don't really mind the killing as long as someone else does the dirty work. Hey.. if Samuel L. Jackson could make it work...
An Illusion focus for some class or other has a lot of appeal. You might be able to get the whole party to avoid thousands of XP by leading the bandits & whatnot around the party instead of through them on the road. Uh, if I were you, I'd definitely discuss whether the party collects the XP in that case with my GM first, before going to far with this! ;)
Bober wrote: Why would they want me? Because I could be of great help in social situations. Just like some characters are useless in social but great in combat, I'll be great in social and useless in combat. I don't know the party composition yet, so I don't know if they lack some useful non-combat skill, but I could cover those too. For example they might not have someone able to spot traps, or to track...
As I said this is going to be played in a large party, so it won't be a big deal for them. And of course I'll talk to them about it, as soon as I have more than just a vague idea.
Obviously if it's ok with them, then the idea works. Realistically speaking, however, they could just as easily find a person who does all of what you can do, and doesn't mind getting his hands dirty too.
Sure, if the party generally has the killing covered, you could probably get away with not fighting most of the time. But if the situation comes up where they need you to pitch in to a fight, and you don't, I can't see why they wouldn't trade you in for a less pacifist model. Your pacifism decreases their survival chance.
Would you expect a fair share of the treasure gained by killing monsters?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bober wrote: The idea came to me while playing a large party. Every role is covered, there is always someone else able to do what you do, and that makes it the perfect place to try out the weirdest concepts you can come up with. Worst case scenario, you commit suicide and roll in with a new character.
This is a common big party problem. The challenge is that when key members don't show (sick, bad weather, broken car, so forth), your non-combat character will slow the party down. So even if you go with a non-combat focus, having a combat option is always something you should have planned, for when the combat players don't show up. Just like the fighters should have a plan for when the healer doesn't show.
Anyway, for suggestions, I've got three that I haven't perfected yet.
First is a Wild Empathy focused character. There are a lot of feats and archetypes that can allow wild empathy to apply to things that don't normally have the ability to be reasoned with. I've had good results with the Vermin Heart feat, which allows wild empathy on vermin, making swarms much easier to cope with. There's a feat Ooze whisperer, which allows wild empathy on Oozes. Greater Wild Empathy (feat) really makes this one start to be more impressive, but isn't an option until 5th. This build is limited, since wild empathy is largely CHA based, but most classes with wild empathy are not CHA based.
Second is an intimidate focused character. There's several ways to do this, but basically, you debuff the enemy by talking down to them in combat, and it also works in social situations (for a time). Dazzling Display feat allows intimidate to apply to lots of enemies. If you do go this route, should definitely look into Lamashtu's Nightmare Scars feat, which gives several bonuses, but mainly eliminates the size penalty to intimidate checks, so you can make a really scary halfling or gnome PC. This one could be lots of fun to role play.
Third is the Investigator's Infiltrator Archetype, or as I call it, the Costplay Enthusiast. Basically, allows your character to really use the disguise skill. Would be really fun, but I'm not sure how useful you'd be able to make it. Another fun one to play. This is by far the least combat able concept I've worked on, but it would be very fun.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If 66% to 90% of the party is designed for and expecting to engage in combat, a character specifically designed to disrupt those expectations could be problematic.
It would be like a baseball player that refused to swing the bat or catch a ball. Sure, occasionally you might get a walk to first, but you would be useless at fielding, except for picking up a ball and throwing it back to the pitcher.
I strongly suggest speaking to your party about this before introducing this character into a campaign.
How would you feel if you had to play with a PC that always tried to murder every NPC you spoke to?
It might not be a big issue if you're in a campaign dealing with lots of traps, or overcoming encounters like shipwrecks and house fires, or possibly capers and schemes.
Also, what are your plans for dealing with unintelligent creatures, like mindless undead, oozes, vermin, and many constructs, animals, and magical beasts?
Like some others above I am a bit torn and ask "Does your PC try to avoid personal combat but help's others?" Or is it something else? And why would others want you with them as opposed to someone who also wants to get their hands dirty?
(also not that there is a big difference in not wanting to fight and not being proficient in fighting and just not fighting. ie PF just look at you base attack bonus and mods for various weapons as a general gauge on how good you are vs others)
From personal experience as a player I am not a fan of the player who just want to sit back and have others fight for them and just does utility stuff that can be of negligible influence in a game (or it could be very helpful depending on the adventure but in general they are not. ie an archer that always rolls bad and hit other party members and as no other saving graces as a PC)
Having said that I also know it can be fun to mix things up on the character concept front and often I take flaws to make characters more interesting. ie will not use true strike or other spells do to reason X, Y and Z.
So having a spell casting class that deals with buffs, de-buffs, areas control, etc but not actual damage is one way to go. ie just do not take damage dealing spells.
Or take a martial class that purpose is to provide others with bonuses if they do something and try and stay out of combat.
Another option is to say you only attack those who attack you or some other such philosophy. Or be a summoner and only summon monster to attack for you, etc.
So House Rule's might be asking your GM for some sort of permanent penalty to attack for some other bonus, such as extra skill points per level, skill focus etc or not being able to cast spells that deal damage for some other benefit.
Have Fun and I hope you can get your concept to work with your GM and group.
MDC
Roll a rogue and when forced into combat try to disarm and steal the opponent's weapon. Or grab his bag and run away.
If there's nothing to steal, well... just hide. A ninja with Vanishing Trick could be fine too.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There's a difference between filling the non combat roles the others can't and completely substituting their combat opportunities with social abilities.
I find the concept of a pacifist repulsive and anathema to a system based on combat. Not eanting to kill is one thing, there are a ton of ways to be useful in combat without dealing lethal damage or using death effects. But not wanting combat at all...? That's just making everyone else useless.
