How to Play the Pacifist WITHOUT Making Your Party Want to Kill You

[@alexfirefly1956]

You can also manipulate the battlefield. Creating difficult terrain, moving enemies around. Many ways to help in the fight without having to damage your enemies.

[@PlayYourRole]

A well placed Fogcloud or Darkness spell can do wonders to help your party if you're strategic with it!

[@FenexTheFox]

Just like the D&D cartoon!

[@Adurnis]

Hypnotic pattern, longstrider, all kinds of things. Treantmonk’s transmuter build is a bit old, but has all kinds of good non-damaging tactical ideas.

[@Hazel-xl8in]

though to be clear: holding someone down while your friends kill them is not being a pacifist, it’s being an accomplice

[@alexfirefly1956]

@@Hazel-xl8in That much is true. On the other hand, injuring someone with the intend to incapacitate, but not kill still makes you a pacifist (though you have to evaluate if they can take it). For example, I’d say it’s pretty much fair game to use Eldritch Blast with either the Repelling Blast or Grasp of Hadar invocation to move an enemy, if you can figure out ways to use this movement to incapacitate them. Like push them into a river or 15 foot deep hole or something like that.

[@FearlessGamer27]

I’ve been playing a Goliath who just fought in a war and committed a terrible deed. After that he went AWOL and found himself drinking away his problems on the run until he found a temple where he became a monk and swore an oath to never kill a thinking being again. He goes to knock out anything he deems humanoid but doesn’t force his opinion upon his other party members. For him, if he could be redeemed for what he did, why not the people he fights as well.

[@PlayYourRole]

Ugh, love this

[@cockman8437]

Literally same, I have a dhampir lycan bloodhunter (subclass reflavored to be a dhampir and not lycan) who absolutely refuses to use their vampiric abilities despite it being the easy choice to end fights and resorts to grappling, restraining and subduing humanoids but doesn’t mind attacking a non sentient creature

[@guicaldo7164]

Similar character concept as the one I'm playing. He was introduced as a villain, his sense of empathy deeply buried underneath a ton of issues. As a result, he was utterly ruthless and callous. He since went on a redemption arc that's been taking over a year. And now, while he doesn't strictly refuse to kill, he's now always looking for an alternate option, always looking for a way out no matter how horrible his foe. He once saw himself as the lowest of the low, and if he could be redeemed, anyone can.

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

Thats similar to my pacifist barbarian hehe

[@anthonydavid3348]

I have a similar thing planned for an upcoming campaign as well-“end fights, not lives” is SUCH a good middle-ground mantra, especially if combat is something you look forward to

[@kathanbrannon9464]

I think an argument I hear made, even by other D&Dtubers is “if you’re not killing but your party is, you’re not a pacifist, you’re an accomplice” and while that’s sort of true, pacifist characters can lean into that. I’d like to try playing a “guy in the chair” kinda role one day- just a smart wizard/artificer guy who’s purely an academic and chooses not to fight because they’ve never been confident in their fighting ability, but uses their brain to strategize and tell the team what to do in intense situations.

[@PlayYourRole]

Truthfully, you can't really be a TRUE pacifist in DND, the game just isn't super set up for that unless your entire table is looking for that kind of game

[@profdouglas1392]

Flip that even further, they’re the mastermind behind the party and they cannot have any blood on their hands. They command or enhance their followers but refuse to actually swing a weapon so they can’t be blamed for anything

[@jesfest]

Wasn't there a batman quote that went something like "I won't kill you, but that doesn't mean I have to save you"

[@SirZelean]

Oh, I have a Divination Wizard ready to play like that next campaign. He's supposed to be a coordinator. Sitting just outside the dungeon, protected by a Tiny Hut, communicating with the party via Telepathic Bond, helping them with direct spells such as Identify, Tongues or damage spells via an owl Familiar, detecting the item or person they need to find via Locate Object/Creature, and even follow the party around with an Arcane Eye to take the lead and scout ahead if the familiar and the party are too far away from me. He's supposed to be a medieval fantasy of that guy who supports a squad from their base, watching the cameras, giving information, etc. The concept sounds pretty cool to me, I just hope he functions as well in practice as in theory xD Gonna be extra great if my DM allows this homebrew feat that allows concentrating on two spells with a few setbacks that don't really matter to this character xD

[@caretakerITA]

@@PlayYourRole This. D&D is born from a wargame, and that still lingers. You need a DM and a group ready to bent the rules to play in a more not-combat-focus way (or use other TTRPG that are better in handling that style of game).

[@steelsnake1493]

"Try to end fight as quickly as possible" Me, as a rogue: "You know, I kind of a pacifist myself"

[@farsightenclave3511]

I Dmed for a player who played an oracle in my Pathfinder game(Think cleric, but he was born with divine powers like a sorcerer). His character was a pacifist who carried no weapon but wore full plate and used a shield. He had a lot of health and he played him as a selfless tank who used spells to heal everyone but himself. He also had other spells which forced enemies to attack him and siphoned damage away from allies and onto himself. Oracles also have a curse they pick on character creation which have good and bad effects. The one he chose made it so allies could never use help actions on him, but if he ever died, revivify would automatically be cast on him in 1d4 hours. This effect could only happen once a week, so he would have to die twice in the same week to stay dead. The dude had tons of health and AC and was constantly diverting attacks and damage away from his party without ever dealing a single point of damage. Easily the best example I can think of a pacifist done right.

[@frescopino7866]

That's not a pacifist character, that's a wall.

[@AugustoEL]

@@frescopino7866 A pacifist wall. Or masochist eh the same.

[@AugustoEL]

What mystery was he?

[@farsightenclave3511]

@@AugustoEL He took the Life mystery for more healing and restoration spells.

[@AugustoEL]

@@farsightenclave3511 nice, I am mad that I can never get in a campaing that last long whenever I play an oracle. I want my godamn dragon oracle to start getting the best revelations, but they always end up being cancelled.

[@How_to_LA]

My personal favorite “pacifist” is the kind that doesn’t believe in killing humanoids. Hordes of undead: put them to rest Demon: I won’t let them instigate others to violence Goblin: just trying to survive, KO

[@Tachi2407]

Yeah, that's something that could work. If somebody makes a character that refuses to deal damage even against undead, even when their own life is in danger, it's stupid and doesn't make any sense in-game, it's just the player trying to be special. Somebody who won't stand for killing of sentient beings with free will makes perfect sense, as long as you don't put them in the same party as some psychotic, bloodthirsty murderer.

[@pianogal5816]

To be fair, demons are sentient creatures, unlike most of the undead. It’s almost racist to assume that all of them are evil, so some justification is still required to consider killing them moral. Depends on the setting though

[@xellanchaos5386]

That's why I like the Oath of Redemption Paladin, or Way of Tranquility Monk.

[@Naro_Rivers]

@@pianogal5816 In D&D, several spiritual beings like demons, devils, and-if I remember correctly-angels have their alignment as a core part of their very being. If a demon were to have an alignment shift away from chaotic evil, it would cease to be a demon.

[@damiencopenhaver2888]

I play a character like that She’s more than willing to fight when she has to, but when the opponents are humanoids like say, a bunch of grung? I cast Sleep, encourage the party to go for nonlethal incapacitations On three separate occasions she’s been hired to go kill a dragon and has walked away after talking to the dragon and convincing it that it can be a better person, she’s even attempting to put together a support group for them In a literal warzone she knocked a guy out and proceeded to hide his body so that HER SIDE wouldn’t find him still alive and kill him

[@TheClericCorner]

Had a player in a campaign who was a pacifist but was possession by a warrior spirit (paladin) who would take over when adrenaline rushed. The character would have no memory while in this form. Still roleplayed the desire to never fight, but also was super effective in combat! It worked well

[@PlayYourRole]

Hey that's really fun! I've seen something similar done with an Ancestral Barbarian and it went great!

