Pathfinder Society scenarios that have non-violent endings or solutions, or are non-violent or focus on non-violence

[oteta]

Dear Fellow Pathfinders:

Good morning. It seems to me that the difficult times that we are in call for non-violent solutions. RPGs like Pathfinder are a powerful tool for conversation and debate about topics like the ones we face, especially if we are playing with young family members. Which Pathfinder Society scenarios have non-violent endings or solutions, or are non-violent or focus on non-violence?

A couple good PF 2e Society Scenarios with non-violent solutions / endings my family played recently include "The Burden of Envy" and "The Blooming Castastrophe".

Your recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

[Nefreet]

Absalom Initiation can be played with no combat if the GM picks a certain combination of encounters. Most of my runs never involved Initiative (which makes it also play really fast).

[oteta]

Thank you very much, Nefreet. I'll be sure to check that out!

Nefreet wrote:

Absalom Initiation can be played with no combat if the GM picks a certain combination of encounters. Most of my runs never involved Initiative (which makes it also play really fast).

[andreww]

Nefreet wrote:

Absalom Initiation can be played with no combat if the GM picks a certain combination of encounters. Most of my runs never involved Initiative (which makes it also play really fast).

Having run Absalom Initiation many times this is not actually possible. At a minimum you will roll initiative to deal with the ritual.

[Zoomba]

1-07 "The Flooded Kings Court" does have some unavoidable combats with creatures/monsters, but also several places where fights with humanoids or intelligent beings can be avoided through negotiation. There is a particularly interesting situation near the end where a variety of solutions to a complication could work, and those choices don't just break down on 'fight/not-fight' lines.

I can also think of several PF1 scenarios, but it sounds like your family is focusing on Second Edition

[Nefreet]

andreww wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Absalom Initiation can be played with no combat if the GM picks a certain combination of encounters. Most of my runs never involved Initiative (which makes it also play really fast).

Having run Absalom Initiation many times this is not actually possible. At a minimum you will roll initiative to deal with the ritual.

I suppose that's true, but I would still say it doesn't quite fit the definition of "violence" that the original poster is looking to avoid. Especially if they're already having a GM pick and choose the other encounters.

[oteta]

Thanks for the replies as well, andreww and William. William, I would love to hear your suggestions from PF 1ed as well if you could!

[oteta]

PS: In the PF1 scenario “Down the Verdant Path”, for example, there is potential for negotiation.

[andreww]

For PF1, off the top of my head.

The Disappeared
Bronze House Reprisal
Library of the Lion

[Belafon]

Bid for Alabastrine ends non-violently (and could potentially be done by a pacifist party).

There’s a fair number of PFS1 scenarios that - depending on your GM and the temperament of the other players - could potentially be finished without combat. More than once my Prophet of Kalistrade simply paid muggers/bandits/henchmen to go away (or to work for him instead). Even if the scenario doesn’t explicitly have rules for it a GM may allow something similar with some version of diplomacy/intimidate/bluff/oration, depending on the NPCs’ motivations.

[Tomppa]

I know you mentioned PFS2, but I just have to mention that the Bid for Alabastrine (7-22) is very non-violent.

For PFS2, Tarnbreaker's Trail has

info about combats:

Just 1 combat against an animal, basically defending yourselves against a hungry animal

but is otherwise non-violent.

Trailblazer's Bounty has more combats, but

Info about combats:

aside from those versus animals, they could probably be resolved peacefully. I mean, I don't remember if the 'final combat' has written-in diplomatic solution or if the target speaks common, but as a GM you could easily allow for a "creative solution" if the party just convinces the target to go elsewhere.

Revolution on the riverside can be very diplomatic with very few combats.

[Tomppa]

Oh! Lodge of the living god has

Combats:

Some combats against animals and an end combat against, uh, non-human(oid) enemies

but the build up is something your group might like, solving a conflict by negotiation, getting to know local folks, and later banding together with the locals.

[roll4initiative]

Just say that all the weapons are Nerf or padded weapons. Kind of like LARP or paintball. When the baddies are defeated, they drop all their stuff and run or surrender.

[CrystalSeas]

Christian Dragos wrote:

Just say that all the weapons are Nerf or padded weapons. Kind of like LARP or paintball. When the baddies are defeated, they drop all their stuff and run or surrender.

