Quote from: Christopher Brady;889834The Forgotten Realms actually.  I believe in 2e.  And I think it's a bit of a misreading too.  See (...)

Makes sense. I mean, I still don't get it how it's possible for people to continue with such an assumption in the year of Our Lord 5th ED, but the explanation is reasonable.

Quote from: infinitum3d;889727Again, I agree that being a jerk is wrong. I was hoping someone would have an idea of how to be a jerk without being a huge jerk, but the doo doo ice cream reference was excellent.

Now- as for other ways to be effective during combat without causing harm;

Nets, buff spells, meat shield (I'd be willing, it's not doing harm, but it is allowing harm to happen, so questionable) all sound like good options.

I'd still try to convince the others in my group to try NON violence first, but I wouldn't stop them from defending themselves if the SHTF.

I think I can do this in a mature and respectable way, which is probably what the DM and the Deity would accept.

Thank you all for the suggestions and comments and if anyone has any other NON violent combat ideas, I'd love to hear them!

Glad we can help!

(I still love the % doo-doo in ice cream reference, too. Very succinct.)

It's not a popular method of atonement, and there will be hardship, but it is very doable. I still think your unspoken table dynamics may be causing you unintentional grief, though. If you have to grudgingly go along and support the rest of the party's shenanigans then your GM is putting you in a Catch-22. There was a reason discordant allies could not last much longer with a paladin than a mandated quest.

As for experience, I ran an oath of ancients paladin of Eldath, the pacifist goddess of Forgotten Realms, in 5e Adventure League. He eventually became dubbed "Paladin Mom," as in the chiding mom who never lets the kids have any fun, because I would have the PC appeal to everyone's better angels and have solid Insight, Perception, and Persuasion skills. Yes, that means he caught teammates trying to lie, cheat, or steal and pleaded with them to do right, too. He was roundly disliked for trying to stop the action before it started with love and kindness.

That said, he was wicked good with with a shield (Mt. Dwarf who got up to 4th lvl and picked Shield Master feat). Also had extra darts, nets, ball bearings, oil, and caltrops, dodged almost every other round, and threatened extra squares with a whip for extra smite reach (I almost never smited, but I occasionally pleaded "don't make me smite you! please, do better!"). All the while I pleaded for people to think about what they were doing and embrace peace.

Yes, he was roundly hated, by enemy and ally alike.

So I know your struggle. At least yours ends in one game month. This is his reason for being.

Quote from: Ravenswing;889784How about 2 Kings 2, where God sends bears to tear apart three dozen children for the heinous crime of calling Elijah bald?

Holy fuck!! I never heard that one!

Quote23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

Quote from: Ravenswing;889784
(...) Now as far as what a "Good God" would do or not, I'll refer back to Genesis 22, where the Judeo-Christian God most of Earth worships (...)

Pardon for the intrusion and a potential offtopic, but whether the God of Old Testament and God Jesus spoke about is one and the same deity, isn't so sure. Also, I'm not sure whether that old angry, vengeful, and erratic deity qualifies as "good".

Not saying the example doesn't mean a thing or something. Just a side note.

Quote from: Spinachcat;890007Holy fuck!! I never heard that one!

The Good Book has no shortage of bizarre stories.

Quote from: daniel_ream;889844No.  For people who like to wank on about Appendix N so much, you "old school" fuckers can't seem to be bothered to read any of it.

Maybe you can explain to me in which edition of D&D trolls, nixies and swanmays were character classes.  Take your time, sport; I can wait.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;889834Ravenswing, I'm not talking 'real world' Gods here.  I'm talking Fantasy.  We know that the Bible makes the Christian God into this monster so that the laypeople fear Him.  Despite preaching love and understanding often in the same breath, but that's likely more people wanting to keep the 'peasants' in line, than actually believing that God is this brutal monster.

I'm happy to talk fantasy as well. D&D's treatment of gods is pretty faithful to real world mythology.  GD&H, as you know, ran with the Greek, Norse, Melnibonean, Aztec, Egyptian, Finnish, Hindu, Celtic, Indian and Hyborean pantheons, all of which run on bog-standard gods-as-warring-factions format.  That's pretty much how it's run ever since, even when they put together the Forgotten Worlds pantheon.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;890010Pardon for the intrusion and a potential offtopic, but whether the God of Old Testament and God Jesus spoke about is one and the same deity, isn't so sure.

You would be hard-pressed to find a theologian in a hundred who'd think so.  (Of course, if that's your personal opinion, fine.)

Quote from: JesterRaiin;890010Also, I'm not sure whether that old angry, vengeful, and erratic deity qualifies as "good".

I'm sure, myself; he doesn't.  (Then again, I'm not a Christian.)