I also can't grasp the concept that everyone needs a different role... two tanks does not make a party less viable than one.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
One way to make this work would be to play a healer. I know that in combat healing is not optimal and from a tactical point it is better to take out the enemy faster. But it would give your character something to do in combat and a reason for the party to accept you. Play a life oracle with a good INT for skills. Talk to your GM about coming up with a custom curse that prevents you from doing lethal damage and boost your defenses.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
So your character is a Technical Pacifist then. They don't really mind the killing as long as someone else does the dirty work. Hey.. if Samuel L. Jackson could make it work...
Exactly! I'll always try to avoid combat, but if I can't manage to do it, I'm ok with others dealing with it.
bitter lily wrote: An Illusion focus for some class or other has a lot of appeal. You might be able to get the whole party to avoid thousands of XP by leading the bandits & whatnot around the party instead of through them on the road. Uh, if I were you, I'd definitely discuss whether the party collects the XP in that case with my GM first, before going to far with this! ;) I did talk with the GM already, and he's willing to give us a good chunk of XP if we manage to avoid a fight using social skills. That means that we can't just walk around an enemy and get XP, we actually have to engage with them, but can get the XP without killing them if we convince them to give up their weapons, or manage to scare them away.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Obviously if it's ok with them, then the idea works. Realistically speaking, however, they could just as easily find a person who does all of what you can do, and doesn't mind getting his hands dirty too.
Sure, if the party generally has the killing covered, you could probably get away with not fighting most of the time. But if the situation comes up where they need you to pitch in to a fight, and you don't, I can't see why they wouldn't trade you in for a less pacifist model. Your pacifism decreases their survival chance.
Would you expect a fair share of the treasure gained by killing monsters?
Well the idea is to make the character better than anyone at social/knowledge/etc.. so that he can't be easily replaced with someone as good as him that also fights. Feats are probably going to make the difference; not having to spend feats on combat manoeuvres or meta-magic allowed me to boost skills and similar abilities a lot.
I will have to figure something out for when I can't avoid fight at all. I like Megistone's suggestion to focus on disarm but without knowing my ability scores it's hard to know if I'll have enough to get good at it.
As for the treasure, I believe my character wouldn't be much interested. Most stuff usually is combat-related (weapons, armours, magical items), so I wouldn't look at it twice. As for gold, I plan of gaining gold by roleplaying when in villages or town, so I'll let them have it all, unless I manage do find a way to contribute to the fight. Or I could go with a "Vow of Poverty" and solve the problem that way.
Murdock Mudeater wrote: This is a common big party problem. The challenge is that when key members don't show (sick, bad weather, broken car, so forth), your non-combat character will slow the party down. So even if you go with a non-combat focus, having a combat option is always something you should have planned, for when the combat players don't show up. Just like the fighters should have a plan for when the healer doesn't show.
Anyway, for suggestions, I've got three that I haven't perfected yet.
First is a Wild Empathy focused character. There are a lot of feats and archetypes that can allow wild empathy to apply to things that don't normally have the ability to be reasoned with. I've had good results with the Vermin Heart feat, which allows wild empathy on vermin, making swarms much easier to cope with. There's a feat Ooze whisperer, which allows wild empathy on Oozes. Greater Wild Empathy (feat) really makes this one start to be more impressive, but isn't an option until 5th. This build is limited, since wild empathy is largely CHA based, but most classes with wild empathy are not CHA based.
Second is an intimidate focused character. There's several ways to do this, but basically, you debuff the enemy by talking down to them in combat, and it also works in social situations (for a time). Dazzling Display feat allows intimidate to apply to lots of enemies. If you do go this route, should definitely look into Lamashtu's Nightmare Scars feat, which gives several bonuses, but mainly eliminates the size penalty to intimidate checks, so you can make a really scary halfling or gnome PC. This one could be lots of fun to role play.
Third is the Investigator's Infiltrator Archetype, or as I call it, the Costplay...
I like all three of those ideas. I will get Wild Empathy with a class dip probably, because of the CHA classes issue. I like the idea of being able to use it on Oozes and Vermin, it would fit perfectly!
Being able to use intimidate in fights could be a way to contribute. I'll take a look at those feats, and not having a limitation on size could make for a fun character that nobody expects to be that intimidating!
I'm not sure about the investigator. I'll have to read more about it, but it doesn't seem like my kind of character.
SmiloDan wrote: If 66% to 90% of the party is designed for and expecting to engage in combat, a character specifically designed to disrupt those expectations could be problematic.
It would be like a baseball player that refused to swing the bat or catch a ball. Sure, occasionally you might get a walk to first, but you would be useless at fielding, except for picking up a ball and throwing it back to the pitcher.
I strongly suggest speaking to your party about this before introducing this character into a campaign.
How would you feel if you had to play with a PC that always tried to murder every NPC you spoke to?
It might not be a big issue if you're in a campaign dealing with lots of traps, or overcoming encounters like shipwrecks and house fires, or possibly capers and schemes.
Also, what are your plans for dealing with unintelligent creatures, like mindless undead, oozes, vermin, and many constructs, animals, and magical beasts?
That's true, a lot of people focus their build on combat and want to fight, but if you think about it (especially in neutral or good groups) there is no reason to fight every single time. Fighting should be considered the last resort, since there is always a risk of getting hurt or even dying (that's a flaw of PF and D&D: you can have 100HP or 1HP and you'll still be fine and able to do everything, making "taking damage" not really important as long as you don't reach 0hp).
The GM knows about my idea, and some of the party does too already. I'll talk to them some more when I have a build the I believe will work and can prove them that I won't be totally useless.
The GM usually tries to fit situations where each player can have his moment of fame, so I'm not too worried. If the character won't work well in the party, I'm ready to step aside and bring in a more combat-oriented one.
