How to deal with pacifists?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist? Someone who refuses to deal damage to an enemy but is willing to give buffs and other support is perfectly fine, but what we have here is a character who is a danger to her allies in the inevitable combat situations. I know that none of my characters would willingly accept this person as a group member.

Remember kiddos, if you're going to play the "I'm just roleplaying my character card" it goes both ways. My characters are professionals who joined the Pathfinder Society to do a job, and if you're not going to do the job then my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:

Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist? Someone who refuses to deal damage to an enemy but is willing to give buffs and other support is perfectly fine, but what we have here is a character who is a danger to her allies in the inevitable combat situations. I know that none of my characters would willingly accept this person as a group member.

Remember kiddos, if you're going to play the "I'm just roleplaying my character card" it goes both ways. My characters are professionals who joined the Pathfinder Society to do a job, and if you're not going to do the job then my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.

Perhaps it's someone who's heard of the exceptionally high mortality rate for Society opponents on some of their missions and is taking their level best effort to try and STOP that?

Perhaps it's something that isn't an issue at some tables, and then the partners sat down at a table full of 'death vagrants' who are now asking the question 'Dost thou even Dps?'

I'd be willing to cut this concept some 'slack' to see how it worked. If it worked poorly in a group I was in, I wouldn't threaten to engage with PvP

'Arachnofiend' wrote:
'my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.'

but attempt to learn why the build was such, what the thought process was, why does the character interact like that, etc.

I don't know everything. Heck, some days it feels like I don't know *anything*. So any chance I get to learn something new, it's awesome.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Taking a concept character into Bonekeep is like picking Betty White as your quarterback for the Superbowl. It's a cute idea that is going to get everyone on your team creamed.

Yes, but IF you can pull it off the endzone dance is awesome.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Bonekeep 1 that my -1 was on had nearly *an entire party* of concept characters. But we *explored*, *cooperated*, and *reported*. We could have probably finished the thing (we were in the last room with the last encounter) in the timeframe, but we were being conservative and it saved our butts at least three times.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Remember kiddos, if you're going to play the "I'm just roleplaying my character card" it goes both ways. My characters are professionals who joined the Pathfinder Society to do a job, and if you're not going to do the job then my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.

'Professionals'? Who do YOU travel with?

The Exchange 1/5 5/5

TOZ wrote:


'Professionals'? Who do YOU travel with?

"What's in YOUR wallet?"


trollbill wrote:
Taking a concept character into Bonekeep is like picking Betty White as your quarterback for the Superbowl. It's a cute idea that is going to get everyone on your team creamed.

All of my characters are concept characters, I bet 90% of people serious about Bonekeep would very happily take my characters.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist? Someone who refuses to deal damage to an enemy but is willing to give buffs and other support is perfectly fine, but what we have here is a character who is a danger to her allies in the inevitable combat situations. I know that none of my characters would willingly accept this person as a group member.

Remember kiddos, if you're going to play the "I'm just roleplaying my character card" it goes both ways. My characters are professionals who joined the Pathfinder Society to do a job, and if you're not going to do the job then my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.

Perhaps it's someone who's heard of the exceptionally high mortality rate for Society opponents on some of their missions and is taking their level best effort to try and STOP that?

Perhaps it's something that isn't an issue at some tables, and then the partners sat down at a table full of 'death vagrants' who are now asking the question 'Dost thou even Dps?'

I'd be willing to cut this concept some 'slack' to see how it worked. If it worked poorly in a group I was in, I wouldn't threaten to engage with PvP

'Arachnofiend' wrote:
'my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.'

but attempt to learn why the build was such, what the thought process was, why does the character interact like that, etc.

I don't know everything. Heck, some days it feels like I don't know *anything*. So any chance I get to learn something new, it's awesome.

I've played with this character. I've had characters die because of this character. By bringing a useless character to the table you're diminishing my fun and wasting my time. I wouldn't want to play with a pacifist who is perfectly willing to leave me to die for their "code" any more than I would a CE backstabber.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist? Someone who refuses to deal damage to an enemy but is willing to give buffs and other support is perfectly fine, but what we have here is a character who is a danger to her allies in the inevitable combat situations. I know that none of my characters would willingly accept this person as a group member.