There's a big difference between "non-lethal" which is what you're suggesting, and "non-violent", which is what the OP is asking about.

PF2 has a perfectly valid option for making non-lethal strikes written right into the rules. What they're asking about is scenarios where violence, whether lethal or not, is not the way PCs are expected to solve the problem.

[albadeon]

The recent 1-23 "The Star-Crossed Court" has some combat

minor details:

all defending against non-humanoids, none of the fights are initiated by the PCs as a "solution".

but the entire theme is diplomacy and much of it is about negotiation and it features a number of good role-playing possibilities.

spoiler about ending:

there is no "big bad boss" to fight in the end, the entire "climax" of the adventure is non-violent skill checks and negotiation

[Watery Soup]

#1-12 is definitely the first one that comes to mind and one I definitely have queued up for my family.

I argue #1-18 fits the theme, even though there's combat at the end; likewise, even though #1-08 has combat I think it fits the theme.

#1-06:

In the arboreal track, the arboreal warden can be deactivated without destroying it. Not sure about the other tracks.

#1-10:

You can make it an explicit goal to rescue the injured from the bear without killing it, and the whole scenario becomes pacifist.

---

PFS1 10-17 Refugees of the Weary Sky:

I don't have the scenario but when I played it we ended several encounters without combat, and the GM said the lead golem at the beginning (that we killed) could have been deactivated as well.

PFS1 4-11 The Disappeared:

I don't have the scenario but would love to know how the devil could have been avoided. That thing nearly TPKed us.

PFS1 6-18 (From Under Ice) and 9-22 (Grotto od the Deluged God) both had non-combat solutions at the end, but there were combats in the m8ddle.

[Flutter]

Every encounter can be a social encounter with the right party!

Awwww.. come here adorable lil ooze...

[TOZ]

City of Strangers was great with my nonlethal damage using barbarian and a smooth talking bard.

[Vozzik Astrana]

My party actually made it through all of Flooded King's Court with only one violent encounter against a certain mindless and unavoidably aggressive group of creatures. Our GM was as surprised as anybody!

[Zoomba]

Several 1st edition scenarios that are either minimally/non-violent have already been mentioned (The Disappeared, Library of the Lion, Bid for Alabastrine, etc). But some more that might be interesting for you, and/or be good opportunities for discussions are:

7-05 School of Spirits - In addition to being one of my favorite scenarios, this can be done avoiding all fights. (Note that a past terrible accident involving children is integral to the background and scenario however)

6-18 From Under Ice - Most of the combats (bar one) can potentially be avoided, and trying to negotiate peace or at least detente between opposed parties is a decent part of it

9-06 The Shores of Heaven - You're in Heaven! There are some fights against corrupted fiendish fragments, but the mission is about helping to cure and restore an ally, and the ending

Spoiler:

has you making your case to a celestial about why 'tainted' souls still deserve redemption

3-01 The Frostfur Captives - Multiple virtually unavoidable combats, though some you can talk or avoid your way out of. But thematically the whole scenario has you escorting goblin prisoners/POWs: how you treat and defend these surrendered combatants is a key part of both the RP and affects multiple encounters.

Also Valley of the Veiled Flame can be done in about a half-hour with no fighting, but that's both the bad and Bad way to do it, so not exactly a good example :p

[oteta]

Thanks again for the replies Andreww and William Donald.

Thanks Kevin, Tommi, Albadeon, Watery Soup, TOZ, Vozzik.

Tommi, I'm also looking for PF 1ed scenarios that can be resolved non-violently or focus on non-violence if you happen to know about any others.

Christian, a good suggestion. It's just a matter of bending the rules so that baddies can run away.

Thank you for the clarification, Chrystal Seas.

Flutter: S:->

Love the suggestions, folks. I'm enthused about all of the material!

[RealAlchemy]

Kevin Willis wrote:

Bid for Alabastrine ends non-violently (and could potentially be done by a pacifist party).

There’s a fair number of PFS1 scenarios that - depending on your GM and the temperament of the other players - could potentially be finished without combat. More than once my Prophet of Kalistrade simply paid muggers/bandits/henchmen to go away (or to work for him instead). Even if the scenario doesn’t explicitly have rules for it a GM may allow something similar with some version of diplomacy/intimidate/bluff/oration, depending on the NPCs’ motivations.