[@NoodleKeeper]

Almost like a Shazam xp, I like it.

[@raicantgame6634]

I play a character I refer to as a "pseudo-pacifist". He is under a curse that causes him to take half the damage he inflicts on others. For this reason, he has grown up learning other ways to resolve conflict, and skills like healing and buffing. He's a peace domain cleric, and built as pretty much full support. He does have and can use a sword as a last resort, but so far he hasn't needed to. The party has yet to question why he never attacks lol

[@RiskierGoose340]

It’s been a month since the comment. Please tell us if you have dealt damage yet.

[@raicantgame6634]

@@RiskierGoose340 Sort of, though only due to some enemy fuckery that turned one of my heals into a harming spell instead. Otherwise no, and the game's actually been on hiatus for a bit. DM was feeling burned out.

[@demonderpz7937]

Funny thing is that this was my exact progression. I personally don’t like combat, it’s a roleplaying game and I like to roleplay because it helps me hone my interpersonal skills and challenges the dm to flesh out their characters to some extent. Most dm’s like it. So naturally when I played with a group that only cared about combat, I hated it. I started out with trying to play characters that also hated combat, but I never made ones that refused to participate. I just tried to solve combat encounters using the terrain or abilities to thwart them without actually rolling to hit. The party just bitched about actions and how me not dealing damage was a detriment. Eventually I gave up on making characters who tried talking their way out of combat, or who tried using skills to survive it, and instead just built powergame characters that could end combat swiftly. The problem was then they complained the game was too easy and the gm, to challenge the players, had to overcompensate. My solution was to just find a different group that let me solve problems with roleplay, or my fists, because it’s way more fun to have the option to at least try to talk with the enemy

[@PlayYourRole]

This is a perfect example of everything I was talking about! Thanks for commenting!

[@caretakerITA]

@@elgatochurro Nope. He/She simply played a role playing game, and one basic of it is that you play a role that you choose. The problem was the group and probabilly the system (D&D has historically BIG problems in everything isn't combat). He/She solved it in the right way, changing the group (and finding a better DM).

[@Birbucifer]

So you were being a problem player? You should have just left the group before making it unfun for everyone else.

[@aodhstormeyes]

@@Birbucifer I wouldn't call this playstyle a "problem player". If you have a problem with being creative to end combat encounters you should think hard on what makes an TRPG a TRPG and not just simply a war game. The fact that his group didn't like his approach was the problem. Perhaps he didn't talk it out with them before the campaign started, perhaps the DM was helping him accomplish his goals as a pacifist, but the party lacked cohesion and it was more like every man for himself. It could be any number of reasons why this group didn't work. And as the OP stated, he tried to play along with the party's wishes and eventually built a power game character so that he could still roleplay like he wanted, the logic here probably being "the quicker the fight ends, the better". The problem with power game characters is that they are typically min maxed and unless the DM targets those minimized qualities all or most of the time, they will just tear through whatever encounters they were built for. But what's also no way to properly DM. As a DM you want a power gamer to both shine and fail. Perhaps this DM wasn't equipped to handle the new builds, but whatever the case may be, OP leaving wasn't because he was a problem player. His intended playstyle just didn't mesh well with the rest of the group's. There's nothing wrong with how he plays.

[@Birbucifer]

@@aodhstormeyes In my eyes, if you intentionally go against the grain of a table because you wanna feel special, even knowing that it will cause problems, then you are a problem player. The details do not matter to me in the slightest.

[@Spiceodog]

Non fatal attacks are so easy to do in this edition that it hardly ever holds my bard back , in fact, her ability to find other ways around problems has slowly led her to becoming the leader of the party. To be fair she’s more of an Aang pacifist because she still fights, just doesn’t kill

[@steelfallenangel]

I wish the pacifist in my group was like that. Instead he just keeps trying to do partially creative things without fully thinking about how they’d work. Player “I cast minor illusion to create a fake wolf to confuse the wolf pack” DM “the wolf pack not smelling any odors coming off the fake wolf run straight past it to attack the party” It was creative but he didn’t think about how a animal that relies heavily on smell would react to something giving off zero smell.

[@Spiceodog]

@@steelfallenangel even if they did believe the illusion they’d still attack , I think having them be able to smell to see if there’s a wolf there without an action is a stretch though. I also use creative stuff as well, like convincing a wizard he was a simulacrum, or at least ponder the possibility, just long enough to grab his staff( his only arcane focus) and snap it over my knee, the rest of the party did the rest

[@steelfallenangel]

@@Spiceodog I think if I remember the DM argued that there were several ways for the wolves to ignore this. On one hand their passive perception being 13 put them above standard DC and the wolf illusion lacking smell, sound, movement, and only just randomly appearing would be hard to trick them with. Or that if the wizard pressed him on it he could have a single wolf use their action as the equivalent of search to do a active perception check but that this would only stall one wolf. He explained to the wizard in question it’s not what he did that made this not work it’s how he tried to accomplish it. That to pull this off he woulda needed to use major illusion. And to clarify this DM has been open to minor illusion working in other scenarios (tricking foes into running into ambushes by using their bosses voice) just that this specific scenario was stretching it.

[@Spiceodog]

@@steelfallenangel wait why was there spell dc below a 13?

[@steelfallenangel]

@@Spiceodog looking back, it looks like he misruled on that believing minor illusion to use more of a standard dc set (you know like 5, 10, 15, 20) depending on the nature of the illusion instead of basing the perception check on the actual spellcasters DC. To be fair most of this group has far more experience with Pathfinder than 5e, and I wasn’t paying enough attention to notice this error (having exhausted myself explaining to the wizard in question they can get some spell slots back on short rests). But even then I think he’s spellcasting DC would have only matched the wolves passive perception 8 + 2 proficiency + 3 intelligence modifier

[@IPhilAlive]

I'd love to play a "pacifist" character who never deals damage themselves but is a necromancer who summons others to fight for them and buffs them from afar

[@PlayYourRole]

It's not 'violence' it's recycling.

[@danieljohnston3065]

@@PlayYourRole love it.

[@oi6119]

One thing i like about pathfinder is the "nonlethal" trait. It allowed me to play a character that believed murdering others was inherently wrong while also being the biggest source of damage in the party

[@Milenos]

Yes, my rogue intimidatomancer with full non lethal dish out a lot too. Its great!

[@OMNIhydra1]

A pacifist doesn't have to avoid fighting or dealing damage to be a pacifist. I love the pacifist who won't start a fight, but is 100% prepared to end one. Someone who is definitely prepared to defend themselves, their allies, and the innocent around them. Remember pacifism doesn't mean that you won't employ violence. It means you don't like violence and try to avoid it whenever possible. However, there is danger out there, especially in a D&D game. If someone decides to bring violence upon you or someone you care about, you've got two choices: run or fight. That's why so many martial arts preach pacifist ideology. They teach you to fight so you can end a conflict and keep yourself and those around you safe from harm. Mechanically this works quite well in D&D. In 5e you can simply declare your melee attacks are just attempts to knock out your enemies rather than kill them. This way you are not taking life, and are also ending conflicts faster so less people are harmed.

[@BillRutledge23]

This is essentially what I’m doing with my battlemaster multiclassing into Oath of Redemption paladin. One day his conscience scored a crit on him, and he decided that anyone who had a choice, deserved the chance to choose peace. If they choose to fight instead, it’s his job to end the fight as efficiently as possible. Pacifist-light, I suppose.

