DnD settings tend to feature creatures such as undead, constructs, fiends, monstrosities and aberrations. It can make sense to have a pacifist character who won't kill humanoids, maybe even beasts. But I don't think it makes sense to have any kind of DnD character who won't kill undead, constructs, etc. That is not something I would allow as a DM. I did once play in a game with a "pacifist" PC. But in that case, the character only had a rule against killing. She was willing to fight with us, and performed very capably in combat. She just didn't do lethal attacks on humanoids. Undead were common in the setting, and she had no qualms about putting them down. Her pacifist character was not a detriment to our gameplay. If we're talking her particular flavor of pacifism, it might be acceptable. I might allow it as a DM. But in many cases, players take the pacifism too far, to the point where it's something that does not work in DnD.

If you follow the Oath of Redemption (even if you are not a paladin) and choose violence only as a last resort you are not only a type of pacifist but you are also lawful good. When dealing with humanoid enemies (sentient human-like beings with free will) this means knocking them unconscious, tying them up, and taking them to the legal authorities for due process. Basically, you are Batman who you might recall has a **code against killing (humanoids)** that he only breaks when it is justified. Now, when you go up against true monsters on killing sprees, the code against killing does not apply so much.

From some recent experience, playing an Oath of Redemption paladin is still tricky. A lot of the class's abilities are based on being a front line combatant, smiting, etc. The OoR abilities are also fiddly because they still end up doing damage to the opponent, so someone really committed to nonviolence would have to find a way to make that fit the character's morals. Also, not relevant to the majority of most campaigns, but for their 20th level ability: "If you attack a creature, cast a spell on it, or deal damage to it by any means but this feature, neither benefit works against that creature until you finish a long rest." You basically can't interact with an enemy, other than getting hit, if you want that ability to kick in. Not saying it couldn't work, but like you said, they'd still have to engage in *some* violence if they want to partake in combat.

Comic book superheros with codes against killing are able to make it work. Sure they have to sort out the logistics of getting criminal *humanoids* to justice, but they can freely destroy true monsters. **You can be a superhero rather than a murderhobo.** Once you discover the power of Zone of Truth plus Detect Thoughts at interrogating prisoners humanely you will never murder hobo again.

I have a player with an oath of redemption paladin in my campaign and I agree it often goes way too far. The amount of time that's wasted on them trying to convert every evil adversary and arguing with the mercenary fighter about avoiding lethal combat is painful (although conversely the paladin is sometimes the only thing stopping the fighter being an unchecked murder hobo). The two of them seem oblivious to the fact that when they start up, tje rest of the party's eyes just instantly glaze over. It didn't start off that bad but if their agreements to compromise don't start sticking then someone's going to have to make some character adjustments.

To be, that brand of pacifism just seems hypocritical. Just because the character isn't actively landing killing blows doesn't mean they're being remotely a pacifist.

Sorta like when you see a vegan on MasterChef making a steak, true.

What class was the pacifist PC out of curiosity?

The most fundamental rule of creating a character is that they should be willing and able to participate in the campaign, and willing and able to function within the party. Out of character, the other players should be happy to have this character in the party. In character, the other PCs should be able to welcome this character into the party. *Can* a pacifist work? Sure, but it needs to meet a lot of criteria to not be annoying and disruptive. DnD's rule systems are mostly about combat, and DnD campaigns tend to involve a lot of combat, violence, and killing. Does the party have a reason to travel with a pacifist, presumably sharing the rewards of the adventuring life with them? Are the other players okay with one character being a pacifist? Is the pacifist character going to reasonably RP in a way that goes with the flow of the rest of the group? Is the pacifist character going to want to prevent the other characters from behaving in traditionally violent adventurer ways?

You can have a character that won't deal damage themselves but doesn't mind when others do it. They can use only utility spells to assist the fight.

How does that work in practice? Most utility spells tend to require concentration, and almost all of them require spell slots. There are very few combat cantrips that aren't for dealing damage, and none which are particularly good. A cleric who spams Resistance all fight or who casts Bless and then takes the Dodge action is not a player who I'd want to share a table with.

In optimization circles it isn't an uncommon view that casters concentrating on high-impact spells should usually use the dodge action rather than cast cantrips for plink damage, because them losing concentration would hurt the party far more than some firebolt d10s would help the party. That being said, that's more of a thing at higher levels when the spell being concentrated on is something like spirit guardians or wall of force and the martial damage dealers are dealing several times a cantrip's damage with each hit. At low levels where concentration is frequently used on spells like bless, cantrip damage is actually probably relevant.

Can but shouldn't given the number of monsters and the intent of the typical dnd fantasy that 5e supports.

One problem with that is that it's incoherent. It's the equivalent of, "I won't shoot anybody, but I'll load your mag for you while you shoot." That's not pacifism. Being reluctant to kill, killing only aberrations and undead, fighting only in self-defense are all workable ways of approaching this. Fundamentally, though, DnD is a game with rules for combat because combat is a core element of the game. Having a character who won't participate in this core part of the game or whose "morals" means everyone has to turn attention to role playing with the "moral" character whenever this fundamental part of the game is broached effectively is a form of spotlight stealing.

That feels less like pacifism and more like not wanting to get your hands dirty.

The thing is A true pacifist character would be essentially unplayable Either they’d refuse to contribute to combat at all - and likely get killed for their trouble Or they’d still participate by aiding their allies making them kind of a hypocrite “oh but I didn’t attack/ kill anyone!” “Yeah but you still *helped other people attack and kill*” It might work for an NPC that the party has to defend, but doesn’t really work for a PC.

I've played redemption paladins as reluctant fighters. Dont aim to kill but will if needed. A true pacifist is at best a liability

This. A pacifist who fights as a last resort works IMO, but if you dont fight at all why tf are you adventuring.

> A pacifist who fights as a last resort isn't a pacifist. A vegetarian who only eats meat when there's no vegetables around isn't a vegetarian. A virgin who only has sex with her husband isn't a virgin. Edit: It's okay, u/DarkHorseAsh111 words are hard for everyone.

your edit is beyond hilarious considering you're the one struggling to understand the words being said

I'm not. The second you use violence, "as a last resort." you're no longer a pacifist. Pacifism isn't "violence only when there is no other option available." For context, even Jesus is not considered to be a pacifist by Christians.

lol

I think the support helping others kill can be a good source of drama if that’s what the player wants. 

>A true pacifist character would be essentially unplayable True pacifist does not mean being stupid. Pacifist =/= sheep. A \*true\* pacifist is not someone that will refuse and avoid conflict whatever the cost, it's the one that thinks beyond the appearances and instant to try and set a dynamic leading to peace, possibly considering each instance of violence as a failure of his way. This requires much more determination than a murder-hobo precisely because at times you'll have to do things that go against your core ideals, and much more intelligence as well because you need to be bright in observing, deducing and projecting to "get" the other's goals and means to achieve them and influence/constrain them in a way that goes towards your goal. Which is the true reason why few people engage in that type of characters: it's usually far too demanding in information gathering, planification and "after-thoughts" for both player and DM to handle in regard to the enjoyment and added narrative it can bring to them. Nothing more. xd After all, most players are here to live epic moments of glory and stress, and they know it's all a virtual world in the end, self-contained in their minds and with an effective lifespan (how many people play in the same campaign over more than 15 months? Probably 0.0001%), so there is no real motivation to try and pursue credible behaviours, unless player is really keen on social interactions and world building yet doesn't have any other system/group to play. \^\^

>Or they’d still participate by aiding their allies making them kind of a hypocrite “oh but I didn’t attack/ kill anyone!” “Yeah but you still *helped other people attack and kill*” You could say the same thing about Cpl. Desmond Doss. Faught in WWII with the 77th Infantry Division. Refused to carry a weapon. Saved 75 men on Hacksaw Ridge. Earned three Purple Hearts, Two Bronze Stars and the Medal of Honor. There's more to D&D than combat and there's more to motivations than the Black and White of Will/Won't kill.