Remember kiddos, if you're going to play the "I'm just roleplaying my character card" it goes both ways. My characters are professionals who joined the Pathfinder Society to do a job, and if you're not going to do the job then my character will drop yours like the dead weight you are.

The Pathfinder society would LOOOOOVE Pacifists. People of exceptional intelligence and diplopmacy interested in uncovering secrets lost to the ages??? Absolutely.

Having people like that on staff only helps their reputation compared to the murderhobos drenched in blood every mission. The whole society has a bad rap in some places.

I'm in the camp that does not believe that Combat is the be all and end all of roleplaying. A pacifistic character is certainly viable and there SHOULD be some people not interested in killing everyone they cross.

However, they should be doing some buffing and healing and bard song or SOMETHING in the background even if they aren't swinging a sword.


phantom1592 wrote:

The Pathfinder society would LOOOOOVE Pacifists. People of exceptional intelligence and diplopmacy interested in uncovering secrets lost to the ages??? Absolutely.

Having people like that on staff only helps their reputation compared to the murderhobos drenched in blood every mission. The whole society has a bad rap in some places.

Yeah, these are the NPC's that work desk jobs and hand out missions to people more capable/willing to handle a situation if it deteriorates (which it, more often than not, does).
phantom1592 wrote:
I'm in the camp that does not believe that Combat is the be all and end all of roleplaying.

Neither am I, nor have I ever claimed as such. Even my Big Stupid Fighters always have ranks in Diplomacy at the very least because I think being able to tackle problems both in and out of combat is essential to being a good Society member; if you can only handle one side of the job you can't handle the job.

However, the issues with a character being useful in combat and useless in social situations are much less severe than the other way around; unless everyone in the party is like that, the only person being punished for it is the person who made the character, who has to twiddle their thumbs while everyone else solves the adventure. The person who twiddles their thumbs in combat is risking the lives of other PFS members.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karasuma Tazou wrote:
TOZ wrote:


'Professionals'? Who do YOU travel with?

"What's in YOUR wallet?"

You adventure with Samuel L. Jackson and Jennifer Garner??? I want to be at THAT table!!!

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
All of my characters are concept characters, I bet 90% of people serious about Bonekeep would very happily take my characters.

I'm pretty sure that's because your characters aren't 'concept characters' in the way trollbill was using the term.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
All of my characters are concept characters, I bet 90% of people serious about Bonekeep would very happily take my characters.
I'm pretty sure that's because your characters aren't 'concept characters' in the way trollbill was using the term.

That's my point.

One man's cheese is another man's pizza topping.

Dark Archive

Pink Dragon wrote:
Ryzoken wrote:

The level of badwrongfun in this thread makes me sad.

Send the player to Sacramento, we'd love to have her as is.

Everyone's definition of badwrongfun is different, which his why some talking between players is necessary. Sometimes the differences in style and expectations are too much to overcome, which can lead to difficulties and sometimes it isn't. Everyone at the table should be able to have fun, including the murderhobos and the pacifists.

Does not like fighting? Okay, that's interesting in an adventurer but acceptable. Maybe the OP could try explaining that buff spells, bardic music, and the like allow you to contribute without breaking your characters pacifist personality. As would using bardic magic to heal allies. Also, try explaining that a pacifist can try to help the party avoid fights too. Diplomacy can be a very effective tool in this regard.

Just because you don't like to fight, doesn't mean you can't confuse and bamboozle the enemy, or support your allies. Just means you may have to be creative.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Pink Dragon wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
I wil take a pacifist bard over murder hobo's anyday of the week, she is welcome in spokane anytime.
Yes, everyone's definition of badwrongfun is different.

True, but my definition of badwrongfun is the correct one. All hail my superior gaming wit and wisdom!

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'll take this near-burden bard over the scenario stomping paladin/gunslinger/magus/whatever any day of the week.