[@wisdommanari6701]

THANK YOU. people do not know what pacifism is anymore

[@bouncingsockjr]

That's actually not pacifism, it's pacificism. Pacifism is the belief that war/violence is ALWAYS wrong. Basically, it's the belief that to kill another sapient being (or in extreme, often vegan cases, another SENTIENT being) is never morally acceptable. Physical force may be considered acceptable, but the end goal should be to subdue the assailant without giving them permanent injury. (In other words, non lethal force.) Pacificism is the belief that war/violence should only ever be used for the purpose of preventing war/violence. Never use more force than your opponent plans to use against you/an innocent third party, and use even less if you think you can get away with it. Militarism is the belief that war/violence is sometimes necessary to initiate - pre-emptive strikes or invasions for other purposes are morally acceptable - as long as you have a damn good reason. (For example, most militarists would agree that invading Nazi Germany would have been acceptable, and more extreme militarists might support invading a nearby nation for food should your people be in the middle of a famine, since you owe loyalty to your own citizens more than random foreigners.) Modern media cheapens the idea of pacifism, but it is, fundamentally, a pretty radical moral philosophy that flies against thousands of years of human tradition. We've been going to war for so long that it takes either a lot of courage or a lot of stupid (depending on who you ask) to say that we should just... stop completely. There is also a wild variety in how well thought through an individual pacifist's beliefs might be. Some know that non-violence is... complicated, and is often times unrealistic - though they believe it worth striving for all the same. Others are bleeding hypocrites that think somehow it's better to watch hundreds die when you could have saved them than to stab one murderer in the organs. (Any pacifist that actually cares about human life as much as they claim would try to save EVERYONE - no exceptions, murderer included. Blood on your hands is there whether you killed by action or inaction. Though most non-pacifists would argue that's just reckless arrogance that endangers innocent lives in the name of childish naivete.) Finally, you have the... Well, there's no nice way to put this. Finally, you have the idiots. The people who think you can just sorta... throw away all the guns and hug it out. This, is, of course, a fast way to get shot. Long story short, violence and morality are... complicated. (For the record, I still haven't sorted out where I stand yet - though I lean towards pacifism, since I couldn't actually bring myself to kill someone personally. With others, though? Well, we all have our reasons and beliefs, and as long as you take action to save who you can... I find it hard to call you a bad person.) EDIT: Just reread and noticed the part about non lethal force. Whoops. Yeah, I definitely misunderstood what you meant when you said violence. It is absolutely true that aside from extremists, pacifism only forbids killing - not fighting.

[@AzureKite]

This is how I play my druid. He tries his best to find peaceful solutions to situations, but if it comes to blows (as it often does), he's more than ready to jump in and protect his friends and his ideals.

[@ericmurotake5180]

I've done two versions of this. First one is a "willbreaker" pacifist (they try to end fights by making the enemy lose any desire to fight them, usually by things like disarming them (usually forcefully), or, if that fails, by crippling the threat (say, breaking an arm or leg so the enemy can't theoretically keep fighting). The second is the "threat" pacifist. They'll attack, but deliberately aim to miss, just to make it VERY clear that they COULD inflict harm, but are deliberately holding back so the enemy backs off (I used a Monk/Artificer character who would deliberately fire shots to nick the target (cutting off hairs, having the fletching of an arrow cut the opponent's cheek, etc), then very calmly note that, if they didn't back off...well...

[@zacharycasey150]

Im sure most people already thought of this but another way to make a pacifist character is to take a paladin with the Oath of Redemption. Its an entire subclass focused around how your character has sworn an oath to avoid combat at all costs. It works better than youd think because all of its abilities are designed to do just what this video suggests. They get sleep and sanctuary right out the gate for free its channel divinities include getting a +5 to charisma checks to dissuade enemies from fighting and the other allows you to reflect damage dealt by enemies to your party, at 7th level you can magically take any damage dealt to party members nearby you, and the high level features just compound on these features with extreme tankiness. This all compounds with the paladins innate healing ability and other support spells and fighting styles that they already have access to

[@PlayYourRole]

Tbh Redemption is probably one of the most perfect subclasses for that

[@xellanchaos5386]

Damn, I was just about to mention this too. Well, at least there's also always Way of Tranquility Monk...

[@archsteel7]

In my experience, the best way to do this and still be helpful in combat is either to) A, play a healer and focus healing hard. If you're not healing your party, buff them. Bonus points if you have access to any "stabilize" type cantrip that you can use to ensure enemy combatants don't die after combat, but be open about doing that to your party since they may take offense. For some reason, a not inconsiderable chunk of D&D players are completely convinced that if you leave an unconscious bandit on the side of the road within an inch of his life, he'll get back up the moment you turn your back and immediately try and surprise attack you. Or B) Play Crowd control. I would argue that using sleep spells or drow poison to knock enemies unconscious without hurting them is completely fine pacifism-wise, and still allows you be enormously helpful in combat without actually doing any damage. And a secret option is to play a summoner character who is really an innocent soft bean, but has a summon who will violently defend them that they can't properly control. It is weirdly fun to have your character curled up in a ball, having a mental breakdown, while your summon horrifically mutilates people trying to attack them.

[@corbintheintern6229]

I played an illusion wizard with 0 damaging spells. The entire campaign, I never did a single point of damage, but I was still useful in combat. Edit: I was incorrect. He did exactly 8 damage. When he put a dagger in the heart of the slaver that had captured him.

[@Nehfarius]

Honestly, given the mechanics of D&D, I'd say the best kind of pacifist to play is more along the lines of 'would really prefer not to fight, but will defend themselves if need be'.

[@ericmurotake5180]

Alternatively, shift it to "avoids fighting and killing SENTIENT, non-extraplanar entities", so things like archdevils or the Undead are fair game (plus additional stipulations like "the Undead aren't sentient and you're returning them to their rest" and "demons aren't actually killed, but forced to discorporate and return to their plane")

[@alexanderthegreat6682]

I like the Frodo style "semi-pacifist" if you will. My character doesn't WANT to kill an intelligent being, but will if they have to. Perhaps they know that people are going to die, but what to refrain from holding the blade that ends a life for spiritual reasons.

[@wisdommanari6701]

Still a pacifist

[@awesomechainsaw]

Agreed. My longest running rp character. (He’s kinda my default to test the waters when playing a new game or system.) is a Semi pacifist. He has no issues with knocking out sentient beings. Or even killing them if they push him that far. But given he’s haunted by the murders he committed in a mindless rage in the past. He tries to limit the blood on his hands in order to prevent himself from going down that slippery slope again.

[@ericmurotake5180]

@@awesomechainsaw Interesting concept. One of my main three is an interesting inversion of the semi-pacifist. He's an assassin, and he has zero qualms about killing IF it's his target. But he also takes a firm "only the marked target dies" stance, and will instead go for either breaking the fighting spirit and capability of the foes (doing things like disarming or, at worst, breaking weapon limbs), or resort to intimidation (throwing a knife hand attack that just barely nicks the enemy, or pulling a punch millimeters away from their face) to convince them to back off. (Having seen Picard recently, I would probably have him use Elnor's "Please, my friends, choose to live" line)

[@shootymcfacey5958]

I am playing somewhat of a pacifist character at the moment, but the way I play it is that if there is no way of reasoning or convincing my opponent of stopping combat, like various abominations, constructs and undead I will still smash it with a hammer. Let’s be honest, there’s a time and a place to bring pacifism into play when dealing with characters who can be made to see reason, but some things are just better solved with a good old bonk.