The unintelligent creature part could be a problem. With some like Oozes, animals and vermin I can use wild empathy if I have the right feats. With others I have no clue. I imagine the character as someone who would keep trying to communicate with them, but nothing is set yet. He could simply believe unintelligent creatures are not worth saving, so that killing them wouldn't be an issue. Not sure yet.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Like some others above I am a bit torn and ask "Does your PC try to avoid personal combat but help's others?" Or is it something else? And why would others want you with them as opposed to someone who also wants to get their hands dirty?
(also not that there is a big difference in not wanting to fight and not being proficient in fighting and just not fighting. ie PF just look at you base attack bonus and mods for various weapons as a general gauge on how good you are vs others)
From personal experience as a player I am not a fan of the player who just want to sit back and have others fight for them and just does utility stuff that can be of negligible influence in a game (or it could be very helpful depending on the adventure but in general they are not. ie an archer that always rolls bad and hit other party members and as no other saving graces as a PC)
Having said that I also know it can be fun to mix things up on the character concept front and often I take flaws to make characters more interesting. ie will not use true strike or other spells do to reason X, Y and Z.
So having a spell casting class that deals with buffs, de-buffs, areas control, etc but not actual damage is one way to go. ie just do not take damage dealing spells.
Or take a martial class that purpose is to provide others with bonuses if they do something and try and stay out of combat.
Another option is to say you only attack those who attack you or some other such philosophy. Or be a summoner and only summon monster to attack for you, etc.
So House Rule's might be asking your GM for some sort of permanent penalty to attack for some other bonus, such as extra skill points per level, skill focus etc or not being able to cast spells that deal damage for some other benefit.
Have Fun and I hope you can get your concept to work with your GM and group.
MDC
I'm up for joining combat as long as my action don't bring harm. That means no buffing my friends damage, not using damaging spells, and not making my enemies just weaker but still able to fight. I'm thinking spells like charm, or sleep, or anything that makes the enemy NOT A TARGET for my group anymore. I'm also fine with buffs that help my friends survive (improving AC or savings, as long as it's focused on helping them survive other than killing others)
I like the house ruling idea. I'll have to talk to my GM about it to see if I can get some bonus for not being "combat efficient".
Megistone wrote: Roll a rogue and when forced into combat try to disarm and steal the opponent's weapon. Or grab his bag and run away.
If there's nothing to steal, well... just hide. A ninja with Vanishing Trick could be fine too.
This is a great idea! Disarming opponents could be a way for me to try to stop fights, giving them a chance to flee or surrender once their weapon in lost. Even sunder might work, but seems too aggressive.
Goblin_Priest wrote: There's a difference between filling the non combat roles the others can't and completely substituting their combat opportunities with social abilities.
I find the concept of a pacifist repulsive and anathema to a system based on combat. Not eanting to kill is one thing, there are a ton of ways to be useful in combat without dealing lethal damage or using death effects. But not wanting combat at all...? That's just making everyone else useless.
I also can't grasp the concept that everyone needs a different role... two tanks does not make a party less viable than one.
Everyone is entitled to have their opinions on what makes the game fun. I don't expect my character to be able to prevent the party from fighting every time. But as you could imagine a priest following a group of soldiers, he just wants to bring peace. Stopping a single fight, preventing the execution of a helpless enemy, and stuff like those will make his day.
The system does not have to be based on combat at all costs. You can have puzzles, social interactions, investigations, and so on. I find unrealistic for a group of neutral or good people to go around and slay everything in their way, at the risk of their own life (especially at lower levels, where even a bunch of street thugs can be a mortal danger). That's one of the reasons I always try to convince my GM to give XP based on objectives, not on fights. If my quest is to save the princess, it shouldn't matter if I teleport in and out, if I kick down the door and open my way with my sword, or if I go around every single room in the castle slaying every life form.
Having different roles is not just a way to cover you bases, to be ready for anything. It's a way to enjoy the game more, because being able to do something that others can't is satisfying. Knowing that there will be your 5 minutes of fame is great! You know that you will NEED your friends to do something that you can't (or at least doing it much, much better), as much as they will need you at some point.
-------------
After reading all your replies, I believe I need to explain my concept a little better.
- The character is supposed to be NON-VIOLENT, not just non-lethal.
- Harming others is not an option unless it really there is no other choice (e.g. not being able to hide, run, reason with them, pay them to let you go, and so on...).
- Buffs and non-damage spells are ok as long as they don't involve harming anyone. For example, a spell that makes it easier to hit an enemy is NOT ok. A spell that prevents the enemy from fighting is ok (e.g. charm). A spell that makes my allies hit harder (+hit or +dmg) is NOT ok, while a spell that prevents them from dying is ok (e.g. healing them or improving their saves).
- Utility spells are welcome!
- Combat manœuvres that are not damaging are welcome. Disarm would fit perfectly, stuff like bullrush, sunder, or trip might work too..
-Social skills and knowledges will be of great importance. Craft could also become a focal point, but again should not be focused on harming people (no weaponsmith or similar)
- Being able to communicate with different beings is important.
- I'm up for taking level dips in multiple classes if they help me get something I need.
And of course, I'll talk to the players again and make sure they'll be ok with me playing this character. But first I need to prove them that it can be useful in his own way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I will be straight-up with you: a technical pacifist that's traveling with a party of murderhobos really doesn't sound like a good idea to me, roleplay-wise OR gameplay-wise. If you don't want to be a part of this violence, why are you traveling with a group of people that pursues that path? If your personal code is so arbitrary that you can't hurt people yourself but won't bat an eye at someone else chopping someone in half with a greatsword, why bother being a pacifist of any sort at all?
But I digress. Whether or not I like the idea, it's what you want to do. I just really wanted to point out how... counter-intuitive that is, and would suggest your character be someone that just prefers not to fight but will if he has to. It makes a lot more sense in this situation than a pacifist that only PERSONALLY doesn't want to kill anyone.
