Well met fellow gamers!

I am currently playing a Paladin who is trying to Atone for a moment of uncharacteristic aggression (probably brought on by extreme hunger and fatigue on my part).

Anyways, the DM says I'm now a Pacifist for the next 30 days game time. "Full moon to full moon".

I'm a bit of a goofball in real life but I try to play the Paladin as a nice guy. Not lawful stupid. He follows the rules but he's courteous about it. He plays Rules as Intended not Rules as Written, so usually things go well.

But being a true pacifist is boring. I'm trying to figure out how to walk the line between funny and douchebag. I don't want to be a blatant jerk but I want the game to be enjoyable to me also.

I can use nuisance actions like sneezing when the ranger uses his bow and things like that to avoid causing harm to others, but I don't want to be a jerk about it.

Can someone help me think up NON LETHAL attacks and defenses maybe?

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

What's his main weapon.  And there are degrees of pacifism, some people don't start fights, ever.  Others will step in to defend others, and not themselves.  Others will let themselves get killed without ever lifting a hand.

What's the limit?

Actually, now that I think on it, Pacifism won't work IF the world your character is in, is remotely violent.  A good God (in my opinion) will not have a devout follower watch while innocents get slaughtered in their presence.  It's not considered a Good act in general.

Unless of course, your character's God is NOT Good aligned, and neither is the Paladin.  (Which gets my hackles up.  But that's just because I started with 2e, and I see Paladins as Lawful Good.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;889208What's his main weapon.  And there are degrees of pacifism, some people don't start fights, ever.  Others will step in to defend others, and not themselves.  Others will let themselves get killed without ever lifting a hand.

What's the limit?

According to the DM, "do no harm".

QuoteActually, now that I think on it, Pacifism won't work IF the world your character is in, is remotely violent.  A good God (in my opinion) will not have a devout follower watch while innocents get slaughtered in their presence.  It's not considered a Good act in general.

Unless of course, your character's God is NOT Good aligned, and neither is the Paladin.  (Which gets my hackles up.  But that's just because I started with 2e, and I see Paladins as Lawful Good.)

He IS lawful good, but I've been able to defend the Intent of the law rather than the Text of the law. And I've been lucky on a few dice rolls.

I want to do more than just "do no harm". I want to actively Prevent harm but not in a rude way. Nor do I want to be condescending. I like that scene in Terminator where he shoots people in the legs and says something like No one died. But I can't even do that. I have to learn how to subdue without injuring.

I'm thinking nets and ropes and maybe buying scrolls of Hold Monster, and Paralyze, and Sleep?

More?

Quote from: infinitum3d;889200I am currently playing a Paladin who is trying to Atone for a moment of uncharacteristic aggression (probably brought on by extreme hunger and fatigue on my part).

Anyways, the DM says I'm now a Pacifist for the next 30 days game time. "Full moon to full moon".
----------------------------
But being a true pacifist is boring. I'm trying to figure out how to walk the line between funny and douchebag. I don't want to be a blatant jerk but I want the game to be enjoyable to me also.

I can use nuisance actions like sneezing when the ranger uses his bow and things like that to avoid causing harm to others, but I don't want to be a jerk about it.

Can someone help me think up NON LETHAL attacks and defenses maybe?

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

First, i'm gonna assume that you are playing D&D or a heartbreaker of it.

Second, i'll point out that I know very little about D&D as it is, but I know some about gaming and pacifism.

Third, Possible advice:
Ask the DM if an added difficulty to your attacks will let you make damage that will only result in KO, not death, alternately, if it will let you target areas of less lethality, such as arms, hand and/or weapons to disarm enemies so they can be captured.

Also, ASK your DM how your character has to regard the other party members harming and killing enemies.
If the DM claims it is your choice, then i'd suggest you avoid messing with their actions during battle, unless you suspect it might be a killing blow, or if the target is assumed good or neutral.

Finally, I think the punishment's purpose is for your character to try other ways than mere violence.
Your character, not anyone else's.
Think about that.

All great points and yes I agree that the point is for MY character to develop but where's the fun in that?  ;-)

But seriously, from a Story point of view, I think my character would at least try to discourage the others from killing, just like a smoker needs his friends to abstain around him for morale support?