[@DragonZenith]

This is my go-to as well: less a dogmatic pacifist so much as saving violence as an absolute last resort. Obviously there's no talking sense into a horde of zombies or an iron golem, and even intelligent enemies that are sufficienty evil (Like literal demons) are pretty much off the table for diplomacy.

[@shootymcfacey5958]

@@DragonZenith Exactly, it's more about my characters way of dealing with situations if anything. If violence can be avoided, you're damn straight I'll tell the party that that is what I would prefer and that I won't support them for outright slaughtering everyone we stand against.

[@DragonZenith]

@@shootymcfacey5958 This is why my spellblade has two settings. 1) Roll persuasion with a +20 bonus, or 2) a trainload of smite damage followed by chain lightning.

[@rettwoods]

A pacifist idea that I can't wait to try out: Rogue field medic (Subclass: Thief. Variant Human: Healer Feat), following the equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm). Primarily applies to Humanoids. Takes Poisoner Feat at level 4 to incapacitate with a syringe (Blowgun or Dagger with cosmetic/flavor adjustment). Fits well since most humanoids are susceptible to Poison (Except Dwarves and Yuan-ti).

[@hugmonger]

I love love love that you used Aang as the picture for this because he is the epitome of what you are saying. Move enemies around, manipulate them, cajole them, but do not harm them. Its lovely honestly.

[@Bee_with_a_Knife]

I made a pacifist character just recently that was a young girl that got stuck with divine soul powers from an evil god. She's afraid to use her power to its full extent because she fears she'll get corrupted by the temptation of power, so she refuses to use any damage spells of her own. Since the power's from an evil god she has inflict wounds, but she'll only use it if she's desperate

[@ovbrook3057]

Thing is, if you're spending your time supporting killers, you're not a pacifist, you're someone with proficiency in mental acrobatics. Which is fine, its possible to play a support character who slings around spells like bless, healing word, web (if debuffs don't count as direct harm), etc etc. But I think everyone I've heard refer to their character as a pacifist means the problematic kind, because that's what being a pacifist actually means

[@PlayYourRole]

Definitely something I touched on a few times. Truthfully, you can't be a TRUE pacifist in DND. It doesn't super work that way you know?

[@jonathanwesley5189]

honestly the true pacifist doesnt work in most ttrpg because most of them revolve around "get/ find a task > explore on your journey to said task > talk to npc's or seach for clues > Do task which generally involves a lot of combat and repeat.

[@caretakerITA]

@@jonathanwesley5189 You played only classic TTRPG, I assume? I can list a number of TTRPG where there's no combat or quest or mechanics like that (Dogs in the Vineyard, Monsterheart, Shooting the Moon... just to say some). You simply need to begin looking outside "traditional"/"conventional" TTRPG.

[@jonathanwesley5189]

@@caretakerITA fair enough my guy that just sounds boring af imo. at that point u might as well just buy a book or buy a choose your own adventure video game.

[@theblitzraider3563]

If you're trying to play a nonviolent character into a party of murderhobos, then I don't think the problem lies with your PC. Even Peace Clerics and Redention Paladins know that sometimes, talking peacefully is not the answer and violence is necessary. Pacifist does not mean stupid. As long as someone appears redeemable, it's ok to try and pacify them. But when they clearly DO NOT want to change their ways, even pacifists will acknowledge they've done everything they could and just move on.

[@jeroenimus7528]

Another big thing is incapacitate instead of kill. The advantage is that afterwards you can interrogate them. As mechanically using a melee weapon to incapacitate instead of kill is just as hard/easy any melee class can play a pacifist without a problem.

[@aqua9964]

My friend has made a campaign where magic is illegal and we all play as Spellcasters with the overall goal of liberating magic. My character is a pacifist Jesus type figure who is trying to show people magic can be used to help others and that using it for destruction will just further the populations fears around it. He's basically a multiclass of all of the different religious classes or subclasses meaning he is useless fighting but excellent at utility and is very diplomatic.

[@Galena949]

I'm currently playing a pacifist cleric. The way I've played it is that I try and avoid hitting any "human" esk (anything that looks remotely human, like a dragonborn, elf things like that) but if it's something my character would be afraid of, like spiders. My character would have a hard time resisting to hurt them.

[@HerrderGezeiten23]

As a cleric of Ilmater (FR wiki): Attending clerics during a battle were recognized by the coarse furred shirts they wore. It was considered a great wrong to harm these priests as they helped ease suffering. Even orcs and goblins held them in esteem for ministering to their fallen people and not just humans. Cleric 10: Divine Intervention (FR Wiki) In the case of extreme torture or associated murder, Ilmater granted the possessed being the ability to cast destructive spells, such as flame strike, lightning bolt or chain lightning, meteor swarm, sink, or imprisonment for a short time in retribution. Maybe your DM can play with it.

[@BlackXSunlight]

I think a lot of problems encountered when playing a pacifist can be resolved if you discuss it during Session Zero. Maybe rethink it if everyone else in the group is a ruthless chaotic neutral. But also it’s a great time to discuss expectations and what you’d enjoy playing.

[@aaron2187]

Personally I like the ATLA Aang route of pacifism, he will fight but he avoids being lethal, despite his ability Aang always works to incapacitate or talk. I have a character concept I'm working on for a paladin who seeks to stop his enemies without lethal force so he wields a quarterstaff and shield but against evil creatures like fiends its full on no mercy they have to go. That being said because it is D&D, the world is dangerous and justice is a luxury not afforded to all.

[@starpe__251]

Something I've done recently with one of my characters is that they hate taking lives. They'll fight and deal damage, but anytime they deal the final blow it's always non lethal, which is fairly easy to describe since he's a monk. If it's necessary to kill them he just leaves it up to the more ruthless party members to deal with the unconscious body

[@blockeontheleafeon]

I'm playing a Pacifist Character and my first Combat Encounter was a group of Kobolds. Out of options, I used "Sleep" and I ended the battle by putting 3 of the Kobolds to sleep. Needless to say, I'm doing a good job so far helping the Team out and ending battles quickly.

[@artmanxp]

I normally play a practical pacifist, trying not to be the insagator of fights and avoids fights when possible (talking, sneaking etc) but when the fight starts. They'll debuff, buff and attack if it's truly life threatening

[@daedalus5253]

Tripitaka in Journey to the west is a good example for a pacifist in a story for dnd.

[@Kestas_X]

I swear you scratch every single itch I have as a player. Great work. Thank you.

[@Magic-nx2fb]

I attempted to play the pacifist once. I worked with the DM to explain the characters motivations and stuff and he liked the idea. It would be an eloquence bard who would always try to reason with people first to see if there was anything that could sway them. When combat did start, I had spells like sleep to help in the encounters. I aided and stopped a decent amount of combat for the brief time I played the character and would help with basic inspiration and the help action, or taking the Dodge action and putting myself in front of the squishier characters. I had to retire them early however because one of the players didn't like me stopping combat. They kept trying to say that it never worked and asked why my character hadn't learned better, after I stopped 8 guards from attacking us because of calm emotions and talking them into working with us. My characters beliefs were just that everyone has a bit of good in them and he just wanted to bring it out. It caused too much drama though so I switched to a druid/fighter sailor that just smacks stuff with a big stick XD I'll attempt to bring him back once we get to hell since we're running DiA because at the very least I'll have more resources to buff and support

[@2g33ksgamingttv3]

Honestly it just sounds like you had a murderhobo in your group, especially if they are arguing that it never works if it clearly does at times

[@Magic-nx2fb]

@@2g33ksgamingttv3 not necessarily murderhobo, but there was a little bit of "rp doesn't exist in dungeons" type of mentality. The moment we got into a dungeon, they would try to clear it similar to a video game.