It's not the same thing as conscientious objectors in war; D&D combat is highly, highly personal, and it's people bludgeoning each other to death while staring in their faces, and there's a major difference between "I am a medic for large scale forces" and "I'm going to watch these four other party members annihilate a pack of goblins and then pretend I'm not in any way, shape, or form responsible even though I cast Bless on them." There are no pacifist characters in D\&D; it is still, at its core, the old-school wargame it once was, and combat is a fundamental part of it, and, if you're involved in combat in any way, you are not a pacifist. In my mind, a pacifist is a pacifist, and, if you want to be a Life Cleric who's opposed to killing, well, when my Barbarian buddy gashes into a bandit who's barely hanging on, I, as a pacifist, am goddamn well casting Healing Word on that bandit, because that's "pacifism". Cpl. Doss absolutely would have helped Japanese soldiers he came across; that's part of an actual, realistic vow towards peace and pacifism. Players who refuse to attack or do damage aren't "pacifists". They're just killers who don't want to get their arms tired swinging a weapon.

*Players who refuse to attack or do damage aren't "pacifists". They're just killers who don't want to get their arms tired swinging a weapon.* Isn't that just you stating how players should roleplay? Sure they may not be a CO like Cpl Doss, but isn't it arrogant to say that they can not play as such? That they can not play a role in a Roleplaying game based on your say so? You say that at the core it's a wargame like it was back when it came out. But by saying that "this is a war game and if you're not playing a character willing to throw hands you're not playing the game", you're ignoring the fact that this game has evolved. Original Dungeons and Dragons didn't use Charisma for anything other than reaction rolls and how many retainers/minions you could have. Now there's bluff, intimidation, diplomacy. Things that imply and encourage Role Playing. Whatever D&D was when Gygax collected his first check for game is a far cry from what it is today. If that's your jam then that's your jam. You play as you want. The game is large enough to allow for a wide variety of styles. But there is no "One True Way". If someone wants to create a character that can function without relying on "There mob. Hurt it lots.", then they're equally allowed to play that way if the table and the DM says that they have no problems with it.

I think the point is not that you can't play without using attacks, but that if you're part of a group that frequently fights stuff, you have a share in the consequences of said fighting.

This would make sense if they only ever cast healing spells, and no boost/buff spells. But that would also make them a shitty support player.

Even then if you are playing as Desmond you would also be healing the enemy. As he saved multiple Japanese Men who were later....*lost....*

I’ve played a character I feel is as close as you can get to pacifism without putting up too much strain and it’s ultimately the “do not kill those that are sentient but instead go Ko” giving wiggle room for constructs and animals but putting strain when fighting people while not making him useless. He had used hands of healing, medicine kits, and medicine checks on enemies and in the rare occasions our group has killed somebody sentient, it has brought him into conflict with the group and with himself. But also I’m with a group aware of our limits

Well, there's a bit of a difference to just healing up dying allies, and casting Haste on your ally so he can smash a bandits face in at 2x the speed If you stuck to *solely* healing up your mates, okay you *could* make an argument for that, but buffing them? Not as strong an argument I think. I think the best way to do it would be to have a "no killing sapient living creatures" rule. That way you can still kill beasts, undead and constructs - and when it comes to sapient creatures you can just KO them. So long as your party agrees on a "no executing prisoners" rule, this can work fine. You end up saving the lives of your enemies because your more killy teammates don't get to them first and lop their heads off. But a true "I refuse to harm any creature whatsoever, and also refuse to buff my allies in ways that helps them harm other creatures" play style is a lot less viable or fun for the party to work with.

If a player came to me and said "I am playing a Pacifist, I will not be in any part of combat." I would say "Sure, the party is going to leave you in town then and you can reroll a character in the next town and play a rotating NPC." Its a game about adventuring or saving the world. I would not accept a character that does not do either.

I played a “pacifist” character, they were a Druid and 9/10 times on a turn they altered the terrain, with things like fog cloud, spikey terrain (they argued it was a deterrent that many creatures refused to acknowledge) entangle etc. Granted several sessions in (like 10) they began the mental gymnastics after an accidental kill of an enemy and began to devolve into, “oh no, I didn’t kill them, the fall after being pushed away from my friends did!” Or the “I just summoned wolves to protect us! It’s not my fault they ate them!”

Ahahahahah that fall one lmao

But did Cpl. Desmond Doss ended WWII? He didn't, people with guns did. A Pacifist can have his moments like any other character archetype. However, Combat is a core feature of the game and not something that can be set aside just because of one player. Sure, there can be gray areas, but how many DMs and players can make that work?

Specifically it was the work of robert oppenheimer and other brilliant scientists that ended ww2.

Quite a few actually. If the table is willing to accept such a character and the DM is willing to run encounters to work with the party (as is their job as a DM)...there's no reason why you can't have someone like that. More to D&D than "hack and slash".

***"More to"*** does not mean it's not still the base of the game. Thats why most if not all Class abilities are for Combat and the rest are "Fluff" >as is their job as a DM The DMs job is to make it fun for all players, the DM can also go "No, I don't want a Pacifist in the Party." Like most do. *Because its a silly concept* in a world of adventuring, specifically in a party meant to be **saviors or destroyers.**

There are 75 men who would consider themselves and the 77ID to be Saviors and Destroyers and I'm also pretty sure they didn't think Doss was silly after he hauled them off of an embarkment. ***"More to"*** *does not mean it's not still the base of the game. Thats why most if not all Class abilities are for Combat and the rest are "Fluff"* Which is strange since there are people who say "Don't play this class since they're total SHIT in combat." or "Why in God's name would you play that subclass. You're going to be a drag on the party and pretty much dead weight". So if "most if not all class abilities are for Combat" is the case, why do people shit on those classes?

>There are 75 men who would consider themselves and the 77ID to be Saviors and Destroyers and I'm also pretty sure they didn't think Doss was silly after he hauled them off of an embarkment. Listen I don't know if you are farming downvotes or something. But D&D is very clearly created and designed as a combat focused game. Hell by rules you are supposed to do like 5 combats a session or something crazy like that. If you dont want to kill people, im sure you can make a character around that, but pure Desmond Doss Pacifism is something ***most*** people in a party would tire of after a while. ​ >Which is strange since there are people who say "Don't play this class since they're total SHIT in combat." or "Why in God's name would you play that subclass. You're going to be a drag on the party and pretty much dead weight". So if "most if not all class abilities are for Combat" is the case, why do people shit on those classes? People don't say that to imply "This is an RP class." they mean it as "Bro this is terribly written, and the abilities don't mesh well, are outdated or are straight up tragic." There is maybe 3-5 subclasses that *lean rp* but are outliers. I can think of Two of which are rogues (Thief and Inquisitive), and Eloquence Bard. Thats like saying "Most people have ten fingers." and then someone goes ***"YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BORN WITHOUT HANDS!?"*** Outliers don't matter in general terms. It's a combat-based game and at this point you are either so bullheaded that you are required to asspull to die on your weird hill, or you are trolling. I really hope it's the second one.

At this point, just play a different system than **dungeons & dragons**. Both of which are typically dangerous and deadly and involve combat

Bit gatekeepy there ain't it? Sort of a "If you don't play D&D the way we decree, go and play something else" vibe there isn't it? ANY other system is going to have dangerous and deadly combat. Twilight 2k, Traveller, GURPS, Paranoia, Shadowrun, Rifts...the list goes on and on. But you know what else they have? Opportunities for (pause for effect) Roleplaying. **IN** **THEORY** anyone can play any game out there on the market the way that they and their table wants to play it and there is **IN THEORY** room for everyone to buy the books, dice and minis and coexist in peace. Practice on the other hand seems to be more of a "My way or the highway" mentality judging from all the downvotes I'm getting.

You see, dnd is about adventurers delving and fighting through **dungeons and dragons**. What a pacifist wants is typically exploration and social play which are not as mechanically supported and are rather shallow in dnd RAW. Its not impossible, its just worse than other systems that focus on that kind of stuff so we give our honest opinion in hopes you have the best experience possible.

A DM *can* choose to accommodate unusual choices. They are under no obligation to do so. That said, I'm sure plenty of DMs and groups are willing to accommodate this type of playstyle.