But isn't that the way a lot of D&D players define "good?"  How many threads and anecdotes have we seen where people argue that all manner of lies, backstabbing, dastardy and violence done to "evil" people are "good," because, well, their characters are "lawfulgood," doncha know and, because, well, they're fighting "evil," right?  And, moreover, the definition of "evil" often comes down to the NPCs who oppose them, because, well, the PCs are "lawfulgood," and if you're against them, of course you're evil, right?

The Old Testament God works tolerably well with that paradigm.

Quote from: Ravenswing;890033
You would be hard-pressed to find a theologian in a hundred who'd think so.  (Of course, if that's your personal opinion, fine.)

It's possible, but I'm not sure whether it qualifies as "a proof". After all, just because the majority of people believe something that can't be proven by any means whatsoever, doesn't immediately make them right, and just because a single guy comes out with a radical idea, doesn't mean he isn't right.

Quote from: Ravenswing;890033I'm sure, myself; he doesn't.  (Then again, I'm not a Christian.)

But isn't that the way a lot of D&D players define "good?"  How many threads and anecdotes have we seen where people argue that all manner of lies, backstabbing, dastardy and violence done to "evil" people are "good," because, well, their characters are "lawfulgood," doncha know and, because, well, they're fighting "evil," right?  And, moreover, the definition of "evil" often comes down to the NPCs who oppose them, because, well, the PCs are "lawfulgood," and if you're against them, of course you're evil, right?

The Old Testament God works tolerably well with that paradigm.

I can't deny that certain people claim that it's ok for LG Paladins to lie, steal, cheat, murder, pillage, maim, kill etc. It happened, it happens, it will most definitely happen in the upcoming future.

Then again, it's pretty much the same viewpoint: just because some guys out there claim something...

Not trolling here, I simply don't believe that sheer number of, ummm, followers (?) alone justifies their ideas and assumptions.

Slayers has the solution!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhF30HwUvtM

and then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzIhhtzva0I

We're a bit off topic.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.

How can a Pacifist be a useful choice in a combat situation?

Thanks!

Quote from: infinitum3d;890277How can a Pacifist be a useful choice in a combat situation?

A meat shield. Upgraded with a Flesh to Stone filter.

In addition to the meat shield, if the pacifist is fighting defensively they are still engaging one or more attackers and that prevents those attackers from ganging up on someone else. So that is still helpful.

Currently I'm playing Honor+Intrigue (a swashbuckling game) which has combat maneuvers that allow methods for engaging and neutralizing opponents without damaging them. For example, one could use fancy sword work to cut the opponent's belt so their pants fall down tripping them. Or slice the buttons off their coat to scare them and cause their morale to break without damaging anything more than their clothes. So instead of the heavily armored defensive wall, one could go with the nimble guy who is tripping people, scaring people, causing awnings or tapestries to drop and entangle them, and shoving furniture in their path.

Quote from: Bren;890303In addition to the meat shield, if the pacifist is fighting defensively (...)

Mmmmm, somebody observed that there's little difference between slitting someone's throat and holding him while your buddy shivs the fucker. If one limits his tactics to casting Slow, Wall of..., or buffing/healing his friends, effectively he is doing the same.

Now, I understand that it's actually a good idea for a solo character - freeze bastards and runaway, thus avoiding a bloodshed, but in case of a party...?

In Glorantha, Chalana Arroy healers are forbidden to harm anything except Undead. Chalana Arroy PCs tend to stay at the back casting Sleep and befuddle, then standing over the affected NPCs warning everybody to leave them alone or else. The "or else" means they probably would refuse to heal any offending PCs for a period of time. If attacked, they can parry, dodge or run away but they can never attack.

Of course, against Undead they can let their inner Conan out for a while ...

Quote from: soltakss;890316In Glorantha, Chalana Arroy healers are forbidden to harm anything except Undead.

Interesting concept. Challenging "class".

I'm not familiar with Glorantha's lore, so I might be wrong here, but it seems that said healers aren't pacifists, they are doing whatever is in their power to limit the amount of corpses that might be turned into undead, correct?

If you could shed some light on the topic... what with "kill one to save many" scenario? How such a healer is supposed to react according to his, mmmm, faith if he were to find himself in such a situation?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;890330Interesting concept. Challenging "class".

There are no class-based systems covering Glorantha, AFAIK, and that's a good thing:).

As for the OP, I'd suggest reading the 6 Ways to Avoid a Fight from Unknown Armies 2e or 3e. I believe it was included in the demo file on Atlas' site, so you can read it for free;).

Hrm.  Keeping lookout in the back, holding the horses, holding a tower shield for a warrior with a polearm or long spear (or, as to that, to protect the party's spellcasters), off two miles thataway at the Baroness' keep asking her for aid, reloading crossbows ...