Inspired by the recent release of a game called Undertale, two people in my party are determined to do a 'pacifist run', meaning they refuse to kill anything and will only ever try to talk their way out of any conflict ever.
Has anyone here ever been or played with a pacifist party? How did it work out? If you're a DM, did you oblige the players that wanted to be pacifists and just said yes to everything or did you try to give them a wake up call of sorts?
As you seem to note, the viability of a pacifist run is determined by what the GM says, and also by what the players consider pacifism.
Would killing a rabid dog count? How about a zombie? How about a demon?
I'm a little concerned about your turn of phrase "give them a wake up call". The implication there is that they're the ones who are asleep. Perhaps you're the one in need of a wake up call. Or perhaps this is just my own hobby horse and you meant nothing by it. Either way, I'd say that without being the GM, neither of us really knows how the pacifist run is going to turn out.
I've had campaigns where I try to settle all my conflicts non-lethally, and it's a pain in the butt from a mechanical standpoint, but worth it for the RP. I don't think it's very practical to play a campaign with no combat, without the GM moving some of the fundamental assumptions of the game. There are whole classes (i.e. the non-casters, non-rogues) whose only thing is combat, and if there is no combat, then their characters will be largely useless.
Further, if the pacifists are relying on the rest of the group to do their dirty work, that's not really in the spirit of a pacifist run at all. Then it'll just be the GM throwing a full party's worth of encounters at a full party minus two of combatants. Don't be surprised if you die before the pacifists pick up on this "subtle" message.
Finally, unless this is all RPed out very well, I'd say it will be very challenging to find a reason 2 pacifists will be able to stay in a group in which everyone else is risking their necks on their behalf.
Yeah, saying 'wake up call' does seem unnecessarily aggressive so I'll apologize for that.
I just feel like declaring that you want to do a pacifist run seems very... entitled? Like, you expect every problem to be solveable by talking at it, and kind of forces that expectation onto the DM which can make them seem like they're a bad DM if they don't change all the conflicts to always have the talking option, even at the risk of break immersion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't look at it as a demand, then. Look at it as the beginning of a discussion (which, maybe, they could have opened a bit more tactfully). If you, the GM, and the pacifists don't talk about the campaign before it begins, this is going to end terribly for at least two of you.
@Jaunt: The campaign's already underway, and the two pacifists just completed a quest with more plotholes than swiss cheese after my character told them it sounded like a very bad idea, read: Going underwater at level 1. But, DM fiat let them get potions of water breathing for free, as well as a scroll of remove curse for the problem itself which they didn't actually roll to remove the curse, just used and done.
So that kind of cemented their idea to do a pure pacifist run.
@Baval: Is ToI third party?
Eh...okay, that sounds like the GM is being a pushover. Are you the only more traditional player in the campaign?
If the issue is the GM is just rolling with what people seem excited about, you're going to have to build a coalition of players who say "hey, we got into this expecting some combat, when do we get catered to?".
It may (and I do say may, I'm not nearly ready to make a call) turn out to be one of those games that's better to quit than to suffer through.
@Jaunt: I seem to be, one of the pacifists has as much system mastery as I do, which is also part of the reason why they're so confident they can do a pacifist run.
The DM has sort of middling system mastery and this is their first serious campaign. The rest of the team is all low system mastery.
This is also a friends thing, so I'd feel bad just dropping out or raising a fuss, so I'm kinda stuck -w-; Mostly I just need to vent about the situation and determine what I should do in character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do note that a large part of why the pacifist run makes sense in Undertale is that most 'enemies' genuinely don't want to fight.
A lot of the conflict stems from fear or misunderstanding, that the player can clear up.
In Pathfinder, you may encounter enemies that actually do want to hurt you.
In that case, retire your current character, citing that he doesn't fit with the party or the campaign, then make a character who fits the nonviolent MO a bit better.
Also, accept that this probably won't be a challenging game so much as System Master Abuses Easy GM Funtime Comedy Improv Hour.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or encounter enemies who can't actually be reasoned with, due to mindlessness (good luck talking down an ooze) and/or sheer overwhelming aggression (good luck talking down an owlbear).
Or encounter enemies who genuinely look forward to hurting you (ogres, undead, demons, etc.).
Seriously, in Pathfinder you can find entire societies of Floweys.
@Umbral: Yeah I know how the whole pacifism thing in Undertale works, I'm currently watching both Steam Train and CommanderHolly's playthroughs. I think the players are just kind of expecting the same thing from the wrong game just because the DM will let them.
@Jaunt: I'd thought of that as well, but I'm not really in a good position to do so.
Also something I'll have to wait and see if it's true.
@Zhangar: Way things are going, they'll probably try to talk to oozes and undead, especially because one of them is playing a bard wyrwood whose backstory is basically being a grave keeper before being sent the letter.