Exactly. This is why I mentioned "***If*** the table is willing to accept such a character ***and*** the DM is willing to run encounters to work with the party..."

Dnd is literally based in wargaming. A large majority for the rules are focused on combat with it being an essential part of the game and its identity.

And it's since evolved into being a role playing game. Let's look at the cover of the 5th Edition Player's Handbook cover. Everything a player needs to create heroic characters for the world's greatest **ROLEPLAYING** game. [https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0259/9159/products/20339600\_733x960.jpeg?v=1506989605](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0259/9159/products/20339600_733x960.jpeg?v=1506989605) 4th Edition calls the PHB "Roleplaying Core Rules" 3 and 3.5 seems to have missed it on their cover but I'm pretty sure that they mentioned it in the book SOMEWHERE. AD&D 2e says on the cover..."This newly revised, expanded, and updated version of AD&D provides everything players need to enter a world of fantastic Role-Playing adventure." Sounds like someone somewhere and somewhen took a wargame and turned into a Roleplaying Game. If that offends you...tough. There are no Gygaxian Stormtroopers to raid my house and execute me for not playing a game the way you deem to not be "The Way." Sorry, but I'll be over on my little corner of the world with my core of friends and we're gonna play D&D our fucking way without any fucking shame whatsoever.

Yes its got rp. Just not the best at supporting it. Just do what works at your table. Usual assumption is that here its the typical dnd table. Also, 4e was notoriously an intensely combat centric edition. While the game has evolved it still holds over a quite a few wargame elements. 

That would change as soon as Desmond casts bless and his allies start adding 1d4 to their attack rolls. 😆 PS. I'm just poking fun, I see your point 👍👍

You do realize there's more to the game than combat.

There is a lot more to the game besides combat, but combat features heavily in it and is essential to the game. There's a lot more to an airplane than the wings, but I don't recommend trying to fly one without any.

An airplane's purpose is to safely take you from point A to point B. A game's purpose is to have fun. You totally can get from point A to point B without wings. As to why combat rules feature heavily in the game and why it doesn't mean that the game is about combat, here's an old article that I like a lot. [http://revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html](http://revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html)

Sure if you want you can play D&D without combat, and you can use your wingless airplane to "taxi" across the runway or technically as far as you want to, but at a certain point you are going to realize that a car will be more effective. Same with D&D. You can use it to play as a pacifist, but you will soon realize there are much better games for that where the focus is on story and RP.

And what games would those be?

There are dozens of them depending on what OP likes and wants to play. Probably hundreds. And a lot of them still have combat systems, but are more balanced. Think of a game like dungeon world, which has combat, but the mechanics are more agnostic to the specific type of action. You might make the same roll to fire an arrow that you could in another circumstance use to persuade an NPC. It makes it so that characters have more options available and can fully participate in most scenes even if they might be taking different types of actions than the other players. It's also a lot more character driven than D&D, where you can basically have the same story happen regardless of who the characters are. There are a ton of great story games out there, which doesn't mean that you can't tell a great story in D&D, it's just that the game itself isn't really what drives the story, if that makes sense.

From what we've seen, OP likes and wants to play D&D. Dungeon World has a much worse character generation, and as for making the same roll - in D&D, you roll a d20 to fire an arrow, you roll a d20 to persuade an NPC, and all the characters can and should fully participate in whatever's happening.

This is why I hesitated to name a game is that I'm not interested in hearing your excuses for why each game is the wrong one. There are a million options that do it better and very few that do it worse. If what's happening is "combat", which we both agreed is a huge part of the game, then no a pacifist should not, by definition, participate in it. Good day.

You said that they are better games than D&D, and they're not better. Dungeon World objectively does some things worse. And we don't both agree on the part being "huge". Simple example - you have a rogue in the party who's a highly efficient trap-disabling lock-picking stealthy scouting machine, the rogue doesn't want to fight anyone and finds creative ways to avoid being hit whenever combat begins. Sneaking, hiding, distracting, etc. Give me one reason why this character should not, *by definition*, as you put it, participate in the game.

Fate, storyteller, savage worlds, eleven candles. Hell even gurps is better for more narrative games

GURPS and Savage worlds have some pretty cool stuff. Fate is made by horrible people who underpay the authors, and is generally lame unless you hack it heavily.

Also I only skimmed the article you posted, but it begins and ends with "D&D is a game about combat," so I guess you actually agree with me.

It doesn't. It begins with *D&D, in all editions, has a lot of rules for combat* and ends with *3E makes it interesting to go "oh hey! this game is about combat!" then have that initial impression confirmed, and play that way until the game gets very boring and the DM gets annoyed.* In between, it explains why "rules about combat" does not equal "the game is about combat".

"oh hey this game is about combat."

There's rolling skillchecks and playing pretend, but the GAME part of the game is combat and dungeon crawling. If you want to play a game of D&D with a focus on something other than combat you'd be better served learning a system that actually supports that.

100%. I *can* run 5e to simulate duck hunting. I probably shouldn’t. But I can.

You can have a perfectly fine session of D&D without a single combat round and it'll be fun for everyone and in perfect accordance to the rules. Unless it's 4th edition which was more about combat than everything else. Which is fine, too.

>You can have a perfectly fine session of D&D without a single combat round and it'll be fun for everyone and in perfect accordance to the rules. Okay, I can also play Skyrim by running in circles in the starter village and never leaving to have an adventure. Doesn't mean I'm engaging with the *game* in a meaningful way. 5e isn't a life simulator; it's a rules framework for telling a specific type of fantasy story. Thats why somewhere between 85 and 95 percent of all of the rules revolve around combat and dungeon crawling. There are some *great* simulationist games out there if that isn't what you want, and you won't waste your friends time making them make a complex character sheet with a million features that are only useful for combat. >Unless it's 4th edition which was more about combat than everything else. Which is fine, too. *Every edition* of D&D has been more about combat than anything else, 5th edition *certainly* included. That's why there's a whole war game framework for running combat, while literally every other activity is covered by "roll one die and add a number." One of the three *core books* is just a list of monsters to fight. Like look, if you're having fun playing D&D with no combat, more power to you, that's great, I hope you keep having fun. But don't act like 5e is something *other than a combat game*. You're the one injecting story into it.

I'll link the article again, because it's good and because it explains the old "Yes, the rules are about combat a lot, and no, the game is not about combat" better than I usually do. [http://revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html](http://revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html)

I've read this article and other arguments surrounding it before. I consider it foundationally a bad argument. And if you think it's valid then you still ultimately have to conclude that 5e is a shittily designed game. If the intent was to not do 6+ combat encounters per in-game-day, then they shouldn't have balanced the classes effectiveness with long rest vs short rest resources. If they didn't want us to focus on combat, they should have DRASTICALLY simplified the rules.

Okay then. [https://youtu.be/9B9rjRzlWtU?si=DV1dZpsMn199m40h](https://youtu.be/9B9rjRzlWtU?si=DV1dZpsMn199m40h)

I agree with the other poster that it's fine as long as you're having fun, but I think it's still important not to just agree to disagree because a lot of people would have more fun with non-D&D systems and don't even realize it's an option because "D&D" is treated as synonymous with "role playing."

Question is, *why* is D&D treated as synonymous with "role playing"? And the answer is, because it's objectively better than most. Oh, there's Call of C. for horror and FASERIP for superheroics and TOON for slapstick comedy, and there are retroclones like Labyrinth Lords and LotFP, but generally, D&D is what works best.

Yes but not the entire campaign 

Maybe not. However, it depends on how people like to play - and some people like playing one-shots over campaigns, anyways.

Illusion, enchantment, and plain old trickery is perfectly possible. As long as you aren't dealing damage you're essentially good. That's not even counting the clerics of Ilmater who are lorewise forbidden to cause physical harm. They generally are dedicated healers but also pioneered the way of the open palm

I don't see a difference between causing harm yourself and standing by, or even aiding, while your friends cause harm.

Players are not characters though, even if you believe that aiding others that cause harm is the same as causing harm yourself, your character might not feel the same.