If you want to be a pacifist but still engage in combat - The Paladin should Do No Harm. That gives you some wiggle-room straight away. The Paladin can do stunning or subdual damage, if attacked. The Paladin can injure but not kill, remember Arnie in Terminator 2 where he is told not to kill anyone and he shoots people in the kneecaps and says "They'll live"?

If, however, you want to follow the GM's instructions without wiggling, there are ways to do this as well. If you come to a combat situation, draw your sword and put on a weapon's display, to show how hard you are, that might stop the combat without fighting. Speak to people before the combat starts, try to dissuade the PCs from fighting, warn them you will stay out of the combat no matter what. Try and buy off the opponents. Bribe them to go away. When combat starts, deliberately stay away from the fight. If attacked, try to disarm the opponent, trip him, hold him so he cannot fight, these are easier in some game systems than others, of course.

Don't forget that your paladin only needs to keep this up for a month. Keep a note of everyone who has laughed at you for not fighting. Remember the foes you have paid off. Remember the things you were forced to do. Then, after the month is up, go back to them and remind them of what a paladin who can fight is capable of. Do it in a nice way, of course, not a vengeful or vindictive way.

After all, a paladin who cannot fight is about as much use as a Magic User who can't cast spells.

With the caveats that I (a) greatly dislike D&D and (b) loathe D&D's oft-sloppy and idiotic pretenses to playing out religion, I'll take a stab at it.

First off, I'd sit down and talk to your DM.  What kind of faith are we talking about here?  What's your god all about?  What are its tenets?  What is it about them which suggests that pacifism is a fitting penance, or that "a moment of uncharacteristic aggression" requires the same?

Secondly, it's absolutely imperative that you and your DM be on the same page as to what "pacifism" means.  You absolutely ought not be subjected to that all-too-common idiocy where D&D religions are involved where you have to guess whether a certain action is kosher or not, and you're screwed over if you guess wrong.  In particular, if the screws are so tight on you that you have to interfere with your fellow PCs, it ought to be that you have to interfere with everyone else in the world too ... the gods shouldn't be making a distinction between "PCs" and "not PCs."  

Beyond that, I'm sorry: either your god stands for something or he doesn't.  I'd never assess a punishment like that myself, but if I did, then the god is making his will manifest through you.  Sneezing when the ranger is trying to shoot would be unacceptable: penance isn't about meeting the letter of your punishment without getting anyone mad at you.  It's about getting between the ranger and your target and openly stopping him.  And, following Christopher's thought, if keeping to the letter of the penance means watching innocents die, if it was me playing the character, fuck that: I'm drawing and charging, and any god who has a problem with that can go screw.

For my part, I run a pacifist character.  He's a medium and sees directly into the spirit world, and doesn't want to create any more of them.  But it's also a violent world, and his sister (with whom he travels) is a warrior who loves battle.  He's not an idiot, and his own refusal to shed blood notwithstanding, he gets that the orc horde bearing down on the village isn't going to listen to soft kindly words, and he also gets that even if they're thwarted non-violently today, the village they rape and burn tomorrow isn't going to praise him for it.

This might not be helpful, but if you ask me this is an awesome invitation for character development.  All you have to do is - fail.

I would play the part to the best of my ability until it came to a decision between the character's faith and his principles. For instance, if innocents were being harmed - you might spend a round or two in internal moral struggle and then kick the shit out of some evil-doers breaking your vows of peace.

Sure, you may lose your paladinhood - but then you get to play a kick ass fighter who has fallen from grace and been abandoned by the gods!  Without moral constraint the character may go on a rampage for a while, but you will always have that internal conflict to motivate you.  Later, at some point, you can seek redemption for your sins which can be a story of its own.  It makes for a powerful story and a fun character.

It may not be what you're after, but that's how I'd play it.

I fully accept and agree with everything said, however, to play devil's advocate, my interpretation of Do No Harm is that I can't even slap an Orc because the sting would be inflicting harm, even though it is a very mild harm.

Now on the other hand, as I said, I play RAI, not RAW. If I can make a compelling argument as to how I'm NOT doing harm, I can probably get away with a little wiggle room.

On the other hand, I want to be creative and actually try to play this out without causing ANY injuries, just to prove that I can. Sleep spells are the most obvious way of ending a conflict without injury, unless the guy falls on his face and breaks his nose.