I still have mental scars from how poorly that scenario was designed. But you are technically correct that it is nonviolent.

[Saashaa]

@ oteta

I am infinitely curious how you approach such sessions and present the concepts. I have built pacifistic characters and did not get a great reception at several tables I sat at. Do you have a set group?

Also, how does the aspect of mechanical evil play into your discussions?

[oteta]

Saashaa, thank you for the good question. I’ve had similar experiences with introducing non-violence and pacifist characters into games. I have a home group, so I can explore the idea of non-violence in RPGs with a bit more support here.

Like others, I find the idea of mechanical evil highly problematic and tied into racism in fantasy adventure, so I try to avoid such ideas.

Regarding ideas about bringing non-violence into RPGs, I don’t think I have any new ideas, but let’s start by saying that I’ve introduced non-violence into role-playing games through the structure of the story in:

1) The conclusion of the story.
2) Challenges facing the characters in the story: ex. skill challenges.
3) Negative consequences for violence, and rewards for non-violence.

A Society scenario we played recently had all 3 of these.

One internet writer about the topic described opponents in his stories getting angry, yelling, and chasing and throwing characters out of his lair instead of attacking.

Further, much of fantasy writing works at the level of metaphor, so another way to bring non-violence into our games is through symbols for non-violent actions.

For reducing violence, people mentioned here the use of automata. I also like to couch stories within a context of government authorization of police action.

Finally, I think that the dynamic between players is also important. The relationship between players should be cooperative, democratic, and even consensus-building.

Hope these basic ideas are helpful.

[Philippe Lam]

I need a balance between social sequences and combat. If a session or a series is too much of either pacifist-centric or combat-only, I won't be satisfied enough (although coming from a hack'n'slash background it's less difficult for the latter)

I have seen enough players trying to force a pacifist solution that it went quickly sour. There's identifying when someone can be peaceful and when it is impossible. Trying to do so despite the latter can be considered being a jerk (cf trying to call truce after a fight started is near impossible unless circumstances). Adapting the approach is needed but that's what many on either side of the spectrum fail to grasp. Suffering a couple sessions from that inside PFS definitely doesn't help me think I can accomodate them better.

[Watery Soup]

When I play with my kids, part of the goal is to introduce them to the many varieties of people they will face in life.

They have to fight some of them. They can't fight some of them. The majority lie in between and navigating a big grey zone is good practice.

One theme I try to enforce is redemption. The goal is to leave a place better than when they arrived - not just showing up and slaying the BBEG, but undoing all the damage as the real conclusion to the arc.

[RealAlchemy]

Philippe Lam wrote:

I need a balance between social sequences and combat. If a session or a series is too much of either pacifist-centric or combat-only, I won't be satisfied enough (although coming from a hack'n'slash background it's less difficult for the latter)

I have seen enough players trying to force a pacifist solution that it went quickly sour. There's identifying when someone can be peaceful and when it is impossible. Trying to do so despite the latter can be considered being a jerk (cf trying to call truce after a fight started is near impossible unless circumstances). Adapting the approach is needed but that's what many on either side of the spectrum fail to grasp. Suffering a couple sessions from that inside PFS definitely doesn't help me think I can accomodate them better.

There are ways to stop the fight without killing somebody, but you are correct that just standing there saying "Please stop" is not going to be useful to the party. I like the "Put the enemy into time-out" options for that sort of thing. (Daze monster, hold person, hold monster, create pit, etc)

[Belafon]

The keys to playing a pacifist character responsibly are reading the table and having a concept that works in the general structure of Organized Play.

If your pacifist spends the entirety of every combat doing nothing but shouting at the enemies (and his allies) that "violence never solves anything!" it's going to annoy the other players.

If you have a character that tries to prevent/end combats through non-violent means (an enchanter who offers a suggestion that everyone have a picnic instead, or a merchant who negotiates a "protection fee" with the bandits) most players will be amused/tolerant for at least one encounter. But it's rare that you'll have a whole table of players who are OK with you doing that for the entire scenario. Because it usually leads to a "why did I even bother coming?" feeling and some resentment. So you need to read the table and if the other players are itching for combat, let them fight even if you could end/avoid the encounter.