Some build ideas though:
Firstly, Aid Another is awesome. If you had the Bodyguard and Harrying Partners feats, you could boost your allies' AC without any magic pretty substantially, and it'd last a whole turn. There's ways of affecting whole groups of allies at once as well. If you're a halfling, you can also go down the Blundering Defense tree to provide AC to your adjacent allies. Fighting Defensively, Cautious Fighter, and Combat Expertise combined could provide adjacent allies with a lot of armor class, and your AC would be through the roof too.
People have already mentioned the Monk of the Lotus. There's also the Redeemer archetype, which basically specializes in knocking enemies out but NOT killing them. Honestly, I feel like that would be a better fit for a D&D adventuring party than someone that doesn't fight but doesn't care about people killing other people so long as he's not involved, but the Redeemer technically doesn't fit your concept since it involves swinging a big weapon at people to knock them unconscious. Still, I can attest to it having been one of the most fun archetypes I have ever played - in the right group.
Honestly, though, I'd consider a Wizard. Yes, a straight-up Wizard. Just carefully choose your spells and you'll find yourself equipped to deal with all kinds of situations non-violently: fear spells to make enemies run away, charm spells and dominate spells to control them, Geas, walls of stone and force to cut off enemies from their group so you can intimidate them into dropping their weapons and surrendering... You don't need to kill people to "win" a fight and get XP after all. You just need to defeat them - and that includes making them retreat, accepting their surrender, knocking them out, casting Sleep and then having them tied up, etc.
But again, this all depends on what you're willing to do. It's your character concept. The Wizard has the most tools for doing what you want simply because of how freaking broad his spell selection is (and his spells can be super useful outside of battle too), but you really have to think about what your character would allow himself to do.
(Example: Would Baleful Polymorphing someone be acceptable? You get to permanently turn someone into a fuzzy animal. Isn't that a better fate than outright killing them? This can be a pretty aggressive spell, but depending on what you're casting it on, this may be the best alternative. What if you were dealing with someone that was going to be captured and turned in to the guard to be executed, for instance? Wouldn't an ever-after as a squirrel be an improvement for them?)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My 15th level duel cursed, Oracle/life is a pacifist. This is accomplished on based on spell choices - choosing life giving, aids, and control spells. With her high CHA and charm, she can talk her way out of anything. It's entirely possible to be a pacifist and not feel useless. And, make no mistake, she's optimized and OP in her own way. Incredibly fun to play.
...you by the way, might want to look at catfolk. Might be some RP value for you there.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I played an entire AP with a guy whose character went from level 1 to 18 without ever once doing damage that I can remember. After the first book, I got curious and started tracking the extra damage the rest of us did because of his buffs and/or still being in combat due to healing. It was remarkably comparable.
In a different campaign I played an oracle who, though not a pacifist, was a terrified coward and had the Wrecker curse to boot, which made weapons really ineffective. Her main contribution to combat was re-rolls from the dual-cursed "misfortune" revelation and out of combat she broke traps and did some social interaction. Again, effective.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
My current character (an Oracle with the Wrecker curse) technically does not fight, but her spellcasting can get pretty violent.
The Warlord from D&D 4E suggests another way that a non-combatant character can contribute to combat -- by buffing and enabling the people who are fighting. If you have a Barbarian in the party who can do a lot of damage in one turn, the rest of the party would love to have around somebody who on his turn can tell the Barbarian "Do that again!" and have him do so immediately.
In Pathfinder, the closest equivalent would probably be a Bard who uses Inspire Courage and buffing and healing spells on his allies during combat.
However, you would be hard pressed to justify a player character who contributes nothing to combat.
I'm glad to see some people actually managed to make a character similar to what I'm thinking about. Apparently Oracle is the most common way to go when it comes to non-fighting!
I still have a lot to think about, trying to understand what the character would really do, what I would do in his place. Where does I draw the line?
First of all I would have to understand what made me decide to give up violence; maybe before becoming an adventurer I worked in a very violent environment. If I'm going down the caster lane, it wouldn't make much sense to have a past as a gladiator or an army veteran. What job could a spell caster do involving so much pain that could twist your soul? It has to do with physical violence, not just mental one. An "enhanced interrogation specialist"? A magic executioner?
Then, something snapped. He realised how much pain he caused, and decided to give up violence for good, and to devote himself to life conservation.
Joining an adventuring group is the perfect way to put your old life behind. Being a group of non-evil character, you already know that they won't just murder anything they see. But when is violence acceptable?
Self defence is always acceptable of course. What if violence can assure the safety of others? I don't think I would agree to it; you can always try to talk down the assaulters, or flee from danger.
Hunting for food is ok, but hunting for pelts or sport is not? or am I a VEGAN!?!?! o.O
What makes a creature worth killing without thinking twice? Unintelligent creatures might not be able to listen to reason or understand when they should give up.
What's an undead? Should I consider it's the true incarnation of life, or should I consider it an aberration that shouldn't exist because unnatural?
I travel with people who use violence sometimes. I'll do my best to teach them that violence is not the way to go, but most likely they will prefer to fight rather than flee if I fail with diplomacy.
In that case, what should I do? Assuming they are not doing an evil act, how far am I willing to go to help them? Should I limit myself to saving them from harm? Should I try to make their enemies less threatening, hoping for them to drop their weapons? Or should I just roll with it and give them all the help (buffing their dmg or making enemies vulnerable but not unable to fight) I can?
That would give them a good reason to keep me in the party... I wouldn't be too much of a burden when in combat, because I would actually make them stronger and help them.
------
Is there something else I should consider?
-----
Loot is not everything, nor the only way to get rich. Also, there are characters like the Monk with Vow of Poverty, who already give up loot for "nothing".
I have Played and really enjoyed a Love and Friendship type Character.
I recently just ended the campaign and already miss the character. We reached Level 16.