[@Tesoro1996]

"Challenge rating is just bullshit." Couldn't have said it better. (After almost killing my level 5 party with CR1 dryads before getting my ass handed to me when I put them up against CR8 Unspeakable Horror.)

[@Clepto_and_Co]

Bard has always been a class that I've liked what they could do, but could never imagine roleplaying. This video changes that, and even gives me some ideas for artificer

[@rzgaming5678]

Gave my players (7 lvl1-2’s) three ogres on a pretty open farm field, ranger finds high ground (top of a building) oils his arrows and sets the ogres on fire while the paladin is smiting, warlock is blasting and the bard is mocking them on top of stabbing, had a cleric on standby as a pacifist and literally sat back as the medic and a druid that acts as a stealthy supporter. They wasted the ogres within 5 turns and it was fun, the cleric is the designated heal station for the party and honestly, its been working really well for her, we are currently 1 month in and they are all about to hit lvl 3 (1-3 battles per session filled with moderate cr ratings, im still new to the dm thing but its been fun)

[@terrbearthewerebear9390]

My favorite character to play is a wizard who is a traumatized princess in exile and a young mom. She's really fun to roleplay... and is also a wizard powerbuild with a dip in cleric. Easily the MVP of every party I've played her in, and she's maybe directly killed 1 person.

[@danieljohnston3065]

I really appreciate most of these, but this one in particular is highly appreciated.

[@mynameis_ehe8373]

I’ve been trying to workshop a character who’s whole deal is that they’re non-confrontational, hates having to kill anything for themselves, and is overall extremely timid. But they will ultimately help out the party because they realise that violence is sometimes a necessary evil in order to prevent more people from getting hurt. I’ve mainly been focusing on how to buff my team and heal enemies after they’ve been incapacitated, but this video did help remind me that there are multiple ways to end combat. I’m still fairly new to actual D&D, especially because my group rarely has the time to meet up, so I really do appreciate these sorts of videos so I can continue making offbeat characters with strange gimmicks.

[@billygoat5944]

When i hear pacifist i hear "dont kill anything" which is perfect for weapons that deal bludgeoning damage as you can just knock people out or using your fists with unarmed fighting or monk

[@creature6715]

Ah yes, maces, clubs and hammers, famously non leathal weapons

[@zodiachimera7557]

My life Cleric is mostly a pacifist. She mainly focuses on keeping her party alive and well through healing and support magic, as well as acting as aggro/damage sponge herself(has one of the highest ACs in the party before buffing). It also depends on what kind of foes they're up against. She refuses to kill other people(or sapient beings in general), but will still defend herself and her party from them. Lesser sentients, like animals, she will kill if she must but prefers to simply discourage them from fighting. A predator will usually cut and run once it's clear they're not getting an easy meal. ... Mindless foes, such as undead or automatons that attack/kill as part of their 'programming' she does not hesitate to destroy. Their existence is a threat to innocent life, and when the party runs across things like that, they get a quick reminder that she's an offensive powerhouse in her own right...

[@Abzanafenza]

I love this character

[@zodiachimera7557]

@@Abzanafenza Thank you xD

[@kerithkordas7041]

ooooooh i cant wait for you to tackle how to play a cunning bastard, those are always my favourite types of characters in fiction. the guile hero type like john constantine and such

[@elvisstrunk7789]

I recently successfully played a pacifist character in Starfinder, made it through without dealing a single point of damage. Was the healer, which helped, as did the fact that the module we were running didn't have tons of combat to begin with. The party stabilized most of our enemies, so even as a group we only ended up killing three sentient beings, one mindless robot, and some space bugs. It was a lot of fun.

[@Kestas_X]

Thanks for mentioning both types of pacifists

[@lucashayes346]

I once had an Artificer Armorer/Rogue Assassin who was not necessarily a pacifist but he did despise violence, and he only learned the violent things he did in case he had to protect himself or those he cared about. He always worked to eliminate people strategically, efficiently, with as little excess violence or fuss as possible. Most of the other players compared him quite frequently to the Way of Mercy monk, as he always strove to ensure his opponents never suffered and that combat was over as quickly as possible. He was quite fun to play, and a stark contrast to my old Warlock I had played in a previous campaign who cared very little about how much pain his enemies felt

[@SuperGoose42]

Heyyyy this is the video I requested! Thanks, it's much appreciated Good vid

[@PlayYourRole]

Of course, your comment inspired it!

[@ianmagnuson1777]

I'm playing a homebrew skeleton paladin2/warlock3 who was formally chaotic evil but is now trying to become the "good guy" to right his wrongs. Much of what you said is how I RP him. He finds other ways to fight/support his party and attempts to convince foes to stand down, but after being attacked enough times, he loses his cool and smites the attacker. It is a fun way of playing D&D as he doesn't just rush into the heat of battle and kill as many things as he can. It's different, and I can see that this type of play style wouldn't be for everyone, but its always fun to try out new things.

[@seanerzat]

Love this channel. It's a great sign when you can see progress in video making skill even just across a couple months. Keep up the great work cuz Im learning a ton from your content!!

[@lighthadoqdawg]

A note about Challenge rating: a creature's CR doesn't exactly equate to their challenge against a a static group of 4 players /by itself/ there's calculators and such that take into account party size, and how many other creatures make up the encounter as well. Action economy definitely makes CR less of a hard point of reference. but should still be taken into account when putting parties up against groups of enemies or a boss with minions. as sometimes, all it takes to make your boss a real threat is for them to not be alone.

[@lighthadoqdawg]

Just to add to this: most Encounter calculator's including DnD beyond's would calculate 4 level 1 adventurers vs 4 CR1 creatures as a deadly encounter by a factor of 2. This is because CR1 does not equate to level 1. a CR 1 creature would be better served as an elite/boss for the quest/dungeon with a couple of CR 1/4's and that being the big encounter for the group of rookies. and even then, that treads the line of Hard/deadly. the notion that CR is not a good calculator for a balanced encounter stems from a misunderstanding on how to use it as a baseline. sometimes you have to adjust because your team is really good at tactics and has magical items/features they can exploit to give them an edge. or sometimes you have to dial back because they aren't well experienced in action economy or their class' strengths in combat. all of this being said. a player refusing to contribute to an encounter in any way would definitely through calculations off. and while it's not required to make combat oriented characters. perhaps speak to your party/DM before playing polarizing characters like a true pacifist. It would be seen as pretty silly to be told session zero that the campaign's going to be equal parts combat and roleplay, and make a character who's going to refuse to do one aspect or another when the rest of the group agrees to those terms. Unless of course it's spoken about and agreed upon, so the DM and party and plan around it.

[@maitrecorbeau_gm]

This is an interesting video. Different views on why you wouldn't fight, and the main part : still be useful/cool with your party, which is the most important part. I played an illusionist who wanted to leave a better world for his son, so he had to be the example. In combat, there was illusions and control, all with one objective : make the enemy surrender/knock him out, and I was luck the party rolled with it. Ok, those zombies were not knocked out, but like you said, moral barriers were ok with the all in "attacks". (No offensive cantrip)

[@Kielsram]

I have never played a "pacifist" but I do enjoy playing the "debuffer" character. They aren't concerned with dealing the final blow or taking out hordes of foes, but they do hinder the enemy in a myriad of ways. Things like Blindness/Deafness, Bane, Darkness, and Fog Cloud are all par for the course. Even if you're not dealing high numbers a well timed cantrip like Sapping Sting or Mind Sliver is enough to gain an edge against an opponent who failed the saving throw for your allies to capitalize on. Heck even a Battle Master Fighter has ways to make the fight more difficult than just dealing damage thanks to their Combat Maneuvers. Disarming their foe, moving them around, forcing them to attack the fighter. By themselves these don't deal any damage, but they do manipulate the fight in some form or fashion.