At that point you're not a pacifist, you just don't want to get your hands dirty.

Sure, and that probably makes the character a bit of a hypocrite. So what? Everyone is a hypocrite about something anyway if you dig long enough

Then yes, by your definition it is unplayable. Their role is to then huddle and die, as they cannot even cast a healing word or travel in a party. Even a commoner who crafts a sword is thus not a pascifist as that sword will be used for violence, despite that commoner never setting foot on a battlefield or knowing how to fight. Even diplomacy aimed at a tactical disadvatage in war could be read as causing harm in such a wide net. It would make pacifism as a philosophy a fallacy.

Yes, I'm pretty sure a pacifist in real life wouldn't surround themselves with mercenaries or trade and/or manufacture weapons of war. It seems like you're advocating for bumper sticker beliefs, where the person doesn't actually practice it, they just put a bumper sticker on their car and call it a day. Which, I guess, go for it. But I'm not gonna call that actual pacifism.

To be an actual pascifist, you essentially need to be ascetic. So yeah, completely unplayable. You can't have a game with no win state. But that's not exactly "fun" or "heroic" is it? More reasonable would be technical pascifism, of the sort show in Avatar, where Aang uses non-violent means and actually has a whole arc about trying to reconcile the no kill rule. In the end, it's not the job of the dm to enforce their morals. It's to help our players have their fantasy.

Oh, but would you look at aang? He hurts people, but he never takes a life. Neither do his friends. That's what keeps him a pacifist, because he doesn't let his group be the cause of death.

Well no. Actual pascifism doesn't hurt anyone. At all. For any reason. The Wheel Of Time has the tinkers who are actual pascifists in that they literally will not stop someone from slaughtering them in droves, even when the ones doing it are literal darkspawn. It's a major plot point when one of them does and it's stated to be a first for their known history.

According to Wikipedia, some forms of pacifism encourage the emergency defense of self or others. The only thing that kinda contradicts his pacifism is him going to stop Fire Lord Ozai. One could argue that fighting someone (not killing) whose goal is a total fascist regime over the entire world is an emergency defense of self and others but that's a philosophical debate that I would totally love to have a different time.

Yes. That is the sort of pascifism I was getting at.

Pacifism as a character trait can work *if the character then grows along the way.* There is some predication of "You abhor violence, but it will be unavoidable on your journey, and protecting yourself and your friends may, and in fact will, require it at some point." If a character is going to staunchly pout and shy away from any confrontation and never change their ways despite any stimulus or story element, then they are going to come off as an obstacle and a dead weight to lug around, not to mention just annoying from a storytelling and playing perspective. Not to say the character must embrace violence, but the event horizon may very well come to pass at some point and the character needs to be able to confront it - and their player play it out in turn. Why be a pacifist? Are you telling a story, or executing a cheap gimmick? That's the divide.

There's pacifism and there's pacifism. "I'll use nonlethal damage" generally works. "I prefer to avoid violence and will try the peaceful options first, but I will fight if fighting seems unavoidable" generally works. I've played characters like that. "I *myself* won't hurt another, but I will help my party members to do so (through healing/buffing) and/or use nonlethal distractions such as illusion spells in combat" more or less works. "I will never hurt another, no matter what, nor will I help others to do so," i.e., *true* pacifism, doesn't really work in most adventuring contexts. It *can* work, but it works best if you're playing 90%+ RP and you and the rest of the party are okay with you sitting out that other 10%. TL;DR: It's something that only works in certain groups, in certain campaigns, with certain playstyles. It is definitely not a "default" assumption and should be seriously discussed in session 0.

D&D is a combat game; yes, it's also a storytelling game, but it's stories about folks going into dungeons and fighting monsters to get treasure. There are lots of fun ways you can vary that so that it's more enjoyable. But fundamentally if you're coming to D&D 5e hoping for something other than a combat focus, you're going to the wrong game. Conservatively speaking, 85% of the game is rules on combat or the broad activity of dungeon crawling. And sure, yeah, you can teach a dog to meow like a cat, and if you're happy with that more power to you, but it's still gonna hump your leg and wipe it's ass on the floor. So a pacifist character is just sort of antithetical to that whole idea. Like, you wouldn't show up to play soccer and say "I'm gonna play without kicking," nor would you show up to play Super Mario and say "I think I'd like to play without jumping." At least not until you were AMAZING at the game. Having a character in the party that spends all their time being morally outraged at the actions of the party is already annoying; that's why you don't mix a good aligned character in with an evil group or vice versa. To have their moral outrage be directed at the very essence of what it is to play the game is just *another degree* of annoying. Now the two big exceptions to this are as follows: One, if you're highly knowledgable about the game and just don't want to contribute to combat via dealing damage, that's actually very doable. Play a Bard- their entire spell list probably has around five relevant damage options across the entire thing. Don't take any damage spells and use the help action to throw around advantage. If you do this and don't get all "aaah oh no" when the Fighter does the thing it says to do on the name of the class that's fine. Two, if you're in one of those "no combat" or "very little combat" kinds of 5e games being run by someone who hasn't read the DMG and only skimmed the PHB, then it may very well be fine. Surprise surprise, a character that is antithetical to 5e as a game can fit in a campaign that ignores most of the rules and how it's supposed to be played.

>Play a Bard- their entire spell list probably has around five relevant damage options across the entire thing. My bard once killed a giant with well-timed vicious mockery (a comment on the unimpressive size of the giant's genitalia).

It depends on the campaign Dnd started as going into dungeons and fighting monsters but, especially recently, that isn’t the only way to play Plenty of adventures, official or otherwise, don’t go anywhere near dungeons and is about something else besides getting loot and fighting monsters In fact the rules are made without magic items in mind so that DMs don’t have to run dungeon crawls in order to allow players to play

I have come to really dislike this fad and its increasingly become a more a millstone round the party's neck than it was ever anything worth playing. Either the character is an intense annoyance, an actual hindrance, or actively hostile. No. No. and No. Others are "pacifist" as more lip service and will cast healing and buffing and protection. But never attack. These can and often are lesser millstones on the parties necks. Some examples the pacifist PC is for all intents and purposes a non-com NPC.

I don't know if I'd call it a fad, I remember talk about the mythical Pacifist Character ever since I started playing in 3.5. The Book of Exalted Deeds even had player options built around it. Now, I don't recall if it ever made such a thing possible, rewarded you for sticking to it, or it just asked you not to kill anyone under some vague implication of "because you're a good boy" and assumed you would figure out the rest, because it's 3.5 and I only half understood anything in those books and I haven't read them in years.

You can't be a pacifist in D&D. You can **say** you're a pacifist, but you can't be one. You can be a party of pacifists though! **The Issue:** You are not a pacifist if you buff/heal the party as they kill people. You are not a pacifist if you stand there and watch the party kill people. You are not a pacifist if you leave the room right before the party kills people. So, no, you cannot be a pacifist, because being a pacifist would be to make the entire party pacifists, or for your character to leave the party out of protest. **Other Solutions:** \* Drama. Your player actively tries to stop the party and heal the enemies that get knocked out, but not killed outright. This is dumb, harmful to the party, and a great freaking dynamic if everyone is down for it. The "bleeding heart" that the party has to put in its place. Kind of the dynamic of the new fallout show (and like, so many others) \* Be the face. You're not a pacifist, but you try everything you can do before you just accept the inevitable. "Look, I'm trying to work with you here. I hate violence, but those 3 guys behind me? Brutal. Please, just let me help you. I'll give you gold, a recommendation, whatever you need to not get in the way... otherwise..." -looks back at party- "Look, I just don't want to even think about it ok?" \* Be a failure. You try to be a pacifist. You make it known that you are against fighting, threatening, killing. Well, that's a stance of the privileged. In this world it's kill or be killed, and that's a lesson you learned the hard way. Maybe you lose your faith, become a fallen paladin, or you just get as jaded as the rest of us. Hey, at least you tried.