Dark Archive

Mulgar wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
I wil take a pacifist bard over murder hobo's anyday of the week, she is welcome in spokane anytime.
Yes, everyone's definition of badwrongfun is different.
True, but my definition of badwrongfun is the correct one. All hail my superior gaming wit and wisdom!

No, MY definition of badwrongfun is the correct one.

Qualifier: My definition of badwrongfun is "it's only badwrongfun if you're actively screwing the party over".

Example, in an old 3.5 D&D campaign the rogue would secretly snag all the magic items/spellbooks/scrolls/potions and any gold before the rest of the party finished healing up and cleaning their weapons post combat. By the time we hit level 8, the rogue was decked out in magic galore. The rest of the party... Well, we had a single +1 morningstar (my sorcerer carried it) and a +1 suit of scale mail worn by the cleric. Nobody knew this cause nobody could cast detect magic.

We managed to afford those two magic items by selling all the non-magic equipment we managed to find, and the pittence rewards for services rendered. Far as the party knew the reward for any given task we undertook was 40 to 100 gold which we split between us (rogue included). Course the rogue was receiving FAR more then that, but he was the diplomacy guy. My sorc was the scary sorcerer/dragon disciple.

Ended up biting the rogue in the butt when we got sent to kill a red dragon terrorizing the area, and only my sorc survived the initial fire breath attack.


Feral wrote:
I'll take this near-burden bard over the scenario stomping paladin/gunslinger/magus/whatever any day of the week.

I have recently played with 3 of these people in a scenario and they decided to bring their high levels making you play out of tier if you wish to continue.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Feral wrote:
I'll take this near-burden bard over the scenario stomping paladin/gunslinger/magus/whatever any day of the week.
I have recently played with 3 of these people in a scenario and they decided to bring their high levels making you play out of tier if you wish to continue.

The best is when you're stuck at a table with these characters after spending hundreds of dollars to attend a convention.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feral wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Feral wrote:
I'll take this near-burden bard over the scenario stomping paladin/gunslinger/magus/whatever any day of the week.
I have recently played with 3 of these people in a scenario and they decided to bring their high levels making you play out of tier if you wish to continue.
The best is when you're stuck at a table with these characters after spending hundreds of dollars to attend a convention.

The best fun/irony, though, is when for all of their 'scenario stompy goodness' they lack even the most rudimentary of *social* or *knowledge* skills.

My play in 'From Under Ice' went something like that. My L1 bard got dragged up into the 4-adjustment high tier, yet ended up saving the day in at least three encounters...

Scarab Sages

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Note: this isn't meant as an attack, though I might sound quite harsh. I'm just looking for advice for myself. I've tried talking to this person, and she seems pretty convinced in her ways. I can't change how she plays and that's fine. I'm looking for ways to keep myself from stressing out over this, rather than changing the situation.

Okay, so there's a person in my group who often plays with another person, and they play an engaged couple. The idea of the character is that she's a pacifist Bard who doesn't like to attack until someone hurts her fiancee. Problem is, she plays a Strength-based Bard, and the other a caster-based Oracle who often stays in the back (luckily, she's pretty impulsive, so she runs into melee a lot). Until the fiancee is hit, she stays in full defense because she doesn't want to hurt anyone.
This drives me crazy, though I know it shouldn't. Everyone has their right to play their own character in their own way, but half the time, she doesn't contribute to the fight and doesn't even throw out a buff. She says it's in character for her to do so, and I'd agree, but this way, she doesn't contribute to the fight. Most of the time, we have characters that can compensate for that, but sometimes it's pretty close. She says she's having fun and I don't want to take that away from her, but the fact that she doesn't help out half the time is driving me crazy.

Pacifism is the natural enemy of systems that prevent PVP. Especially pre-generated systems that assume PCs are a certain combat strength.

Grand Lodge 4/5

trollbill wrote:
Taking a concept character into Bonekeep is like picking Betty White as your quarterback for the Superbowl. It's a cute idea that is going to get everyone on your team creamed.

I took a concept character into Bonekeep 2. My concept was a dwarven ranger with traditional dwarven weapons specializing in underground combat. That worked out just fine :)

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Clearly some people's definition of Concept Character differs from my own. *shrug*

The Exchange 5/5

I was just wondering, shouldn't we have a companion thread to go with this one titled:"How to deal with murder-hobos?"?