[Saashaa]

@ oteta

My previous post was to inspire the posts that followed to lead to a caution.

Look at the posts between your reply and this post.

While I greatly respect your goal, I'd recommend keeping with your home group because a great many folks who play this game are very much not interested in an overwhelmingly peaceful approach.

For clarity, this is not me saying that such folks are not playing the game right.

Combat is a mechanical part of this game and people play it as such (and some get really irritated when prevented from combat).

That caution said,

Depending on the children's ages, there are some incredibly interesting conversations that can come from "what does evil mean?". Does evil actually exist in our world?

Do some NPCs resort to violence regardless of the players actions?

Again, depending on the children's ages, I'd be curious to see children's reaction to government authorization of police action.

Your ideas have spurred great curiosity in me.

[CrystalSeas]

When we teach "Non-violent Intervention" workshops, one of the early exercises is getting people to decide how to differentiate between a non-violent response to provocation and a violent one. What does it mean to "act non-violently".

Are you acting nonviolently if you spray paint a slogan on a wall?
What if you spray paint it on a shop window?
If you break the shop window that has been spray painted, are you acting nonviolently?
Is it nonviolent action to let the air out of the tires of a police car?

Are you acting nonviolently if you verbally threaten to harm someone? To harm their family?

Are you acting nonviolently if you, as an adult, belittle a child by calling them slur words?

As one might expect, people who come to our workshops absolutely certain that they know what is and is not "violent behavior" (and conversely "nonviolent behavior") find themselves deep in discussion with other activists who want to use nonviolent techniques, but who have a different expectation of how other people "should" behave.

Let me strongly urge people NOT to try to have these discussions on Paizo boards. Customer service staff are currently more than six weeks behind in handling email and CS forum requests. We don't need to add to their workload, and frankly, these boards are not the right place.

But you might start considering how you would decide, and what personal values you are espousing by drawing the lines where you do.

[oteta]

‘Evening everyone, and thanks for the continued replies.

Watery Soup, what is a BBEG? Big Bad Enemy Giant?

RealAlchemy, good suggestions on non-violent strategies in combat.

Saashaa, to further answer your question about who I play with, our home group also plays Pathfinder Society games as a team, so that helps build consensus at the table with players from outside the group because there is support built into what we are doing. We mostly have had very positive interactions with other players both locally and online.

Phillippe, Kevin Willis and Saashaa, I agree that non-violence should not be forced onto Pathfinder Society games. That is actually counter what non-violence attempts to accomplish, which is to respond to force with more creative, consensual, democratic and effective strategies. Our main goal should be to enjoy the game, of course. You have to meet people where they are, but when I have felt uncomfortable with the morality of something happening at the table, I’ve had my character respond.

In this line of thought, I am disappointed with Paizo’s decision to change the Death rules in Pathfinder 2nd Edition so that creatures brought to 0 can die automatically. The rules make a vague distinction between creatures who die automatically at 0 hit points and significant creatures who do not. The rule leaves too much to referee discretion, in my opinion.

For a look at the great diversity of non-violent strategies that can be included in adventures, here is a list from Gene Sharp’s work:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalfree.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/198-method s/amp/

Since some might find non-violence dreadfully dull, for ideas on humorous uses of non-violence, though I have not finished the book, see “Blueprint for Revolution” by Popovic.

[oteta]

PS: CrystalSeas, interesting descriptions of non-violence training. Any recommended resources would be greatly appreciated!

[BigNorseWolf]

Kevin Willis wrote:

If you have a character that tries to prevent/end combats through non-violent means (an enchanter who offers a suggestion that everyone have a picnic instead, or a merchant who negotiates a "protection fee" with the bandits)

I have a kitsune enchanter who often takes out mooks with the suggestion "Take this bag of 50 gp and have some fun at the bar/go back to school/ go back home your parents kept your room for you"

If he can get them to sign a receipt the exchange even reimburses him for it.

But its a mook killer. If someone minds you one shotting mooks they're probably being hypocritical.

[oteta]

Good evening everyone. Hope you and yours are well in these difficult times.

BigNorseWolf, thank you the for funny mook remover. You should always get a receipt!