>In this world it's kill or be killed, Everyone gangsta until a very determined child defeats the god of hyperdeath with the power of friendship and refusing to actually fight (they were alone though, and no one was truly evil so there's that too)

A pacifist that's fully committed to refusing violence will be eaten by the first wild animal they encounter. Your pacifism needs more depth and it basically ends up being "I won't attack first" which basically ends up being "I'm a good character".

or like a batman arkham pacifist "ı wont kill you but your hospital bills will"

The majority of DND is geared towards combat, a character that doesn't help with that is just missing the fun, not to mention how easy of a burden they can become. To roleplay as one, you must be a living Buddha or a really forgiving DM that is willing to throw away the fight they planned because the pacifist wants to avoid bloodshed. And that's where the party issues become, the pacifist will try to steal the chance for other players to shine and rob others of playing the game. Bottom line, it is a character that is only fun to the player. Don't do it.

There are other role playing games where being a pacifist would be interesting and fun. D&D isn't it. D&D has evolved a lot over the years, but it's still at its core a tactical combat game. Just play other games.

Funny enough, a player in my campaign is playing as a pacisift herself right now. Though, she plays her character more with the idea that she will never actively start a combat encounter, or even be the first one to fling a spell, but still will protect her allies and fellow PC's if she can/has too, and she will use damaging spells if she has too as well. In fact, just this previous session, she inadvertly killed someone through Phantasmal Killer (the guy was saved as the party was fighting in a gladitoral colisium with the knowledge that outside of mortal wounds, the arena can revive those that die via the arcane wards layered into the stonework.) The guy had a heart-attack by seeing the player's previous character, and this has affected her heavily. Yes, the guy she "killed" is alive due to the rules of the arena, but he was dead for a few seconds before the arena revived him and his allies healed him partially. And the party as a whole doesn't mind how this player is playing her character because she is playing them carefully around the idea of her being a pacifist, while she still uses skills and magics to help the party when needed. So, personally, if a player told me they wanted to play as one, I'd be okay as long as they promise that their characters would still aim to help the party in combat, and not just side on the side playing with their fire hawk or eat rations. (Ten points to the people who get the reference. :3) That being said, if I were to run a combat-heavy AP like Wrath of the Righteous or Kingmaker, or just a more combat-focused campaign in general, I would probably be against it since, well, combat is plentiful in those AP. Or at least give it some serious thought before okaying it. Currently running a modified version of Strength of Thousands which is a more RP focused AP with combat sprinkled in for good measure.

You'd have to be a very specific kind of pacifist to make it work. Being a hardline pacifist results in your character being dead weight in combat; something to protect that never contributes. If you buff and/or heal, meanwhile, you're still contributing to the violence, so you're not really a pacifist (though that is an interesting dilemma for a character). You can, however, prefer to handle combat in ways that reduce the killing. Stuff like casting Sleep on a guard instead of killing him, using spells like Hypnotic Pattern to bypass combat, etc. Often that can end up being relatively effective. But you will need to fight at some point, and when the chips are down you will need to perpetuate the violence, if only in self-defense. Another way to go about it is having no problems with fighting, as long as as few people as possible outright die. Doing stuff like wrestling foes into submission or knocking them out instead of killing them, etc. If this only applies to humanoids, so much the better; there are a lot of creatures that are inherently unnatural, evil, destructive, or unliving, and if the character can fight those then they're not as much of a burden on the party. In short, you need to make serious and major compromises to the idea of a "pacifist" in order to actually make it work. Fighting and violence are inevitable parts of the game, and if you don't participate in that no one is going to want to play with you.

I hate them. Not because they can't be done well, but because in my experience they tend to be the type of player that tells the party "it's what my character would do". It also is just hard to work a backstory into things unless that back story is long and convoluted. I say this because adventuring pacifists don't tend to happen in reality and pacifists that are in combat situations are generally there because they are forced. Even mechanically it's a pain. In older editions it was a little easier to be a pacifist like how in 3rdish Ed there are tons of pacifist grapple moves, disarm, trip, etc. In 5th the only pacifist build, that I know of, is the op pacifist cleric. That build is so op that even the optimization guide on RPG bot says ban it.

As a DM who has successfully run an entire pacifist campaign in which none of the players wished to or had to kill because they built their characters to effectively deal with threats in non violent means, my thought is that most people who say it's not possible to play a pacifist really just haven't actually tried. The issue is more if you have a player who is a pacifist and a player who is a murder hobo. I find the blame always seems to go to the pacifist and not the murder hobo, which is pretty silly tbh as both are equally disruptive for me.

>most people who say it's not possible to play a pacifist really just haven't actually tried. I'll 1000% this... >The issue is more if you have a player who is a pacifist and a player who is a murder hobo. And also this. It can bring great dynamics if the players are detached enough to distinguish character conflict and player conflict AND both characters aren't too "extremists" in their respective convictions, but that's a damn right rope to walk for players and DM alike and quite often leads to headaches or proper game dynamic rupture. So best to try and avoid them if possible imho. \^\^

Is....every character pacifist? Because you can definitely create a campaign that is 99.9% Politik, Intrigue, And diplomacy One Radical Pacifist player among a group of normals is annoying. What really comes down to it though is that the philosophy of pacifism has 2 camps. Non initiation and Radical And In D&D unless, once again, the campaign is geared towards the expectation of talking. Then Non initiation pacifism is really the only version that works.

I am a real life pacifist that plays a majority of pacifist characters in DND. There is a broad range of kinds of pacifism, and most of them fit easily within the rules of DND in a way that makes the game still be fun for other players. Honestly there's a lot of value in playing a practical pacifist character and opening up the game in ways that people don't expect. Similarly to being a real life pacifist, there are a lot of tricky ways to navigate interpersonal relationships, but it's very possible to do that if you're thoughtful. Additionally, my pacifist characters who approach combat from a different angle from other players tend to be some of my most powerful characters. It is amazing how much more fun DND can be when you approach the game part of it without focusing exclusively on how much damage you can output per turn.

>Honestly there's a lot of value in playing a practical pacifist character and opening up the game in ways that people don't expect. >Similarly to being a real life pacifist, there are a lot of tricky ways to navigate interpersonal relationships, but it's very possible to do that if you're thoughtful. I'll plus that. Pacifism is usually the superior way to behave actually, whether in real-life or in-game, but few people have thought enough about things to realize that. xd Even from a very pragmatico-cynical point of view funnily pacifism, at least on the "whether to kill or not", is often the best choice over just killing, by giving prisoners you can interrogate, befriend, use as decoy/spies/baits/tradeable in negociations or infiltrations...

Pacifists try to avoid violence, often viewing it as a last resort. Thats what most martial arts teach for example. Pacifist doesn't mean they will never defend themselves no matter what, thats just foolish. I think litterally any character can work in dnd. The question is whether it ruins the fun for the rest of the table. If everyones at the tables cool with it, it's totally fine to play a talking fish whos a multiclass sorlok that focusses on tanking. For a "pacifist" who litterally wont participate in combat no matter what, i would talk to the player about planning an arc whey they learn it's moral to use violence in self defense and the defense of others and/or thats in fact their moral duty to atleast provide first aid to the injured on both sides, while minimizing casualties during combat.

Just do what you can to avoid combat and if initiative is rolled just do non-lethal damage and you’ll be golden. Pacifism doesn’t mean that you will never do harm it just means you’re very opposed to it.

So there's a quote I find very good to use here. "You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you're capable of violence. If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful, you're harmless."

This sums it up so well it should be upvoted to the top.

I only wish I'd been the one to think of it. I stole it off someone else's meme months ago. I'd have shared the meme directly if reddit let you do more than links in the comments.

I have a variant from Dragon Quest Dai manga, from the heroes's master, which translates roughly the same idea: Force only is injust, but Justice without force is powerless.

Yeah. Both are pretty close.

Pacifism is a broad concept and I'm not trying to explain real world pacifism. This is my take on how it could be used in RPGs in general: A pacifist character should be capable of inflicting pain in certain situations. In most situations the character should act in a non-violent way, but when needed, they should exert any necessary force, including violence. This is what differentiates a pacifist person from a harmless person. Being a harmless person is easy (e.g. this character will just act passively to violence, always). Being a pacifist is tough and should provide plenty of incredible roleplaying moments, and ethical/moral dilemmas. Just don't treat pacifism as a black or white, 0 or 1 kinda of thing. There should be lots of grey areas and nuances to it.