Lantern Lodge 5/5

nosig wrote:
I was just wondering, shouldn't we have a companion thread to go with this one titled:"How to deal with murder-hobos?"?

Nope.

5/5

nosig wrote:
I was just wondering, shouldn't we have a companion thread to go with this one titled:"How to deal with murder-hobos?"?

Nay.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

nosig wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
nosig wrote:
I was just wondering, shouldn't we have a companion thread to go with this one titled:"How to deal with murder-hobos?"?
Nope.
why not? is it that this is PFS and we are all just expected to be murder-hobos?

Couldn't you make your 'badwrongfun' assertions in this thread with the rest of them?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist?

Ironically one of my PFS characters is a pacifist by natural selection rather than temperament. They're a bookish mousey scholar who many players have praised for being really useful in scenarios but who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. The character accepts this and does what they can (buffs, debuffs, condition removal etc) but generally avoids direct physical conflict because they are very fragile.

The Exchange 5/5

Jeff Hazuka wrote:
nosig wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
nosig wrote:
I was just wondering, shouldn't we have a companion thread to go with this one titled:"How to deal with murder-hobos?"?
Nope.
why not? is it that this is PFS and we are all just expected to be murder-hobos?
Couldn't you make your 'badwrongfun' assertions in this thread with the rest of them?

Sorry if I offended. I did not feel I was calling anyone out for "badwrongfun"... just asking why we were singling out one play style as unacceptable, but being understanding of the other extreme.

I'll delete my earlier posts (those I can) and retire from this thread.


Balgin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist?
Ironically one of my PFS characters is a pacifist by natural selection rather than temperament. They're a bookish mousey scholar who many players have praised for being really useful in scenarios but who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. The character accepts this and does what they can (buffs, debuffs, condition removal etc) but generally avoids direct physical conflict because they are very fragile.

That isn't a pacifist, that is a support character. As someone who primarily plays martials, I love having a support character dishing out buffs to me and similar party members.

The Bard that spawned this thread is not a support character. She is doing literally nothing in combat, not even using Inspire Courage.

Scarab Sages

Arachnofiend wrote:
Balgin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist?
Ironically one of my PFS characters is a pacifist by natural selection rather than temperament. They're a bookish mousey scholar who many players have praised for being really useful in scenarios but who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. The character accepts this and does what they can (buffs, debuffs, condition removal etc) but generally avoids direct physical conflict because they are very fragile.

That isn't a pacifist, that is a support character. As someone who primarily plays martials, I love having a support character dishing out buffs to me and similar party members.

The Bard that spawned this thread is not a support character. She is doing literally nothing in combat, not even using Inspire Courage.

A cowardly support character with a strong aversion to violence who really doesn't like hurting people? You may be confusing pacifism with apathy here.

As I mentioned, pacifist by natural selection rather than temperament.


You're trying to subvert my argument with examples that have nothing to do with what I'm arguing about. I have zero issues with characters that aid in combat by doing things other than direct damage, my issue is with characters that could be doing something of value and choose not to.

The Exchange

I feel like the original pc is not cooperating with the party, which is one of the pathfinder big three. Sometimes a lull of cooperation can be good if not flavor for a game but sometimes a pathfinder gotta get their hands dirty.

5/5 5/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist? Someone who refuses to deal damage to an enemy but is willing to give buffs and other support is perfectly fine, but what we have here is a character who is a danger to her allies in the inevitable combat situations. I know that none of my characters would willingly accept this person as a group member.

Back in 1988 I was in the California National Guard I was in a supply unit, basically we were tasked with delivering supplies to front line troops and one of the Sergeants in my unit was a pacifist and refused to carry a side arm. Now why was he in the National Guard? A job that paid. No one else seemed to mind at the time, but I wasn't with the unit when it was called to war in 1993, so I'm not sure how it ended.