[@boxylemons7961]

I’m playing a pacifist in a campaign by a friend of mine, so thanks for making this video

[@darkminer14]

I played about as passive as I could with a group that are known for murderhobo/minmaxing. I played a varient of a class, and I was also the parties healer, a very good healer for that. And I had to be close to party members to heal them so I had to have some combat abilities, but I really didn't invest into it. I made a point on talking to people at times, (Even if we had other characters with higher charisma.) I made a point on not assuming the worst, and overall I made a apoint to attack nonlethally when I had to. I always classified Pacifist as someone who didn't kill, rather than didn't fight all together. But I did consider a monk archetuype that lets you hurt others as they hurt you, a double-edge sword kind of build where you only hurt them when they hurt you literally. Good concepts overall.

[@feyefall4855]

This'll help going forward with my ex-soldier bard, Meri Golde, who could no longer justify fighting but still saw lots of young adventurers going out and finding danger, decided to help them out and do their best to keep the party safe. Bard's already pretty suited to the control and support role, and having been a soldier meant strategy and teamwork was already ingrained in the character. I hadn't thought about breaking the pacifism for an opponent considered worth beating up, but luckily I kept their rapier and green flame-blade (from high elf) in case of emergencies.

[@noahthehoneyboy6294]

One of my favorite characters I’ve ever made was a half orc redemption paladin. Very good start for a pacifist story wise but I had also taken the inspiring leader feat so I could passively buff my allies and the war caster feat to get advantage on con saves for my spells. I would just dodge action, sanctuary, and burn my reaction every turn to either impose disadvantage with my fighting style or use my aura to soak up damage. With good party synergy a pacifist can really help in combat.

[@maxinearmata7698]

I've actually been playing a pacifist Monk in 5e and it's really fun to play. I took way of the kensei and primarily use like blunt wooden weapons like quarter staff's, clubs that type of stuff and primarily trip people up and knock them out using non-lethal damage when it's clear that there's going to be no talking your way out of the situation. She also has a high charisma stat for those talking sections. It's also fun to employ like traps and stuff to capture people or just knock them out

[@silversabercraft]

So, I recently noticed one of my characters are a pacifist (well a few, but one wasn't intended to be one) He was based around chaos, so anything will make him use wild magic just about, and it's a very chaotic table This character started with nobody liking him in character (as I wanted) but to stick thematic wise I picked chaos and control spells (oh, and you know, healing and buff to clean up the mistakes) I'm sorcerer/paladin, and my DM(DMs? We swap on occasion with other players for story reasons) now almost hate me, because i buff all of our AC to protect everyone, i heal when people are low, and when I can't defend, I don't harm them, I use spells like command and levitate so that the fight is ended without bloodshed (my party always thinks I'm a murderhobo somehow tho..) and my wild magic goes off with my support to make sure I'm still affecting the battle, often by changing the field, like making it icy making it better for our ice ranger sorc, or I give negative effects at random, or if I'm lucky... I can mess with people on another level... Basically I just wanted a bit of a chaotic source and go from there, now it's a character who was raised running cons, didn't like that and found it too repetitive and went out for adventure, got gifted some powers by a good in return for working under them, but he hates the damage he does... basically his whole story is gaining control and not hurting people, and yet I have done 88 damage as a reaction ending a fight in one turn, ended another fight with one use of gust... I can't harm you, unless you try to harm me... and should you cross the line, I will tank everything you hit me with, as I slowly walk towards you, draw my sentimental knife... and loose about 300 dice worth of damage from combining what you did to me into one hit

[@birubu]

Desmond Doss, featured in the film Hacksaw Ridge, is a prime example of how to play a pacifist in a high combat environment. I actually have a life cleric star Druid, Desme Doss, using this exact premise. Healer feat, aura of vitality, chalice constellation, cure wounds, and thats a lotta healing. I’m soon to pick up Aberrant Dragonmark with Cure Wounds (accessible due to Witherbloom initiate) for even more access to healing, getting a free cast of the spell per long rest.

[@foxtoxic9722]

I would say a good example, maybe not a pacifist character but definitely a good support character, would be Fresh Cut Grass. While he does participate in the combat it seems that he does so only when he doesn’t have many other options. The rest of the time he’s being a champ at supporting the other player characters in and out of combat.

[@thefakecat8340]

In my current campaign our group has a pixie druid who is essentially a naive lady who cant read the room. At times she is a cheerleader helping our goliath runeknight get bigger so he has an easier time fighting but she herself wont do anything aggressive. She manipulates the battlefield as we are in a plane of eternal snow and has made combat easier by lifting up the snow or spreading it out to expose the enemies that burrow. She even builds walls in caverns to prevent dangerous creatures from following us. Aside from that she actually helps progress character's stories on accident. With my ranger she pranked him to reveal permanent markings that he hides with makeup due to them being attached to childhood bullying that made it difficult to open up to people. One of our artificers accidentally found out one of her biological parents is actually a dragon all because she asked the artificer's patron a secret. The most harm weve done to her is throwing a book and threatening to throw a knife (both were me but i wasnt going to throw the knife. It was an empty threat). The ranger has had a lot of bad scenarios with the party so he is the least attached to everyone aside from two exceptions

[@thegreatbroohighny9766]

i love playing pacifists so much, they're just so fun. being the healer/support of the party has always been my favorite role though

[@williamwray2522]

I have a Warforgerd fighter who was built as a prototype for a in game military regime but was dropped because he took a vow not to kill. He was taught to respect sentient life through his mother(creator) and he does not want to rob any creature of that himself. It's lead to some really interesting TO moments. especially when a BBEG killed a Party member and he went ballistic and had an existential crisis

[@OpenBiolabsGuy]

Cypher System’s mechanic of giving enemies levels to determine how difficult they are is better because unlike CR, a NPC’s level determines what you have to roll on a d20 to hit them, defend against them, or persuade them. Cypher also has a character type called a Speaker that works well mechanically for pacifists. For example they have an ability at tier (level) 1 called Enthrall which basically lets you talk at an opponent and keep them from acting other than to defend themselves because they’re paying so much attention to what you’re babbling about that they don’t act. It’s a useful combat ability that lets you rob enemies of their turns while not doing actual fighting yourself.

[@ivyhutton6378]

I have a life cleric I adore playing. She's a disciple of Lliira and her views are "spreading joy can be through causing the joy or ending suffering" and is a dancer. I use dancing as her flavor for inspiring leader, but she also knows that not all creatures are good. Undead are typically under control of someone who wishes harm, and the undead are likely suffering themselves. Fiends try to trick people into hurting themselves or otherd for the fiend's cause, so while she might protect thr person under the influence, the fiend itself should be driven off. She doesn't have many damage spells, but constant use of bless, shield of faith, etc makes her very appreciated in the party, and im sure being able to heal 1d8+7 with a 1st level cure wounds is helping her case too

[@seabasticutbrotasticut2313]

I currently have a character who is a peace domain cleric, who worships the god of death. The way I move around the pacifist stigma is that he sees death as the ultimate form of peace (the god of death in this campaign is seen as evil aligned, so he has slightly evil beliefs) but while it is the ultimate form of peace, life has so much more to offer than peace can provide. He doesn’t see death as a bad thing so he isn’t afraid to dish it out, but he also understands “peace” isn’t the thing that gives everyone happiness. People like chaos just as much as he likes peace, and he understands that. He focuses more on healing and buffing but is not against throwing out the occasional toll the dead.