Saashaa, regarding government sanctioned police actions and reducing violence in adventures, when attacked without provocation and in or near a town, one thing that the youngsters I play with understand and respond positively to is taking the assailants to the authorities.

On a more active side, another idea that seems to work is local authorities deputizing and badging the players after positive experiences with them. In such a scenario, players are expected to capture criminals.

These ideas, of course, not necessarily non-violent but are at least less violent alternatives.

[CrystalSeas]

BBEG = Big Bad Evil Guy
The sexist shorthand for the strongest villain in the story.

[NicoleH]

#1-08 Revolution on the Riverside has 1 encounter minimum, but against some natural things, not other humanoids, but it has the possibility to have more, but they can be avoided with the proper social decisions.

[Watery Soup]

oteta wrote:

Watery Soup, what is a BBEG? Big Bad Enemy Giant?

Big Bad Evil Guy.

CrystalSeas wrote:

BBEG = Big Bad Evil Guy

The sexist shorthand for the strongest villain in the story.

If you have a problem with the term, you can always bring it up directly, rather than indirectly.

An alternative suggestion is always helpful, and maximizes the likelihood that I'd stop using BBEG.

[BigNorseWolf]

Big bad at End of Game

[CrystalSeas]

Watery Soup wrote:

If you have a problem with the term, you can always bring it up directly, rather than indirectly.

An alternative suggestion is always helpful, and maximizes the likelihood that I'd stop using BBEG.

Oh, I'm not on that crusade.

Thread Derail:

It just struck me because I AM on a crusade to keep people from using gendered terms when referring to a group of people by assuming they are all males.

I care more that I (and other real people) am not thought to be one of 'you guys', not called 'dude' or otherwise erased from membership or misgendered.

And it's an interesting thought that a gaming term like BBEG helps make it easier for writers to fool people into dismissing female NPCs from consideration as villains, because of the gendered stereotypes that are fostered by terms like that.

Plot twisted that are made easier by using people's stereotypical thinking against them.

That's all. More an interesting thought than a criticism.

[Watery Soup]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Watery Soup wrote:

If you have a problem with the term, you can always bring it up directly, rather than indirectly.

An alternative suggestion is always helpful, and maximizes the likelihood that I'd stop using BBEG.

Oh, I'm not on that crusade.

** spoiler omitted **

So, if you were me, and you had to refer to what I referred to, what word, phrase, or acronym would you have used?

If you're going to crusade, you should crusade for something, not against something.

[oteta]

Good morning, all. Thank you for the continued replies.

Nicole, thank you for the additional suggestion for a story. Lots of good stuff here.

CrystalSeas, Watery Soup, thank you for discussing such an important topic courteously.

[Nefreet]

While I absolutely agree that many concepts of evil can be based in (insert -ism here), and that probably most encounters in modern fantasy literature are, I disagree that all mechanical evil in fantasy is (insert -ist here).

I don't personally ascribe to the concept of evil in the real world anymore than I do magic or spirituality, but anything can exist in fantasy. It's when we portray real world subjects as aligned or magical that you create problems.

I like to think this is why Paizo's big bad enemy (I coincidentally started using BBE recently for this exact reason) is an undead tyrant who wishes to snuff out life. It's evil because it's evil and nothing like that exists in the real world.

But this discussion made me think of something proactive that Paizo could pioneer on the subject of nonviolence. Since scenarios have tags now, Paizo could probably develop a ratings system akin to what's used in films today.

Tags like "Violent", "Puzzles", "Mature Content", "Emphasis on RP", "Horror", etc. could eliminate the need for threads like this asking the community to pool their thoughts on what qualifies as what.

[Watery Soup]

oteta, this non-obviously ties in to the thread.

There's one mindset that there are two sides: one is right, and one is wrong. The side that is right goes out and defeats the side that is wrong, and that's the end of the story. It plays out in RPGs, TV shows, and movies; and it's often winner-take-all (the winners win completely, the losers lose completely). And if it's winner-take-all, then you crusade against it - everything will end okay if you just defeat the ... strongest villain in the story.

The alternative mindset is that multiple people can be right, and multiple people can be wrong, and within being right, there are multiple ways to approach a common goal (also, within being wrong, there are multiple ways to be wrong). Defeating the "strongest villain in the story" doesn't need to be the primary goal - in fact, a lot of the stereotype-breaking stories revolve around creatively defeating the "strongest villain in the story."