She was a Shabti Spirit Guide Life Oracle with the child Curse. (Immortal Loli) She was a DEVOTE Shelynite, even tho she received no Divine Powers from the goddess. Her main area's of concern was Friendship and Love. In Combat she never did any damage to living foes and only fought Undead because she believed she needed to help put the trapped soul to rest and there is no other way to free the soul that she knew of. In combat she used Spells Like Suggestion and Command to stop people from fighting. Out of combat she had a GODLY Diplomacy and Perform Sing that makes angels weep (+43 Sing).
She was all about the Roleplay and all her spells, feats, and most item choices reflected that. In the Beginning I was simply the Face, Healer, buff bot, and crafter. I played her as the super helpful type. It was even part of her character to do chores for people so they could have more free time to better themselves. She was very much the Gadfly to our groups Paladin of Ragatheal. Always wanting Mercy for everyone and trying to always find the most peaceful and morally correct solutions. She redeemed a couple enemies along the way as well as saved countless people. By the end of the Campaign she had made so many friends she had multiple armies (Humanoid and Dragon) of all different kinds willing to stand and fight for her vision for Peace. Even the GM said she cared about everyone and made many nameless NPCs into someone. Much like a muse would do to inspire and bring out the best in people.
One of my favorite things about the character was her Skinship. She is a very close, touchy feely type of person who always is looking for a hand to hold. She had a self written drawback of needing to cuddle with someone at night or she could not sleep well enough to recover her spells. Not a sexual thing but more just a comfort thing. Later in the campaign it actually paid off. She had most the group sleeping in a big cuddle pile after a while of traveling together and when we were attacked by a group of Vampires at night, it really paid off. If we were all in separate rooms it would have been an easy TPK but not even a single person died. All the way through, her little Quirks turned into big pay offs both RP wise and in combat.
People heard about her Mercy and love and many enemies were willing to surrender to her knowing they would be spared and treated fairly. She even saved the final boss from death even after he had done so much evil. She found out he was being controlled by a Artifact and while the group was fighting him she decided to risk all she had to save him from the item during the fight. In the end she did rescue him...which turned out better than killing him which had repercussions of many innocent people being crushed to death by his floating island, that was powered by his life force. It ended up saving a lot more lives than straight killing him and crashing his Island/Ship into the city.
Anyways do not be discouraged from playing this type of character. With the right DM and a fun group it can be a complete blast to play. I had so much fun I have thought about Remaking her just to have more fun with her.
Bober,
First I wish you luck.
Now then,
1) Buffing AC is in the same spirit as providing a to hit bonus. Making your friends harder to hit allows them to wade into battle with less thought as to being hit for damage. It may not seem like the same to you but it essentially is.
2) Depending on the spirit of the game/campaign your idea can work effectively but it really depends on the GM and your group.
3) Would the group actually have your PC in the party if you the player were not the other players or GM friend? This is the gold standard of PC design (for most games, setting and campaigns), IMHO. Does your group follow it?
4) Loot: Some would say that PF/D&D is a game of loot but it does not have to be so. But if your group is geared this way then your PC might be an impediment to this.
If...
1) ...you are trying to point out that PF can be a game of mostly combat. I will say that compared to other games it can be or thought as so. But it does not have to be. But think of where the game came from (ie its linage) and how it has advanced since then.
2) ...I was in the military I would be reluctant to have a person like this in my squad/unit. Now there are cases in history of this type of person having done great accomplishments in combat (the movie Hacksaw Ridge comes to mind even though I have not seen it).
Why? well I am putting my life on the line with the others "generally" the code of brother-hood means that they will also do the same. It does not matter if my class, HP, stats, combat effectiveness gets in the way but it is a matter of human nature and comradely. (I am not saying that there is anything wrong if a person does not do this in real life)
3) ...There is also the question of basic resource management. Is your PC sucking up resources that would be better used by another person for that situation? Now not every situation/group has to be the perfect representation of resource management but in the end it will catch up with you.
If at your job would you expect to be paid a full salary for doing 1/3 the work?
4) ...Going off point 2) in the military the type of person you are playing works well in larger groups and not in a small group such as are in most PF campaigns.
Again, if your group and GM is up for it then play it out and see where it goes.
From my past experience, this type of PC works out well for short times but in the long run has become a problem in terms of group cohesion and unity. With the player retiring then PC after the question comes up "Why should you get a full share when we are doing all the risking of our lives and you hang back and risk so little?". Now that may have just been the experience of me and my group and the times but it is still a valid point. (In the case of the last time this occurred we instituted a combat pay clause and that PC did not get combat pay, which was and extra % of treasure or a reduction in a full share of treasure. Not to the point of an NPC share but about 1/2 way between and NPC share and a full share)
Have Fun
MDC
I can testify too that a Life Oracle optimized for in-combat healing and secondly buffing can be loved and loved by a party. Not everyone thinks that healing in-combat is a waste! Yes, she was willing to fight if it came to it. But she wasn't that good at it -- so if instead this character had said she wasn't going to fight at all, her contribution to the party wouldn't have been diminished by that much. And we would still have wanted her with us. Healing & buffing are both vital roles, and condition-removal is scorned only by the daring.
Although I can see that buffing sounds dangerously akin to lifting the blade yourself. Ooooh.
*sigh* If I were building the character, I think I'd come back to an option you don't like -- combat maneuvers like grapple and disarm. If I could just pin the leader of our foes, maybe the others would surrender... And I'd heal them afterwards, despite any griping from my party-mates. (Although I'd best avoid Channel as an ability, since I certainly would avoid the Selective Channel feat!)
I have NO idea if this helps you at all. But go with it, find this character. It's worth it!