Roy Rydbeck wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Tell me: why would a pacifist join the Pathfinder Society? Why would the Pathfinder Society accept a pacifist? Someone who refuses to deal damage to an enemy but is willing to give buffs and other support is perfectly fine, but what we have here is a character who is a danger to her allies in the inevitable combat situations. I know that none of my characters would willingly accept this person as a group member.

Back in 1988 I was in the California National Guard I was in a supply unit, basically we were tasked with delivering supplies to front line troops and one of the Sergeants in my unit was a pacifist and refused to carry a side arm. Now why was he in the National Guard? A job that paid. No one else seemed to mind at the time, but I wasn't with the unit when it was called to war in 1993, so I'm not sure how it ended.

The US Navy has a long tradition of taking pacifists into its ranks. They become Hospital Corpsmen and many get assigned to the Marines. Corpsmen are amongst the most decorated servicepeople around. They do their duty unarmed and under fire with no protection except for the red cross which many of our enemies view as a fine target.

The Exchange 5/5

I told myself I wasn't going to come back to this thread - it appears to just be a downer of a thread where everyone takes anything a person posts in the very worst light... but I guess I missed my save and got sucked in. Maybe I'll just try to avoid the boards for a few hours/days after this post and this thread will fall off... or maybe not. (shrug)

What follows is just my opinion, and not really offered as the only way to play, just as what works for me. For other people it might not work, but for me it very much effects how I play...

(IMHO) This game we play is at it's base a story about a group of specialists who each have a part to play. Each player should try to bring a PC that should have something he/she really shines at doing - be it having the knowledge (local) to tell the rest of the party where the bathroom is, or the combat skill/ability of cutting monsters in half, or talking the witness into giving up that little bit of information (Intimidate), or finding (perception) & disarming (disable device) that Hot Fudge Death trap, or whatever. I try to have my PCs do this, try to create PCs who have something they really shines at doing - you know "be the best you can be".

If you walk up to a table I am at and say, "Lord Chopsalot is a good tank, and he can handle the most knowledge skills." I am not going to pull a front line fighter out, or a Knowledge weenie. I'm going to leave that to you - you picked that role to play. And I don't want to overshadow you, or have to play in your shadow. You deserve your chance to shine at what you want to play, and the game is often varied enough that I can shine on something else.

(Again, IMHO) This is why if I sit at the table I'll ask what else we have there. What other roles people have PCs that they can play at this tier. I have to rely on the other players to be honest in what their PCs can do, in what their PCs are built to do. Deceptive PCs I can enjoy playing with, but deceptive players are a real problem. If a player says her PC is "a fighter" and adds nothing else... I expect them to fill that role/trope. After we cover that and I pull a PC out, I'll tell everyone what I cover, and my worst failings. I normally try to go close to the end in introductions because I have A LOT of PCs to choice from. ("Hi, I'm Katisha. Call me Kat or Tish, never Kat-tish. I'll handle all the social skills, and I'm pretty useless in combat.") If, after I've pulled a PC for this game, you respond that you also cover some aspect of whatever Role I picked to play today - maybe I'm change my PC. Like I said, I've got lots of choices (over 30 PCs right now). I try real hard not to have a PC to cover a ROLE that someone else said their PC brought to that table (be it an ability/skill/trope whatever). I don't want to steal their "moment of greatness". If they want to play that Role in our "Band of Adventurers", I'll be just as happy in a different Role. No reason to double up. Maybe I'll supply a back-up to their primary - being the second best at whatever they cover. This let's me AID them when they do their schtick, and cover for them if they "bought the farm". And I'll have my own "special something" that I do - be that a game gimmick or a role playing trope.

I don't care if their PC has a 7 INT or a 20 INT... if they're running "the tank", I expect them to tank. If their PC does that thru smiling at the monsters and offering them Flaming Fudge Death - hey, maybe I'll take notes and build a PC like that too! After all, next table I sit at, maybe we'll need a Tank with Social Skills, and Profession Cook.

This thread seems to me to be mainly about someone who is announcing that they are one thing - while not filling that role during the game. If that is the case (and from the sound of it more than one poster talks about it), then it is a case of a "deceptive Player" claiming something that is not true. (IMHO) A PLAYER problem, not a CHARACTER problem.