[@thisisausername9356]

Ohh, this is interesting! I have a Redemption Paladin I want to use one day so this definitely is helpful

[@khananiel-joshuashimunov4561]

I'm currently playing the healer and party face. More than her healing, buffing, and utility in combat, she excels in negotiating. Many combats are stopped as soon as they start, with enemies laying down their arms. My favorite exploit was when the party was facing a team that had us outnumbered, had one of our own in critical condition and a prisoner, and had time to set up hazards in the terrain. She managed to bluff her way into making them believe we had more resources than we had, and also negotiated a deal that actually made surrendering appealing.

[@c-longjohns6183]

There’s tons of ways a pacifist can be useful in and out of combat, you can become the ultimate utilitarian and become an excellent white mage or crowd control specialist, calming enemies, giving them rough terrain, buffing your allies, healing them. Then out of combat you can be a smooth talker, a smith, an alchemist, if you handle the bartering for the team and pump up your charisma you’ll get way more bang for your buck across the campaign, whether you’re buying or selling

[@rburden3928]

While I wasn't playing a pacifist character I kind of had a moment where I took the idea of ending combat outside of attacking, basically 2 mages charmed some civilians and the party was split on 2 sides of the battle, ended the combat in 2 turns by destroying the violin they used with disarm hurling it into the fire and next turn dousing the fire with a decanter of endless water since the civilians were being controlled by their shadows. Was a fun thing to do and I say if you want to play a pacifist make sure you're paying close attention to your surroundings and don't be afraid to get creative with solutions, it can certainly be fun to turn combat into your own mini puzzle that you get to solve.

[@viniciuspereira2651]

I had a pacifist character once. They hated hurting other people and would never do that (it was a homebrew system so it was a bit easier to work around), usually talking and using charisma to try and avoid the combat. After some things happened (basically a character that wanted to absolutely be everyone's friend, trying to resolve conflicts with talking or finding others ways, like throwing food to creatures and run away), the character's father kidnapped them and they finally understood that sometimes, fighting is necessary so their friends wouldn't get hurt, and they started being more useful in combat, disrupting the enemies and giving the party and advantage in combat while also tanking pretty much all damage that was directed at them

[@funnyvalentinedidnothingwrong]

One of my Paladins, Ricky, is a bandit-turned Redemption Paladin, after a bungled heist left him in the care of the church and he found himself in their teachings. He's isn't strictly pacifist, with things like demons and undead needing to be exterminated and put to rest respectively , but he absolutely loathes being forced to kill or seeing his party kill most things. He very firmly believes that while not everybody can be redeemed, everybody deserves the chance to be.

[@KodasGarden]

I played a beast barbarian that was a pacifist because he had been struggling with a lycanthropic curse for most of his life. Usually he was very calm and tried his best to avoid encounters, usually by intimidating people down. If that didn't work, he'd grapple and pin people and move them around the battlefield. He'd also take the help action for his team and even move them to better positions if they needed it. Then, when a certain threshold of combat damage was dealt in an encounter, the DM would tell me the scent of blood was too strong and he would rage, becoming a terror on the battlefield. It was a super fun character to play!

[@deltablaze77]

I played a pacifist Monk that didn't believe in personally causing lasting harm to living non-fiendish beings, they respected that the others in the party would engage in combat, and they were okay with knocking some fools out, but mostly didn't want to kill. Went down the path of getting good at stunning, grappling, tripping, etc it was a lot of fun. Many would probably say not a pure pacifist, but pacifist adjacent or a type of pacifist.

[@xellanchaos5386]

Way of Tranquility Monk, by any chance? If not, you should check it out. Pretty much pacifist, just like the Oath of Redemption Paladin.

[@skyeshi3570]

i played two pascafists in pathfinder, one was a barbarian who just thought peace should be introduced by the fastest means possible and would beat people up and force them to talk through their differences. the other one was a cavalier fighter who went around dealing non lethal damage to people

[@ericmurotake5180]

I've seen a few options. One is the Aggro-holder (they use either negation (evasion or cancels) to keep the enemy from hurting them while they hold the enemy looking at them (One party member had incredibly high evasion, and used taunts or flinging small objects to keep enemies on them), or by being a vitality tank (relying on mitigation and HP to just facetank hits and rely on surviving)). Another option is what I've dubbed the "Kira Pacifist", who focuses on forcing surrender by disarming or crippling the offense abilities of the enemy (Sleep spells, breaking weapons or equipment, fear effects, AT WORST going for a limb, etc). A third concept I've seen is the threat pacifist (they deliberately aim to not hit, but to make it VERY CLEAR that they COULD)

[@hak1111111]

"But your honor, I did not stab him. I was only holding him tightly, so my friend could stab him"

[@julysolchenberger5790]

In my vtm game, one of our players is a high humanity malkavian who is trying to achieve golconda (enlightenment). He plays this character perfectly and manages to be such an asset to the team without violence.

[@darienb1127]

One thing as a DM you can do to make the Pacifist more interesting is to make Combat encounters that aren't just kill everyone. Perhaps there's another objective that needs to be completed while the fight is going on. Example: Maybe the Pacifist is an elite hacker and they have to break into an important computer while the rest of the party protects them. There's a lot of things that are normally done outside of combat that you can put INSIDE of combat for some really fun and tense encounters.

[@giraffedragon6110]

One of my favorite characters I designed a year ago was a redemption Paladin who refused to use a weapon. In his backstory, he was one of 2 orphans that were taken under the wing of their mentor figure to learn how to fight and live righteously. One day, on their exam day with real swords, an accident occurred. The sword my Redemption pally was supposed to use was instead a sword of vengeance, his mentor sacrificed his own life to stop the rampage. And he never forgave himself for it.

[@kramerfortuna7228]

I recently played a Paladin who refused to kill and was sickened by the sight of blood, but I more than carried my weight in combat. Keeping everyone else in fighting shape, locking down the battlefield, tanking hits thanks to a high armor class, and dealing a fair amount of non-lethal damage with my shield and the pommel of my sword kept me in the action without slowing things down. I know that TECHNICALLY means I wasn't a pacifist, but a simple "no killing sentient creatures" rule can go a long way without hindering the party, and it can lead to some interesting character moments along the way. During our quest, I came across a Flametongue sword, for example (I offered it to the other players, but I was the only one properly built for hand to hand combat, so they let me take it.) While I never killed anyone with it, I used it for a bunch of smaller, useful tasks, like cooking our food, which sort of reinforced the idea that I was like a surrogate parent/caretaker to most of the party.

[@FoxyBlack2247]

The way I see how to play a pacifist is using the best and worst with two characters who were also pretty pacifistic in nature. At worst, be an Aang, someone who wanted to always settle things without violence, but will fight when need be. At best, be Po, someone who wants to not fight, who wants to find the good in everyone, wants to save as many as he can, even the baddies, but isn't afraid to fight to protect those he loves, and even kill if it is absolutely necessary.