{PS: There's a thread giving a way to generate characters using the Harrow deck. I'd be fascinated to see what insight it gave you in developing this character.}
Inlaa wrote: I will be straight-up with you: a technical pacifist that's traveling with a party of murderhobos really doesn't sound like a good idea to me, roleplay-wise OR gameplay-wise. If you don't want to be a part of this violence, why are you traveling with a group of people that pursues that path? If your personal code is so arbitrary that you can't hurt people yourself but won't bat an eye at someone else chopping someone in half with a greatsword, why bother being a pacifist of any sort at all?
The OP may be doing the character type exemplified by Samuel L. Jackson's BBEG role in Kingsman:The Secret Service. in that he's perfectly happy with violence, as long as he isn't the one who's spilling the blood.
I'd recommend a grapple build. With rope and effective tying up, you very easily shut down opponents, and various grappling styles are there to assist you, as well as several feats.
In 3.0/3.5, we played with a guy who played a pregnant were-dolphin cleric/monk that refused to do melee combat, ranged combat, or spellcasting. She didn't even do
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I maintain my position, then.
Does every challenge need to be combat? No. Does every combat need to result in carnage? No. Do characters need to look for combat all the time? No.
But still, the game revolves, mostly, around combat. Most spells are meant to be used in combat. HP, BAB, saves are almost exclusively used in combat. Skills are largely used in combat. Character abilities (smite, sneak attack, favored enemy, bloodline powers, etc.) are, mostly, used in combat. The game doesn't *only* revolve around combat, but it does *mostly* do so. And this is exacerbated by the fact that almost every build utterly sucks at non-combat situations, at least unless they invested heavily in it and compared to builds centered on them.
So here you come, the pacifist, with a large group of combat specialists, and you want to make a dude that is good at nothing else than making these guys worthless.
Yes, fun is mostly relative. We all have fun with different things. But if the rest of that large party made characters that are specialized in combat, I'm just going to *assume* that they actually find combat fun. And here you waltz in, basically saying that's all wrongbadfun, and that *you* should handle *every encounter* non-violently. And that if you mess up, then you will bless them with an opportunity to do something.
The character concept you seek is not about filling a gap in the party's skill set, it's about making a large swath of the party's skills meaningless and then about wasting everyone's time when you fail to take away all their fun. Because you are intent on gimping yourself so bad, that with the party already being large enough, your character doing his terrible stuff is just going to bog down the pace of the game further. You may as well all-out state that your character will sit out all combat, and never take any action in it. At least that way you won't be harming their play experience when they do get to fight. Because by lvl 10, you can start spamming a whole bunch of saves on everyone, and your turn, doing your terrible things, is very likely to take more time to run than the fighter's.
Social skills can certainly be a legitimate part of the game, and there are many viable non-lethal build options out there. But what you describe is just ridiculous. Refusing to buff your allies? Really? All of the non-harming stuff you name suck for the most part (go ahead, disarm that dragon, I dare you; oh, he doesn't have a weapon? fine, bull rush him, then...) and, inevitably, just delay the creature's incoming defeat. Disarming or tripping a bad guy will just make him less threatening as the fighter bashes his skull; it isn't going to change the end result of him having his skull bashed in. All it does it make the combat drag on longer than necessary by making the enemies die more slowly than had you went all-out on them yourself as well, instead of holding back and limiting yourself to the least useful actions. Not to mention the issues of "you know, that bad guy is gonna wake up in a few minutes and will be really pissed at us, what do we do with him...?"
Non-violent characters are not acceptable unless everyone else is on board, because non-violent characters have the intrinsic trait of seeking to undermine and negate the other players' experiences. No one should get to negate other players' fun, and especially not a whole group's. I could come up with a list of conditions for a non-violent character to be acceptable at my table, but your players' aren't mine and they may not seek the same things. The onus is on you, however, to consult with them and make sure your build isn't invalidating theirs.
Most useful non violent character I have. Oracle 1 dual cursed, shaman (witch doctor life spirit). Working toward fateful channel.
- Misfortune revelation. Reroll
- Protector falmiliar + channel + life link/shield other. (Healing)
- Mediator trait and slumber. Non violent comabt ability
- Misforture/evil eye hex debuff.
- And fateful channel reroll to all those healed by you channel.
For a non violent master manipulator nothing beats a mesmerist. They put there plan in place before the fight starts and watch the fight unravel.
They have lots of non violent spells. Make people laugh, no sleep or not movewhile protecting friends with there tricks. You can opt out of using painful stare or let other people do the other people do the damage for you. And they are the class best as using non violent spells on undead plant etc.
If spells like charm person are ok, I'd recommend a kitsune crossblooded sorcerer with the Impossible and Serpentine bloodlines. Kitsune get bonuses to enchantment spells and the bloodlines allow you to use the spells on constructs, animals, and magical beasts as if they were humanoids.
You'll want Spell Focus (enchantment) and I'd also recommend Persistent Spell metamagic feat to make then roll their save twice.
I'd also recommend the Magical Lineage and/or Wayang Spellhunter traits to allow you to add metamgic to your charm person spells without increasing the spell slot it takes up.
Sorcerers only get 2 skill points per level, but this can easily be offset by pumping Int as well as Cha.
Thanks to all those supporting my idea and giving me suggestions. I'm checking out everything you are suggesting me, to see what interests me the most. :)
---
Now a few replies:
@Mark Carlson 255, I'll just reply to a couple of your points. #2, I don't really see what the military has to do with all of this. Adventuring and joining an army have not much in common. The party can do what they want, they have multiple ways to achieve their objective, and while most quests lead to combat, it is not usually the real objective. Often is figuring out something or retrieving a person or an object. #3 you say I would do only 1/3 of the job, but if that's how you share loot, then a character with low or even negative CHA shouldn't be considered doing the full job either. Most likely he contributes nothing (or at least nothing good) to social encounters. If I manage to get a bigger reward out of a contract, I don't plan on keeping the extra for myself just because he wouldn't have been able to do it, just like he shouldn't think that him killing an enemy entitles him to the full reward. Anyway, rewards are not my focus, so that's not really an issue. #4 the party is large, so..