Any other ideas for compassionately stopping a fight?

Edit: just read the post about failing. I love that suggestion. Talk about character development!

Your PC could just hide in a monastery for 30 days and allow any violence to occur around him, including allowing himself to be slain.

Personally, I'd play chicken with the GM. Wear your armor and carry a shield. Leave your weapons behind. Do nothing but total defense in each combat, even if it results in your allies being cut down in combat.

Or fuck it, it's time to become an Anti-Paladin!

Do something outside of the typical "Paladin" job, something that doesn't require arms and armor. Fasting in the desert is popular. Spend a month building homes for the homeless. Join a fishing boat crew for a month and work for free. Teach some children how to survive in the wilderness.

You get the idea.

Quote from: Doughdee222;889271Do something outside of the typical "Paladin" job, something that doesn't require arms and armor. Fasting in the desert is popular. Spend a month building homes for the homeless. Join a fishing boat crew for a month and work for free. Teach some children how to survive in the wilderness.

You get the idea.

That is a nice idea, and I appreciate the suggestion, but it kinda defeats the point. The reason this is Atonement is because the guy needs to live his normal life but without killing. He's an adventurer. I understand D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff, but that's why this is a challenge. Are there ways to win at combat and take their stuff without hurting them?

Nets, sleep spells, charm person, hold monster, entangle, web, paralyze,???

Thanks!

Encounters are more than just combat.

My biggest question is your playgroup expectations. Are you allowed to split up? Are you allowed to keep secrets from each other? Are you alowed to work at cross-purposes, and react appropriately upset when "disappointed" with your allies? etc.

If you are joined to the hip, all things revealed, and forced to blithely accept whatever your party does, sounds like your GM may be setting you up for a fall (or just plain ol' impotence).

Otherwise, being a paladin atoning with pacifism should be dirt easy. You switch to restraint weapons, and use them only in imminent threat of innocents. You buy items to distract enemies to ensure escape. You spend most of your time talking people down and negotiating. You DONT help on tomb raiding or mercenary adventures, even if your allies plead that they need your healing magic to loot or beat down and take "naughty people's" stuff.

You choose a peaceful solution to problems, and you put your efforts into constructive acts that destroy the evil within through kindness.

If your party does not work that way, and you're still expected to tag along, explain that you will not aid or abet violence in the middle of your atonement. That literally must remove you from high combat party shenanigans -- you're just standing there eating extra rations at that point. There is little reason beyond table metagame superficiality for your paladin to be stuck tagging along in such atonement (and alignment) breaching group activity.

Quote from: infinitum3d;889200But being a true pacifist is boring. I'm trying to figure out how to walk the line between funny and douchebag.

I kind of fail to see a problem...

Pacifism isn't limited to "no violence at all". It's about opposing fighting and actively seeking ways to resolve any conflicts without adhering to violence by default.

If one follows this simplified definition, then it's just a case of simply offering a different solution the moment your party finds itself in a situation more complicated than "fight or die" binary choice. Suggest an alternative to hack 'em all, burn things to ground and rape the charred remains. Not "whoooa, bros, we can't do that, because I feel extra innocent & shit, yo", mind you. Your Paladin has to find a way and do whatever it takes to convince the group to follow his plan rather than enjoy usual merry butchery.

It will do.

Quote from: infinitum3d;889283That is a nice idea, and I appreciate the suggestion, but it kinda defeats the point. The reason this is Atonement is because the guy needs to live his normal life but without killing. He's an adventurer. I understand D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff, but that's why this is a challenge. Are there ways to win at combat and take their stuff without hurting them?

Nets, sleep spells, charm person, hold monster, entangle, web, paralyze,???

Thanks!

Negotiation.

You wont get their stuff, usually, but you can sure defuse some imminent battles. And depending on the edition and DM. That grants you the same EXP as if you defeated them.

As a paladin your character may have a high CHA. Which makes your character a possibly a very good potential negotiator. What better way to be a pacifist than to talk others out of hostilities?

Sleep, web, hold and the like are good non-violent ways. But charm may be seen as an attack on the persons mind. Violently flipping their outlook rather than natural persuasion. Ask the DM.

Welcome to the site. Be prepared to put a few of the sites pet village idiots and raving lunatics on ignore for your own peace of mind.