[@AstraIVagabond]

Oh, this is perfect. I want to play D&D, but I also love pacifist heroes to the point I really want to play one in an RP-driven game, even though that game is basically Fantasy Murder Simulator. My characters are Charisma casters - tricksters or diplomats - who can sneak, lie, or negotiate around or through combat encounters. One of them hates violence in general but also distrusts herself to exercise it in particular, but I know I have to at least temper that first aspect for her to be playable. My justification for her following a party into battle is her loyalty and trust in the judgment of her friends, which stems from naïveté much like her pacifism does. I think my new character, will have a more balanced ideology, which prioritizes the value of life, but doesn’t see it as the _absolute_ priority and allows for exceptions when necessary. I can’t wait for the rest of this series! Especially How to Play the Cunning Bastard WITHOUT Making Your Party Want to Kill You, since _that’s the character concept I’m working on right now,_ and I was just wondering if it could be playable as such (especially by a newbie player in a partly newbie party), or if that’s doomed to just be the infamous What My Edgy Loner Would Do with extra steps. Yes, I am a newbie who’s perhaps-misguidedly obsessed with making complicated characters who are fascinating in centrally-written stories but that most D&D campaigns may not have the bandwidth for.

[@redsadventureUK]

Currently dm'ing a tome warlock whom refuses to fight, but will stay pacifist using illusions and manipulation of the battlefield. I can't help but be amazed but the creativity of the character

[@darkos1012]

I was invited to play in a Savage Worlds game with a premade character, (because things are truthfully kinda complex there). He was a tank, with a huge riot shield, sworn to protect hi s allies, as loyal as he is against killing anything. He fights, and maybe knocks out, but killing is just against his mojo. Now you'd think, what can a shield tank with a fear of shooting guns do? In Savage worlds you get basically 1-3 actions, 4 if you include doubling your speed, and for each one you basically have a higher DC for EACH action you want to do. So I would use as many as I could without guaranteed screwing up and support my allies, protect them from being hit (Which is a passive ability of the character) And help THEM aim their weapons, pulling them out of stuns, pinning enemies to the floor or even serving as cover. It was exhillirating, basically my first experience playing D&D and I seem to have even impressed the ones who made the character at how I used him! It was in a subset of Savage Worlds called Aether Adrift, it's got magic and diffirent rules. It feels a lot more gritty reality than D&D but it's fun, if you think about checking it out.

[@denzildk]

i once played a military deserter who was against killing, so they only did non-lethal damage with blunt weapons. I got the downing hit on a hag that we were tasked with killing, but i stabilised her and took her back to the quest givers for them to deal with instead. We got the full reward and they probobly killed her, but it added a bit to the story that we had to deal with taking her back there.

[@petinonclement7872]

They are 2 (approximate) quote that I like "I'm a pacifist, not nonviolent" and "who will the peace, prepare the war" that show the common confusion between willing the peace (avoid as much as possible the fight) and refuse of fighting. It's even possible to have a big brute in fight but who have/bring the peace because no one want to fight him/her, who use it for a pacifist mentality.

[@jomonkey2758]

One character type I’m playing is what I call the beast. This character type Litterally asks like an animal, snarling and growling instead of talking, crawling on the floor, etc. I’m playing a dhampir barbarian who climbs on walls and leaps into combat with his rage. He doesn’t talk, doesn’t really interact with the party, but he helps. If the party is stuck he goes to hunt for an answer, if someone needs help on the front line he runs to the front. Playing a more beastly character is a hell of a lot of fun.

[@ellieahearn4055]

Currently playing a paladin of a heretical sect of Eldath that taught that peace is the highest good, but only achieved through suppression of dissent. And so as a reversal of the very pacifist deity was a military captain for a theocratic autocracy. Got pulled into the curse of Strahd setting by the mist and over the course of the setting realized that her sect isn’t actually good. After talking to the DM, next level up (level 7) I will be changing my subclass from oath of the crown to oath of redemption and play an actual pacifist Paladin of Eldath while playing support for my party with buff spells and healing.

[@axelexplode]

Ive been playing a monk for 2 years now that has never killed a humanoid personally. He doesn't feel comfortable doing that. My party on the other hand will kill. I tell the enemy each time at any point you can yield and live otherwise my friends will kill you. This saves lives and has turned many threats.

[@whensomethingcriesagain]

I think the best example of a pacifist you can point to is Thorfinn Karlsefni from the later chapters of Vinland Saga. "A true warrior doesn't need a sword", meaning he does everything he can to find alternatives to fighting and solve things with either diplomacy or straight up running away. But then when he's cornered and forced to fight, he's no pushover, and even in this part of his life he's still willing to risk his life to protect the people he cares about, he just does everything in his power to avoid killing others

[@karinaalamiri9937]

God, I wish that this video came out a few months ago. I was a DM in a west marches server and we had a huge issue with a bard pacifist named Valus. He’d constantly endangered party members and even got some killed by trying to protect the enemy or mitigate damage to them. The "whole ending combat as quickly as possible" angle would have been a great pitch for the player. Now I don't DM there anymore so oh well... I'll definitely keep this is mind for the future tho!!

[@link77779]

I played a Way of Mercy monk that took a vow of passivism after getting a vision of becoming a violent woman who killed innocent people. She had the skills of a monk and some healing. She was fine with other people fighting, just not inflicting harm herself. My favorite part of this gameplay-wise is that she became 'The grapple Queen,' locking down enemies while the party took them out. I loved her story and she's my favorite character I've ever played.

[@executiveelf8793]

Am currently playing a pacifist character that is my favorite character I've ever made. Myrhh is a human Kannagi (homebrew Class, but she's basically a cleric) who is of tactical mind but doubts her own abilities. So instead she trusts her allies to get the job done while she serves the party as their Tactician and healer. She uses the Telepathic feat to help the party coordinate their positions while also using Tandem Tactician in order to dish out Help actions while also still casting a beefed up version of the Virtue cantrip (instead of range touch and 1d4+1 temp HP, it is range 30 and 1d4 temp HP and scaling like damage cantrips do). She will also often be holding concentration on the likes of Bless or Wind Wall to sway things into her allies' favor.

[@galyxi3412]

My current character is an ex-cop artificer/unarmed fighter hybrid. He uses mechanical arms he built for himself to replace the limbs he lost, and he affixed shocking knuckles that he can change between lethal and non-lethal modes.. hes more of the batman version of pacifism: perfectly willing to beat someone down, but he doesn't want to kill anyone unless they are straight-up pure evil

[@WandererEris]

To comment on your Challenge Rating bit, in 3.5e the CR system is based around a party of four with gear and magic items appropriate to their level (and usually in the classic Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue combination or some comparable mix). The system for figuring out encounter levels was a little tough, though there are easily findable calculators online such as on the d20 SRD website. In 5e, I think the intention was to keep this the same but monsters are poorly balanced against their intended CR so they end up either being super weak or super strong, and it doesn't help that every character is now a super hero which skews every encounter in the players' favour. 5e is also heavily based around the 4-8 level range so it feels like a lot of enemies are balanced with that level range in mind, while back in 3.5e the intention was 1-20 so there's a lot better of a curve from weak survival party to demigod, which let the designers properly figure out CRs.

[@fiendishmia506]

my issue comes when the dm balances for a pacafist and the rest of the party steamrolls the encounter because its objectively easier

[@seansimons1257]

some more ideas: a character that fights against their will such as a barbarian who can't control their rage, a wild magic sorcerer who instinctively casts spells when threatened, or a warlock who can be possessed by their patron. a character who never ESCALATES a fight, if you threaten him, he won't attack you, if you punch him, he may punch back but won't draw a weapon, if you draw a weapon he will as well but he won't try to kill you.

[@MinuHex]

My character in our Curse of Strahd campaign is a pacifist, for the most part, since we had way too many damage sources and needed utility and healing. She is only a pacifist because of her origin though, being Haunted One. That being said, she isn't haunted herself, but the haunt. She knows what the sting of death is like, so she doesn't wish to inflict it on others, only changing views if her friends are being messed with. She's a combination of high-cha bard and warlock secondary, having high damage and control potential, but refusing to unleash that full potential unless instigated.