@Goblin_priest, we clearly don't agree about many things. If you had read my latest messages, you would have seen that I realised how buffing might be a must for my character, no matter what.
I'm sure I won't stop every fight, and since we play home-brew adventures it's the GM's job to create opportunities for every player to shine.
Also, from the way you talk about disarming etc.. you really sound like a power player. "The most efficient way"? Who cares. Even combat is not all about destroying the enemy in the shortest amount of time possible. That might work when you are fighting a very strong adversary, like a boss or something, but most of the time you already know that you're gonna win the fight, so there is no need to be super-efficient every single round.
As I said multiple times, I do plan on talking to every party member about it to get their approval. But before doing that, I need to have a build ready. I need to be able to show them what I can and can't do, in order for them to make an educated decision.
One more thing: you say "undermining and negating other players experiences" when you talk about a pacifist, but you miss to realise that that's pretty much what a lawful good character does already (e.g. paladins). The only difference is that they do it more in social situations other than combat. They force you to do some things just because it's the "right thing to do" (e.g. quests with low rewards, to save some stupid NPC), they prevent you from breaking the law (not just evil things like torture, can't even steal something or lie to the guards when they are present) and so on.
---
So far Oracle seems the way to go, maybe with a 1 lvl dip in Investigator to get a nice advantage on skills, especially knowledge. I'll check out the new suggestions as soon as I have some time :) Thanks
I made a reasonably effective non-combat bard, though that was less on account of being a pacifist character and more that she was missing an arm. She might not have done any damage personally, but our party was large and martial-heavy so tossing out the usual bard buffs (Haste, Inspire Courage, Good Hope, Etc) still made her a huge multiplier.
In general I'd say there's no issue with playing a character who doesn't personally do damage so long as they're contributing to the party in some other worthwhile way. Like others have said, a build built around buffing, healing, and generally supporting the rest of the party can easily pull its weight in battle. Especially if you're using spells that buff the whole group in a large party. My non-combat bard was probably contributing more to the party DPR than any martial in the group, because there were five martials getting all those bard buffs.
Bober wrote: Adventuring and joining an army have not much in common. The party can do what they want, they have multiple ways to achieve their objective, and while most quests lead to combat, it is not usually the real objective. Often is figuring out something or retrieving a person or an object. #3 you say I would do only 1/3 of the job, but if that's how you share loot, then a character with low or even negative CHA shouldn't be considered doing the full job either. Most likely he contributes nothing (or at least nothing good) to social encounters. If I manage to get a bigger reward out of a contract, I don't plan on keeping the extra for myself just because he wouldn't have been able to do it, just like he shouldn't think that him killing an enemy entitles him to the full reward. Anyway, rewards are not my focus, so that's not really an issue. #4 the party is large, so.. I've never been in the army, but presumably a squad of soldiers would want to believe that every member in their squad would do whatever it takes to make sure everyone gets out of a tough situation in one piece. If one squad member wasn't willing to fight to do that, I can see how other squad members wouldn't be able to depend on that person, or want him in the group.
Adventurers even more so since they generally see a lot more deadly combat than your average military squad.
As far as your comparison to CHA, in social encounters, you very often only need one point person to do the lion's share of the interaction. That isn't the case for combat, nor are the penalties for failure usually death. Nor is it as common as combat in typical Pathfinder scenarios.
Again, that said, if your group is fine with it, then there's nothing really more to say on that subject. Find a way to make it fun for you and them and roll with it.
Bober,
1a) A military example is often very appropriate when the situation you are replication involves repeated life and death situations with a small group of recurring people. A comradeery factor tend to build amongst the group just like you would see in a military unit.
1b and 2)I agree if your adventures are more like a group of thieves embarking on a quest to get an item or loot (Oceans 11 (+)) then also you have the same situation if danger is involved and people put their lives on the line for one another.
3) Yes it is how you draw up the contract. And as i have said from personal experience (I know groups differ and change with the times) in the past when I have played in a group with a player like this (that was not in a tournament situation where the PC was defined that way) after a time it became a issue and thus we as a group decided to reduce the person treasure, this also happened in another group I played with later on in which I recused myself from the initial discussion but not the vote do to prior experience.
Your group may differ.
Which is why I say ask the GM and the group if it is ok so you can solve any problems before they exist.
Have Fun.
MDC
_Ozy_ wrote:
I've never been in the army, but presumably a squad of soldiers would want to believe that every member in their squad would do whatever it takes to make sure everyone gets out of a tough situation in one piece. If one squad member wasn't willing to fight to do that, I can see how other squad members wouldn't be able to depend on that person, or want him in the group.
It's not always the case. A couple of example that come to mind are translators (who often are local, not trained for combat) and reporters. They travel with a squad, they do their part, but when it comes to a firefight they take cover and try not to get killed, leaving the actual combat to the soldiers.
----
For future reference:
I said already multiple times that my GM is ok with it, and that the party will hear about it when I have something more developed to present them. Until I have a character sheet or something more than just an idea, there is no reason to tell them. I'm the first one that wants to see the potential of my creation.
I also said in the beginning that if the party is ok, but we see it doesn't really work, I'm all for giving it up and making a new "default" character to join them with it.
I'm repeating this as a reminder. I'm here to look for suggestions on how to do it, to hear stories of people who did something similar, and to eventually lay out the character together. If it makes you feel better, imagine it as an exercise.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As far as the military squad comparison goes, I will point out that for a good while combat medics were designated noncombatants who weren't supposed to fight, and sometimes didn't even carry weapons. Nobody in the army seemed to mind having them around.
(Granted, these days a lot of combat medics are armed combatants, but that's due to most insurgent forces not respecting the Geneva Conventions.)