Crusading AGAINST my use of "BBEG" is treating it with the first mindset. If I don't use it any more, does that make a world a better place? I argue no.

Crusading FOR a different term is the second. What if I still use the term but define it as BigNorseWolf did - "Big Bad at the End of Game"? Does it not convey the same idea without exclusionary language? (I'm happy to do that.) What if I use an alternative acronym like SVITS? (I'm not happy if nobody understands me, but if this is a widely agreed-upon acronym, I'll join in.) "Boss"? That's another term commonly used, but that also has connotations. (Edit: "BBE", per Nefreet, seems fine too.)

I'm not opposed to using a different term, but I'm not going to make one up. As a matter of fact, I'll point out that the lawful evil types take exactly that approach - when compelled to stop using certain words (by the government or by decent society), they just make up a codeword so they can keep conveying the same idea with different words. I don't want to do that.

[CrystalSeas]

Watery Soup wrote:

So, if you were me, and you had to refer to what I referred to, what word, phrase, or acronym would you have used?

I've seen "Big Bad" used a lot

Quote:

If you're going to crusade, you should crusade for something, not against something.

Now this is a crusade that I AM on

More Thread Derail:

"You should" is someone else's fantasy about my values and my behavior around those values. It is them making up rules for me to follow.

I choose my own values, and I make my own decisions about how to act on those values in the world.

When people think they know more than I do about living my life, they use "you should" to give me those instructions.

You are welcome to adopt that behavior as your own guideline for living out your values. I'll keep making my own choices for myself.

[Rysky]

Yeah, I use Big Bad.

[Saashaa]

While I appreciate the digging into the reeds on the non-violence crusades and causes, I would point out that the purpose of the OP was for the sake of children practicing socialization. As such one should lean a bit more into Ockham's Razor so as not to confuse.

[Watery Soup]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Now this is a crusade that I AM on

** spoiler omitted **

Bending over backwards to not speak directly to someone is super awkward, as I will attempt to do for the rest of this post. It sounds like that person is speaking about someone else to a third person.

I think advocacy should be direct, and that advocates who say what they want will get behavioral changes more often with the same amount of belief change (i.e., some people will never change their beliefs but they may change their behavior).

Unless someone had reason to suspect I intentionally selected 'BBEG' specifically for its offensive connotations (and were intending to change my beliefs), this is all it took to change my behavior:

"Could you use 'Big Bad' instead of 'BBEG'?"

Sure.

I'll probably use BBE because it's the closest to the term I currently use, so when I accidentally type BBEG I can just delete a letter. If anyone has objections, they should feel free to post it directly, or PM me if they don't want to post it in public.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Except for the speaking in third person part.

[Rysky]

In an optimistic situation perhaps, but I've seen plenty of rage induced meltdowns when you starts a sentence with "could you" in regards to someone doing something offensive, with or without their knowing.

[Belafon]

oteta wrote:

In this line of thought, I am disappointed with Paizo’s decision to change the Death rules in Pathfinder 2nd Edition so that creatures brought to 0 can die automatically. The rules make a vague distinction between creatures who die automatically at 0 hit points and significant creatures who do not. The rule leaves too much to referee discretion, in my opinion.

I very much like this change (which was incorporated into Starfinder as well). Precisely because it gives the GM a lot of control over who is dead.

If the players want to commit to as little killing as possible, the GM can just make all the NPCs unconscious at 0, giving the party time to "tie everyone up" or whatever. Or if the party doesn't really care (or if the table is rushed for time) then all NPCs die at 0 and we move on quickly. Or the GM makes it go whichever way is best for the story.

In PFS1 there were quite a few missions that revolved around bringing a named NPC back as a prisoner, delivering a stern talking-to, or something similar. Unfortunately those NPCs would sometimes be part of a group that had a reason to fight you. If you didn't realize who they were - or if another member of your party didn't have a reason to keep them alive (back in faction mission days) - you could often end up with a dead NPC and a failed mission. The change lets GMs make the story that is most satisfying to their players.

[BigNorseWolf]

Kevin Willis wrote:

Precisely because it gives the GM a lot of control over who is dead.

I dislike that it gives too much control to th DM over who the Players just killed.