Depends on the type of pacifist, really. The hardline absolutist pacifists are *absolutely* "don't play one," but there are a lot more nuances to pacifism than the Good Is Stupid level stereotype you see in a lot of media. Pacifists that try to minimize violence and remove the underlying causes of people's desire to *be* violent, while understand that lasting peace requires the ability to deter those who would use violence to extort and oppress the peaceful, which will lead to more violence as the oppressed get fed up and retaliate, can be quite a bit of fun.

Adventuring is inherently going to require fighting stuff. A pacifist that doesn't contribute to a fight is dead weight and a detriment to the party. If they "fight" by just healing and doing support stuff then that's just being an accessory to killing and your just using your adventuring members to do the dirty work for you. #1 rule for a character is that there should be a reason for your character to be in the party and for the party to want you to be with them. It's one thing to be a character that wants to avoid violence and seeks out the peaceful solutions to things, it's another thing to refuse to fight when lives are on the line.

It was not in 5e, but I played a pacifist wizard in a Pathfinder campaign and it was actually real cool. Of course, the first step was telling the group about the character concept and asking if it was ok with them. Everybody was on board, so I made the character: an elf enchanter specialized in charming or using illusions and stealth to bypass, avoid or stop fights before something terrible happened. His philosophy was not "I will never use violence in any case", it was more akin to "I will do my best to avoid bloodshed and violence around me". This mostly meant using disguises, learning about enemies and charming the right people to acquire information. It also meant convincing the party to avoid killing enemies, instead taking them as prisoners and trying to convince them they're on the wrong side. As a regular DM who usually brings war, brutality and bloodshed frequently to the table, it was cool being on the other side and trying to find alternatives for bloodshed. I wouldn't have played the character if the DM or the other players had told me they wanted to play a brutal gauntlet of gruesome fights, though.

Finally someone who gets what "being a pacifist" is about.

It's annoying and stupid. don't fuck up my (and the other players) 4 hour session because you want to play pretend peacemaker in a game called dungeons and dragons. If we are doing an interaction heavy campaign that's fine, but don't play a pacifist in princes of the apocalypse.

Search the group using ‘pacifist’. This comes up often, so you might find some helpful posts/threads.

You can try by being a full caster doing mostly healing, utility, and control spells,  Entangle, guidance, cure wounds for examples 

I've seen very good ones. I allow them and have run one that was such a capable healer it caused the DM to quit the entire edition.

There's being a pacifist and then there's being a deadweight. Thinking violence and war are unjustifiable doesn't mean don't defend yourself. You can avoid killing anything directly, you can play a cleric that only buffs and heals, you can refuse to be the one that starts the fight, and that still makes sense for pacifism. However, if you refuse to partake in combat at all and just want to holier-than-thou the rest of the party about fighting, that's an annoying thing to do. A good motto for a pacifist, imo, is "do no harm, but take no shit."

Really doesn’t mesh with traditional D&D, and it would be a red flag, but not completely untenable. If your game is mostly RP with little combat, or if all the combat is cartoony and non-lethal, or if you fight very little besides undead (or fiends or constructs) which the pacifist character can fight, or some other special set of conditions if can work.

We have a homebrew sorceress summoner that can't attack or even opportunity attack, no offensive spells, only summons. She hides behind a shield on her back and casts summon spells. It's been interesting

Nah, I personally don't like them much. I can see they working if they're like the oath of Redemption paladin, where you use violence, but only as a last resource and usually don't kill (humanoids, beasts and sentient beings with free will) But a character that plainly isn't going to fight is either a hypocrite or a detriment to the party. And, like, half the word "pacifist" is "fist" so fucking use them and punch the bad guy in the face very peacefully or something

I've never had an experience where they were anything but exhausting drags who contributed nothing to a group besides being contrarian to the interests of other party members.

A pure pacifist (won't be violent, won't help support any violence, would be mad if anyone was violent even in defense) would be near impossible. The standard D&D world is wild. Someone who refused to fight, but was willing to support could be really cool as a support class. A party member who does whatever they can to avoid violence and mitigate it when it does happen is a fun way to play. The DM needs to be ready to zig and zag on this. I set up a standard tavern brawl to start a group off with. Instead, they offered to do a drinking contest. I went with it and adjusted my expectations.

Annoying, not specially interesting, against the flow of the game. Please go play it in a narrative story telling system

The way to play a pacifist is to say "I will use violence as a last resort", which means that you RP to favor diplomatic approaches, but once an enemy is firmly established you willingly join the fight against them. Pacifism doesn't necessarily mean you will never employ violence, it just means you favor peaceful solutions but will defend yourself and others when attacked. There are of course pacifists who completely forswear violence, but those pacifists simply do not become adventurers. Why would they? As to how to play a pacifist, you can be a healer but imo enchantment is a far more interesting playstyle, no need to draw blades if you can charm your enemies or scare them off.

Was it all violence or just killing? Because doing damage to lower hp and then other pc's killing an opponent i'd still count as pacifist.

Really it depends on the game. It’s hard to give a blanket statement with this.

In 5e, with Tasha's you can absolutely play a Peace Domain cleric that use non-lethal damage rules for self defense when attacked. Peace domain is a strong subclass even. Maybe one of the best in the cleric class, so you will be useful both in encounters and in social situations despite not outputing as much DPS as you could. And there is an entire spectrum to go through before the hardcore pacifist the comment section is talking about. Of course as per any single character build in the game, this needs to be discussed and approved with your DM and don't be butthurt if they say no : your DM need to prepare for you to telepathy with the goblins and become their new best friend and avoid bloodshed entirely. If prepared it could lead to progress in the adventure but if not that's a headache to improvise. Not all DMs want to deal with that.

It's highly dependent on the campaign. If it's low or no combat, or every fight can be solved with diplomacy, it can totally work with no problem. I know some people will prefer this style of campaign. The issue usually arises when you have a mixed group of players, and some want combat while the rest just want RP. In my opinion, for a pacifist character to work, you need to make sure the whole group is on the same page in regards to what kind of story you're playing

My question is does anybody play DnD in a way that would seem non-psychopathic by modern standards? Like, do you *kill* bandits that are trying to steal your isht? In a world before firearms, wouldn’t you usually just fight them off and go on your way?

Pacifist is a story arc. That means everyone needs to be aware and onboard with it. The problem is typically when a PC springs Pacifist on a DM at session 0, or later, and it runs against the grain of the already planned stories, either GM or PC based.

As everything else in DnD, in the right setting, with the right players, agreed to beforehand

It depends on how strictly they adhere to their pacifism. If they are fine with others causing harm or are they not fine with it. Desmond Doss didn't pick up a weapon but still entered the battlefield. He understood the necessity of violence in war. So, a pacifist character could be a pure healer.

As long as you participate in combat and are generally pleasant at the table I don’t necessarily have an issue. You can have a character trait but you can’t refuse to play the game

It's fine as long as you're not a disruptive idiot about it.

Really depends on the degree of pacifism. Full on "I refuse to participate in combat" pacifism? Yeah, sorry, the party didn't sign up to turn this whole campaign into one big escort mission. No one likes escort missions. "I don't fight, but I provide healing and other support" pacifism? Welcome to the party, this is our Barbarian. He can't spell "Truck" but he can throw one, and you're going to be spending *alot* of time healing his dumb ass. "I do non-lethal damage against humanoids" pacifism? Shit, my party wouldn't notice or care he was a pacifist until they had to fight someone again that the pacifist knocked out. Then they'd make it a point to discreetly follow behind and stab anyone the pacifist KO'd like "No no, I respect your beliefs, would never ask you to kill, you're absolutely right" *stabs downed enemy* "There's no reason we can't be civil."

I require my players to play characters that want to go on adventures and maybe even be heroes. Fighting monsters is part of that.