All I could do when encountering this player would be to appeal to them to not be deceptive. I would say something like: Please don't lie to your fellow PLAYERS. Deceive my PC as much as you want (if you can) - heck, I'll even give you pointers on how to do it. Please - just be sure you do your "schtick" the very best you can. If it's the only one you have, I'll understand. (Even if I think it's like the guy who runs a Barbarian who only has one weapon...) I don't expect to be able to tell you how to do this - I expect you know your abilities and your PCs abilities and your PC much better than me. I am often amazed at how different people build and play their PCs. When we sit together... You cover your part, I'll cover mine, and together we are MUCH time during the game.

I'll try not to pick a Role you want to play today, and try to cover your PCs weak points. I would like you to return that favor if you can.

And I thank you (the player) for your (player) time...

When I select a Role to play at a table, when I am building the PC before anyone sees it, I am going to try to be the very best I can be at that Role. Nothing would bother me more than failing my team mates at something that I said I had covered... because I let my team down when that happened. Please do me the same courtesy. Whatever role you pick to play...

Failing to do my job, to fill the role I picked for myself this game, for whatever reason? The only thing I can think of worst than that would be to steal another players "moment of greatness" by doing his job better than him... without telling him before hand that I can.

Personal side note::

A side note: The reason I build very "optimized PCs" - specialists - is that I do not want to be the reason your PC dies. Sometimes when PCs die, the player looses everything they have worked for MONTHS or YEARS on. Nothing would bother me more than knowing that that 3rd level guy of yours, that you ran thru 8 scenarios (about 40 hours of table game time, maybe another 40 or 80 or more hours of hobby time at home tinkering - easily as much as a year of someone's gaming life) just got tossed in the trash, because I let the monster past me, or missed the trap, or, or failed a knowledge check - basically, because I failed my job... :(

When I was just starting out, I noticed several players who only ran one PC. (In fact, I know someone who only runs one PC until 12th+ level before starting another. It works for him - it's the way he plays.) I on the other hand started my second PC before my first one reached 2nd level... by the time I had one that was 4th I had three others that were 2rd or 3rd. This meant that the first group of players I played with had PCs that advanced and left me behind... Even though I tended to play more than them. I got a reputation as a person who "didn't like to play high level"... I was always at the lower end of the group in PC level. But it also meant that I had a wide range of PCs to pick from when we went adventuring... Social game in Cheliax? Got a Bard (Cheliaxian) for that... Out in the wilds of Qadira? Got a native Trapsmith for that one. As each of my PCs leveled up, I tried to ensure that another (totally different) PC got in some games to keep up too. By the time I could play Tier 7-11, I had several other PCs that were 5th or 6th level.

I don't expect everyone to do this. This is something I do, something I like to think of as a personal strength that I, as a player, bring to the table. We all bring different things...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think the problem here is NOT that the player wants to play a non-combatant, it's that she presents herself as a combatant and then doesn't do the job.

If you want to play a particular concept, that's great! Just don't claim, out of character, you're playing something else. That's just being deceptive and borderline jerkish.

-j

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And after 130+ posts, the simple answer is still the best: Talk it out with the player in question. Let them know why you have a problem, but try not to be rude or accusatory about it. Act like adults.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
And after 130+ posts, the simple answer is still the best: Talk it out with the player in question. Let them know why you have a problem, but try not to be rude or accusatory about it. Act like adults.

This almost always seems like the answer to any player problem.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo) 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

My suggestion would be for you to suggest to her to start using her whip to disarm opponents - she's literally trying to prevent combat at that point. It just adds something to the mix that she maybe didn't think of.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

I think that the best way to keep enemies alive, would be to deal a lot of nonlethal damage, if enemies drop unconscious, chances of survival are significantly better.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think that the best way to keep enemies alive, would be to deal a lot of nonlethal damage, if enemies drop unconscious, chances of survival are significantly better.

True enough. An enemy that's still fighting back is a bigger target for the PCs than one that isn't. More chances to suddenly take a lethal crit.