The bard was also appalled to hear my character had killed some hobgoblin raiders during a job to get money for travel expenses, and is now demanding we go back and give the hobgoblins propel burial rites.
If the pacifists have mind affecting magic they could actually be extremely effective in combat. Charms and domination are very powerful. Sure, they'd have less to offer against oozes and such, but that's not so different from just playing a typical Witch. I guess you could go a lot of ways with this...
- Your PC is a wise old monk or brave paladin type who is patient and kind up to a certain point but willing to unleash violence against true evildoers. You could potentially use a lot of nonlethal damage and only actually kill stuff which is mindless or hopelessly Evil.
- Your PC is a charming but twisted psychopath who hides his crimes when possible and tries to explain them away if he's caught.
- Your PC is a Barbarian or Bloodrager who blames his rage on a terrible childhood, abuse, etc might fit. The poor kid just can't help himself...
- You become a pacifist too and set off on whatever roleplaying intensive quest the DM and other players dream up (maybe a mystery of some sort? I don't recall Angela Lansbury or Charlie Chan shooting folks much)
I guess you could also try some mix of the above. Heck, you could even be a Celestial Bloodrager with levels in Paladin, and going into a rage and killing Evil creatures probably wouldn't even make you fall.
@Devilkiller: It's a wyrwood bard and a custom race playing as a brawler archetype that gives them sneak attack.
Switching characters at the moment isn't really feasible for both in and out of character reasons.
At the moment what I can do is:
A) Accept that they'll take the reigns of the campaign until the DM actually throws something that can't be reasoned with at them, making my character swear a vow to his employer, the wyrwood bard, to not do anything he doesn't ask him to.
B) Keep being cautious of any possible dangerous no matter how unlikely they seem, and subsequently be considered a party pooper for not following them on their poorly thought out plans.
It sounds like everyone else is enjoying this and you aren't.
Whether or nor they are 'doing it wrong' isn't really relevant. Basically, your choices are leave (which you don't want to do), try and embrace the spirit of the game they are playing (which you seem reluctant to do) or wallow in your misery consoling yourself with the knowledge that you are 'right'.
I recommend the second option, but choose whichever seems most appealing.
Honestly, a pacifist game is relatively simple. A pacifist run is harder. There are plenty of /tg/ stories of games where fighting is NOT the main point. At the end of the day, even though most d20 games are build around the idea you will be fighting it's still a RolePlaying game. You are playing a role and while some have argued Pathfinder could use more engaging non-combative mechanics those mechanics do exist.
A pacifist run tends to imply playing a normal game of Pathfinder, with "unreasonable" with creatures and all without killing anything. GM Fiat has trumped my ridiculous Cha. characters before to force fighting. I didn't mind then, but would really object to it if the party's goal was to play pacifically. That said, even the greatest of diplomats can face unwinnable discussions (Or a nat 1), especially with the harsh penalties for talking down a fight that has already started. In that case you would have to rely on fighting mechanics build around non-lethal solutions. A much harder proposition.
Honestly, they don't have poorly thought out plans if the GM allows it. It's part of RolePlaying, even if it's not a part you enjoy.
If you're a DM, did you oblige the players that wanted to be pacifists and just said yes to everything or did you try to give them a wake up call of sorts?
From the GM point of view:
If you build a game, from the ground up, around pacifism being an answer this is not really a problem. However, they are in a set setting and spontaneously decided to do this. Now, there is one key question they should be asked:
"Do they want you to run a pacifist optional game, or is this a self-inflicted challenge?"
If it's a challenge, I would just open up and allow non-violent RaW or RaI solutions should they come up with them. Don't stress about it, just build the blank encounters, perhaps with a mind as to objects or clues to a non-violent solution to flesh out the world in a direction you know the party will be looking. If the natural encounter in your campaign cannot be beaten through any pacific means they attempt, so be it. If they are challenging themselves they might fail. The last thing I would do in those shoes is create a wake up call. If the GM is stacking the deck there's no fun in the challenge anymore. You must be neutral.
Pacifism does not have to be total non violence. GURPS for instance has different degrees of pacifism within the rules for instance: fight only is self defence (-15), cannot harm innocents (-10) and cannot kill (-15). While total non violence (-30) is an option it is rarely taken. Perhaps you can find a middle ground?
I can say that NON LETHAL parties are quite do able.
I was in a party with a Monk of the White Lotus (me), a Hedge Witch (she loved her sleep hex...), A Cavalier of the Blue Rose, a Tranquil Paladin, and a Life Oracle. Everything we did was non lethal and we took prisoners and returned them to the "proper authority" or we try to help teach them the path of good.
@Pixie - Did you extend your mercy to undead creatures?
@Pixie - Did you extend your mercy to undead creatures?
Nope. Against undead, we destroyed them since they are truly unnatural in our world. But that was the only exception.