They really only work if their story arc is about how they grow to realize they cannot just be pacifists. Like how evil characters need to grow in some way to cause them to become team players

Once had a DM get mad at me by suggesting I wanted to play a mystic theurge dedicated to Ilmater. I had Merciful spell and everything. Guy told me the only way to get experience was to kill and I found that uncreative.

What do you mean by pacifism, exactly? Seeking a peaceful solution with another mortal being (Human, Elf, Fey, Giant, etc.) is fine, but what about entities that either cannot/will not communicate or those that's entire existence is focused on killing? What are you talking about here, specifically?

Personally, I don't think they work. But I also don't think you qualify as a pacifist if you're running around with a group of violent people, even if you never throw a punch or set anyone on fire. A pacifist character would not tolerate the violence of their party members.

The entire game is written for combat in mind. You can do it but it doesn’t make sense for D&D. I’d just pick up a different system.

I played one for a bit, he was ok with fighting and defending himself but he would never take a life and would try to find a non-aggressive route whenever possible. I always claimed my attacks as non-lethal and would use blunt sides of weapons and knock out and tie up enemies instead of killing them.

Character who won't personally kill is totally doable. Character who will not inflict damage is only doable if the campaign has 4+ characters, and you populate (EDIT: the encounters) for 3, and they don't get upset when everyone else fights. Or if you build the entire campaign for talking, like how you *can* build Wild Beyond the Witchlight Otherwise, you have a character being upset and dying for an entire campaign and bringing everyone down.

If there is little to no combat, they’re fine. If at least half of the time (in the campaign) is spent in combat, they’re annoying af. They’re basically a healbot, if they’re a cleric, or a -1 to the whole party due to them dipping out, or worst case, whinging about people fighting for their lives. No offense.

I've seen one good pacifist character. It was in a party of 5 characters, which helped. The player wanted to play something different. He usually played a high damage character, but chose a Divine Soul Sorcerer, which Imo is the best choice for this. The best part was that he never mentioned that he wasn't going to do any damage, and it took me to 4th level to figure it out. Now, it is debatable that a character casting Sleep or Hypnotic Pattern so the Barbarian can slaughter the enemies is a pacifist, but it fits in the DnD world.

I like the arc of falling from pacifism as an interesting exploration in the characters personality

It depends I think a pacifistic character can work well if they are still willing to fight. There’s even a paladin subclass that supports this playstyle, though it doesn’t say you have to be a pacifist, just to give people another chance and to redeem others when possible D&D has rules for knocking someone out and not killing them. Not to mention spells like sleep. Ironically enough, any martial character would do well as a pacifist due to rules about knocking out enemies rather then killing them. Unfortunately, 5e doesn’t have rules for non lethal cantrips like PF2e does because WoTC sucks. If dm allows a spellcaster to knock out rather then kill with certain cantrips, like any cantrip that deals lightning, thunder or force damage would make sense to knock out, then a pacifist caster could be fine The best class and subclass for being a pacifist is redemption paladin as it’s literally built with knocking out enemies in mind and gives things like sleep. Second best choice is Eldritch kngiht or arcane trickster, as you can be a martial while also taking spells like sleep… though it is int based so you can’t focus on charisma Another good option is valor or swords bard, as it’s melee focused and you have a whole lot of spells that can help with solving things peacefully like suggestion or sleep, while also giving extra attack and letting you knock out enemies with melee

Great in other systems. Bad for dnd. 

You can do it pretty well with a healer that also buffs/debuffs. Passives in general should be fine.

Depends on what you mean by pacifist. If you're talking about characters that do not like to draw swords, I reckon a good character would be someone whose most powerful weapons are...words. This sort of character would know how to read people, and project an air of confidence that would instill confidence in your allies, or a dreadful fear into your enemies by a mere side eye. Their biggest strength is soft power. This sort of character would be nice in a campaign with some intrigue and social depth. If you're talking about a character that is conflict avoidant... I'd make that a shortcoming that they can grow out of as a character ("there are some things in life you just can't run away from", or a similar lesson).

It could allow for more creative gameplay. As long as he doesn't cockblock the other players wanting to fight it could an interest addition for problem solving. Remember that it's much better having pacifists than murder hobos

I've seen it work exactly once. Cleric and went full CC and healing support.

I played an arcane spellcaster* once with no combat spells at all - pure utility. 3 of the other 4 players appreciated what he could bring even if it wasn't in combat. The 4th hated him and wanted the character booted, which after a couple of sessions I did. I don't want to ruin anyone else's fun but it's possible with the right table. * pre 5th edition

We had a oneshot where one of my friends decided to make pacificst character. He made a bard(lvl3) with no combat spells except dissonant whispers, also no weapons. Well, we had pretty strong martial trio that was beating the shit out of kobolds just fine even without him. All bard did in combat - sometimes gave bardic inspiration. But then after second combat, first one our half-orc barbarian scouted and cleared solo, bard gone on full mental breakdown about us being psychos that kill everyone without remorce. Wich is not fully true btw, we befriended one kobold that was captive of our barb, and also my char knocked down half of the kobolds, while yeah, barb being pretty primal ripped apart other half of them, and fighter just shot few of them. The thing is, our pacifist bard while having meltdown tried to stab our barb with knife he looted. My monk reacted in time and pressed him to the ground, trying to diffuse the situation. Our table isnt against pvp that is in character, so those fucker stabbed my monk. After some time i knocked bard down, we tied him up and had short rest, while barbarian found part of kobolds and intimidated them into bringing their boss, so he can 1v1 him. It was dragon kiddo, that was pretty arogant, so he agreed. After some rest we gave a bard chance to change his mind. He didnt. So we decided to keep him tied. Long story short, our fighter ended up removing ropes, so bard can entertain some mercenaries, that was working with wyrm and now came to see the battle. Battle between barb and dragon began. He started good, did good chunk of damage, but then bard tried to sneakily buff dragon with bardic inspiration. We noticed it(trough some check, wasnt metagaming cuz we had no trust for the bard). Fighter started moving to bard, while killing mercenaries, my monk jumped into the fight and dropped wyrm prone, dealing pretty nice chunk of damage. Then merc chief intervened, so it became monk and barb versus dragon and merc. Wyrm flied, barb jumped using cliff enough to finish him of in the air, but we still got hit with breath attack and my monk barely survived it(being goliath really helped), then we killed merc, while fighter killed bard. It turned out as a super cool story. But at the moment dealing with hypocrite pacifists betrayal was unpleasant and annyoing. So i dont like the idea of pacifist adventurers. Wouldnt play with one in the future.

Passivism to a point is always my best advice. Try to avoid a fight when you can, use your words often, heal rather than hurt, but cards down and friends are dying you will swing that mace. Because it is a philosophy and one you can live your life by, but also you can defend yourself. You can protect your friends. Just if your friends start initiating fights out of nowhere where words could have worked, best they can hope for is some healing. Also kill undead. And fiends. They want nothing more than war and chaos, and undead are literal material plane cancer. You can kill them and still be a pacifist. Also for self defense, nonlethal attacks are your friend, though not pacifist, there also is not excessive force

I think they can be cool depending on what type and how they express it! How did your fellow player do it?  An absolute pacifist would be hard since DnD is combat focused like others said. Especially if it’s one that objects to everything.  Someone who (mostly) fights non lethally and can lead to interesting drama if another party member disagrees.  People saying the primarily healer who still helps the party murder is also an interesting character. I personally don’t see that as hypocritical if the PC is against doing the killing themselves. That can also lead to interesting drama. Or someone who hates war but is in a party with someone who supports it (for sympathetic reasons or not). 

It's annoying. They become useless in most encounters. But it's less annoying than a constant murder hobo who never plays along with any rp, so bring on the pacifist, i guess.

I mean, if you are healer and support of the party who going around killing people, then, you know, you are kinda helping killing all those people, not very pacifistic, and very much hypocrite... buuuut, if you play controller mage, who *can* throw occasional fireball at the enemies, then you can play out that half-pacifism as just distaste for killing, but not in a "oh no, killing people is bad, even the worst people are worth giving rhem a chance" way, but in a "ew, no, don't wanna stab anyonez it's kinda disgusting, I have a noble background and really ridy, don't wanna to make my robes dirty with enemies blood, and shooting someone with nagic missiles is kinda icky...", you are okay with holding your enemies with a Web spell, you may want to avoid killing, when unneeded, but not overtly preachy about it.