Is the party you're looking to join down with this idea, or are you ruining their fun. I'm not inclined to offer advice if this is just a big rock you're going to toss into the puddle of someone else's enjoyment.
Seriously, the GM being fine with it has nothing to do with whether or not everyone else at the table is going to resent the s&!# out of a character designed to throw a spanner into the standard working of a game. Run the general concept by the players before showing up with a character sheet you put work into.
Edit: Actually I think i have you, but it relies pretty heavily on the gm being ok with your character starting at higher than standard age category. Thematically access to alchemists handbook, and skill unlocks from unchained helps
Venerable Quigong Sensei Monk -6 str/dex/con +3 int/wis/cha He avoids combat cause he's g+!#!&n old.
Gains diplomacy, linguistics, and all knowledge skills as class skills
Gains inspire courage as words of advice
Uses wisdom on attack rolls and combat maneuvers
Can spend ki to give monk abilities to other party members
Now, focus on stunning fist and/or the feats surrounding it. Take mantis style. Thats pretty much the totality of your combat. You already have wis to hit, so you'll be stacking it anyway which ups the dc of stunning fist/those type of feats. Take mantis style. It ups your stunning fist DC and has a heal focus which leads to taking the heal skill, and if possible the skill unlock feat. Coupled with Profession herbalist and/or craft alchemy to use the Pei Zin Herbalism alchemy in alchemists handbook.
You now have an elderly traveling acupuncturist and herbalist who desperately wants to avoid combat due to his advanced age and pacifism but can defend himself with a superior knowledge of anatomy and pressure points.
Be an aasimar (for stats) or human (as the sensei gives up most bonus feats and more skillpoints will be useful for this character)
Bober wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
I've never been in the army, but presumably a squad of soldiers would want to believe that every member in their squad would do whatever it takes to make sure everyone gets out of a tough situation in one piece. If one squad member wasn't willing to fight to do that, I can see how other squad members wouldn't be able to depend on that person, or want him in the group.
It's not always the case. A couple of example that come to mind are translators (who often are local, not trained for combat) and reporters. They travel with a squad, they do their part, but when it comes to a firefight they take cover and try not to get killed, leaving the actual combat to the soldiers. Yeah, in Pathfinder those are NPCs along for a particular scenario. ;)
I played a pacifist/libertarian type cleric that focused on diplomacy, healing, status removal and buffing. He was a great addition to our group, which at the time was a large group with 6-8 PCs at every session.
I am not sure if any of you are familiar with Lanchester's Law. Basically it states that the effectiveness of combatants is roughly equal to the square of the number of combatants. So two combatants working together is four times as effective as a lone fighter. Obviously this is a law of diminishing returns, if you already have five combat oriented PCs in your party then adding a sixth will only give you a marginal gain. In that case you are probably better off having a healer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Inlaa wrote: I will be straight-up with you: a technical pacifist that's traveling with a party of murderhobos really doesn't sound like a good idea to me, roleplay-wise OR gameplay-wise. Anyone who is traveling with a party of murderhobos really doesn't sound like a good idea to me. In fact playing with players who play murderhoboes is no fun at all to me.
Very very few players are that immature, to willy nilly kill shopkeepers, beggars, guards and the like, whenever and where ever.
Pathfinder isnt a game for murderhoboes. Adventurers are not murderhoboes.
Adventurers are totally murderhobos.
Okay, that might be harsh. But really, a party of adventurers... that's a group of people who wander around specializing in murdering things so they can get more money to murder better. Um. Sounds like a murderhobo to me.
Seriously, while the underlying premise is usually more heroic and there's a McGuffin or some big bad to stop, one of the primary motivators for adventurers is the sack of gold they get as a reward. And then they spend that gold on stuff to get more gold with by murdering s+&~. It's an endless cycle of violence.
I'm cool with that, and I try to roleplay characters who are much more than just murderhobos, but if you're going to try to make the case to me that most parties don't revolve around killing the baddies and getting gold (read: murderhoboing), then I'm going to have to squint at you and ask if we're both playing Pathfinder.
If you click the link for this character, you'll see a wild empathy druid based around cuddling the dungeon into submission.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: First of all I would have to understand what made me decide to give up violence; maybe before becoming an adventurer I worked in a very violent environment. If I'm going down the caster lane, it wouldn't make much sense to have a past as a gladiator or an army veteran. What job could a spell caster do involving so much pain that could twist your soul? It has to do with physical violence, not just mental one. An "enhanced interrogation specialist"? A magic executioner? On backgrounds that would be relevant to why you don't like violence:
1) Just play a character that's never felt right with hurting people. Simple, straight forward.
2) War veteran, as you said.
3) A relative of war veterans. For some people, being related to soldiers/guards/what have you is more reason to follow in their footsteps. For others, though, seeing your dad come home from the war missing a leg or learning that your guardswoman aunt was knifed in an alley while doing a beat patrol is a reason to condemn violence.
4) A surgeon, healer, or otherwise medicinal background. You might be alright with dealing with the aftermath of a fight, but you might hate the fighting itself.
5) A refugee of war.
6) Someone raised by peace-loving individuals. Perhaps they were raised in a temple of Sarenrae?
7) Someone who did a terrible thing in the past, such as murder their own brother in a fit of rage, and has sworn to never injure another soul again as a means of atonement.
And the list goes on. There's TONS of ideas.
Inlaa wrote: 6) Someone raised by peace-loving individuals. Perhaps they were raised in a temple of Sarenrae? Minor nitpick: Sarenrae doesn't do nonviolence or peace. She does redemption and mercy, but if some irredeemable soul (Or undead, if they have souls) needs a chopping, you can ring up the nearest temple of Sarenrae for some backup. How about Shelyn or Abadar?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Is the Tranquil Guardian Paladin allowed? Basically trades all the offensive features for abilities that force enemies to not fight
|