Because this is PFS the gm and other players may not have a good repore with the player. I know i shouldn't say "if this was my home game..."

but if this was my home game i would talk to the player. I would talk to all the players and make sure that everyone is having fun. Maybe the player is having the time of his life and so is everyone else. However if their frustrated or if the player is frustrated i would once again talk about options.

I would give suggestions about ways in which the concept of a pacifist can be "more fun" for everyone. Buffing and such can make the player feel like he's contributing and it will make the other players feel less frustrated.

After that the ball is really in the players court they can take your suggestions onboard or choose to ignore you. Either way is fine, but people may stop signing up when they see your name and thats also their choice.

The Exchange

Three pages of (mostly) excellent points from lots of different perspectives. I won't rehash any of them.

I applaud a player actually roleplaying "what would their character do". (I have a character that _always_ knocks before opening a door. As a player I warn the table about it. "Mognok, momma is orc. She teached me. ALWAYS KNOCK before open door."... it's caused a lot of "fun" and luckily thus far has never caused a character death.)

One thing I would ask the player is whether or not the character would fight to defend anyone else the character cares about? If I were a pacifist bard that was accompanying the love of my life, I may not actively defend some murder hobo that my fiance was traveling with. But that nice wizard that always brought me tea? I might treat him as worth defending (even if my fiancee weren't getting hurt). I might enjoy scratching the druid's pet cat behind the ears and partake of combat to keep it safe.

My point being, I might suggest that the character might be willing to engage for more than 1 reason without compromising her character's beliefs. If done correctly, and with the correct group, this could have the added benefit of increased role playing (and hopefully increased fun) between the characters as some of them look for ways to 'earn' the Bard's protection.

(I would like to add, the easiest way around this character flaw is for someone else to open the door. Often the party would rather the meatshield to open the door and they accept the consequences. Once, after begging him to open the door, and reminding him NOT to knock he did it... it required two diplomacy checks. One to convince him it was ok to open the bad guy's door without knocking and a second to get him to remember to break his force of habit.)


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think that the best way to keep enemies alive, would be to deal a lot of nonlethal damage, if enemies drop unconscious, chances of survival are significantly better.

Well over 75% of the time when I nonlethally restrain a bad guy a fellow pathfinder coup de grazs them.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:


Well over 75% of the time when I nonlethally restrain a bad guy a fellow pathfinder coup de grazs them.

That must be regional variation. Most of the tables I've been at, we at least *attempt* to take everyone alive if possible/viable. Hearts and minds and all that.

Sometimes, though, when you crit and max the damage on your sneak attack elven curve blade it's a bit messy...


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:


Well over 75% of the time when I nonlethally restrain a bad guy a fellow pathfinder coup de grazs them.

That must be regional variation. Most of the tables I've been at, we at least *attempt* to take everyone alive if possible/viable. Hearts and minds and all that.

Sometimes, though, when you crit and max the damage on your sneak attack elven curve blade it's a bit messy...

When you play with 5 people on average. All it takes is one player to be a murder hobo.

As a player when I non-lethally restrain an opponent I do not fight players that kill them, my character roleplays them as a murder hobo. Even though I find it very antagonistic for players to coup de graz NPCs i just spent an action stabilizing.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:


When you play with 5 people on average. All it takes is one player to be a murder hobo.

As a player when I non-lethally restrain an opponent I do not fight players that kill them, my character roleplays them as a murder hobo. Even though I find it very antagonistic for players to coup de graz NPCs i just spent an action stabilizing.

I prefer the term 'death vagrant'. It's much more glamorous.

But I also am not keen on just slaughtering folks because 'they were beating on us' (if they even got a chance to 'beat on us'). Offer not valid for bloodthirsty demons, succubi, or other wastes of spiritual energy.

Most tables I've sat at for conventions have been 5-6, with 3-4 on Sunday slots (except Gen Con).

We actually got a second PP in a certain scenario by *not* death vagranting.

Silver Crusade

We kill a lot of bad guys around here, but if someone intentionally takes somebody alive, the rest of the party usually doesn't interfere. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone bother with a coup de grace.

101 to 150 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / How to deal with pacifists? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.