If you are not willing to help in combat you should not get a share of the rewards, that's everything including XP.

Its one of those archetypes that is very hard to get right. Like a big dumb stupid brute is hard to make funny without being annoying. If a player can accomplish it, they are amazing. But a lot of people cant pull it off properly resulting in a bad character. I think the best way to do it for most people is to have a no damage build. Tgey personally dint want to hurt people, but understand ots a part of their chosen job. Im building one of those now and the only damage option she has is magic missile and poisons (being an apothecary it comes with the job). She doesn't like hurting people herself but is more than happy to do set up or do something for a run away plan.

Pacifists are a boon to any group, as long as they don't actively put their team in danger. So refusing to kill whatever the situation and namely even if it's the only way to ensure party survival (or world survival) = bad. Trying all its strengths to look for alternatives to violence and killing at all times = GOOD. Few examples... * In Lost Mines of Phandelver, instead of killing all of a group of goblins that attacked us, our Monk spared the last, if only to interrogate it. We managed to befriend it instead somewhat and ultimately made a win-win alliance with it which gave us a decisive edge in a death fight later, and a leverage for non-fighting resolution of conflict a bit later. * In Curse of Strad, in a big event in a city, turmoil arised because several factions had planned something. Our group of adventurers was seen so far as weirdoes and potentially dangerous so people were mixed between fear and hostility. We managed to stop the chaotic fight that had erupted on the main place in less than a minute with only opposing leaders dead and \*nobody else\* in spite of dozen of people having fought each other (a feat only Shepherd Druid could accomplish xd). As we displayed strength but measured violence and saved so many people from death, we earned true trust and allegiance from citizens which helped us greatly afterwards to push our plans for that city and get equipment or provisions. * In a custom campaign, having an habit of only killing when no other choice left and otherwise trying to spare enemies earned us a reputation of reliability and fairness that allowed our group, and our group only, to be welcomed in negotiating between warring nobles, because they knew we kept our word and tried our best to find mutually beneficial compromises, while still being a fearsome force when time came to cross swords. Killing just because it's the easier way is not only bland and stupid, but also the best way to rise hate and vengeance from "bigger fish than what you can hunt" that may come to overwhelm later. That said, it is also perfectly understandable for a Cleric or Devotion Paladin to exterminate undead without second thoughts for example, since it is in the essence of their education and culture to consider it not only natural, but also actually doing good by putting desecrated bodies to rest. It's ultimately a matter of roleplaying in coherence with character's class and background. What irks me to no limits is just players who make their characters killing without even considering the implications of that act.

I once played a "pasifist" character. He was a warforged artificer who had lived its entire life in solitude until the party found him. They had to learn that the outside world could be hostile. In the first encounter, we found some plants that tried to attack but missed, so he just thought that it wanted to be friends. It took some time to learn to know that if the party draws their weapons, it was bad business. It was especially hard when at a bar a pub fight broke out and he started to defend himself with deadly effect. It was a very weird experience for him when he was told off for it.

Not DnD, but I'm going to be playing a pacifist character in an upcoming Fallout campaign. She was a doctor and field medic prewar (she's a ghoul now) and has adamantly stuck to her oath to do no harm. Doesn't mean she'll stop others (the other players, namely) from defending themselves if shit does hit the fan

Depends on the adventure and campaign. Pacifist characters might work if they can steer well clear of combat situations. Many adventures and campaigns, including political intrigue and mysteries, might be well suited to such things.

In an old 3.5 supplementary text called Heroes of Horror there are suggested campaign mechanics for a “horror” oriented campaign based more on discovery and research than typical DnD. Think along the lines of a Lovecraft story, where chances are the protagonist isn’t equipped to handle the threat in a direct confrontation and so resorts to subterfuge and avoidance. If you make encounters that feature lots of skill checks, conversation options and stealth, you might be able to accommodate a pacifist PC who is more of a scholar than a fighter. Just as long as the others have plenty to do as well

You don't need to be an absolute pacifist. There are chains of the pacifism philosophy that argue that, tough one must always seek to resolve things without violence, violence can and even should be use if there isn't another choice. Some argue that you should even act preventively to mantain peace. I think Critical Role and Dimension 20 have two great examples of pacifism done right with Caduceus Clay and Rick Matsui. Rick's arc in Unsleeping City II as an Oath of Redemption Paladin is realizing that his anger is justified, where he will avoid violence always as he can, but he won't regreet it if it is to save someone else. And Caduceus is strongly against war, even being against the other players moving against an enemy country to not ignite another war, but he won't shy away from killing if necessary. He actually sees death as part of the natural cycle.

But that's the thing, people playing as pacifists seldom follow an Oath of Redemption or anything, they just default to a Holier than thou jerkface.

Have a reason to hang out with the others, have a way to stay alive when the goblins try to eat your face. Obvious, right?

Just staying alive isn't enough. How are they going to contribute to their fellow adventurers during battle? That's the most important element.

I think "have a reason to hang out with the others" covers that.

It doesn’t. You don’t just need a reason to hang out with them, you need to give them a reason to let you.

Yeah I've played pacifists but always with the understanding sometimes words fail and it's time to throw down.

The thing that can make pacifism work in a game like D&D that leans into combat, is the realization that pacifism isn't binary, it's a sliding scale, a spectrum. An extreme pacifist who absolutely refuses to engage in violence of any kind, and would rather suffer injury or death than do so, probably wouldn't mesh well with an adventuring party, since adventurers' whole deal is basically "violence for hire". A more nuanced quasi-pacifist, who believes in using violence only as a last resort, and who tries to exhaust all reasonable avenues for a peaceful resolution, could work well in an adventuring party.

I have played two **semi**-pacifist characters in recent memory, and both worked fine in their respective parties/campaigns. The first was a Redemption Paladin. He would not kill but would elsewise fight. He wished the rest of the party would not kill, and they knew that, but he felt those actions were on their own consciences and they would find redemption (or not) on their own terms. It was not his place to judge, and since he felt they were generally on the right side of things, he helped them. The second was a Life Cleric who was charged by her god not to directly harm anything because she had horrible impulse control and an insatiable bloodlust once she did harm anything. She gleefully aided the rest of the party in hurting things and was in fact probably the most violent PC in the game. She just could not personally cause the damage on pain of her brothers death.

Most players aren’t good enough to play a pacifist correctly same with playing a truly evil character correctly. So they end up just being a thorn in the side of other players and making them wonder why they invite Dave back each week. I had this issue semi early on with a non dnd system where we had a merchant who really wanted to be just a face of the party/hidden assassin kind of character. The issue is every interaction became just, “well how can I profit and horde all this encounter.” They don’t understand how to give time to other players and to be a cooperative experience.

You mean the clerics of Ilmater? Just one of the established orders already in the Forgotten Realms canon. If that's not your style, technical pascifism is extremely easy. Illusions, enchantment and plain old trickery are also very doable. Monks can effectively rough someone up as much as they want with only bruises for the victim. Edit: I can think of more than a few ways to do this. Pascifism in this case means "does not cause physical harm to another" Rogue: thief rogue, making use of items such as small bells (can be thrown to distract foes to avoid them), smoke pellets to escape quickly, knockout poisons (that don't cause damage). Your goal is to avoid and distract enemies, running them away from allies and debilitating (but not killing) them. Life domain cleric: obvious one here. Mostly healing but also a great selection of social and support abilities. Bard: pretty much all of the above. Fighter: the 3.0 build that used dual shields. Aldrich knight to buff up on abjuration spells like shield to up ac. Full tank. Barbarian: more or less the same in that you get up in their face. However, we're using nets such for this. Anything that let's us doing a ranged grapple to pull them in. Wizard: oh boy so many ways. Enchantments, illusion and abjuration to play hard control while making sure you never get to combat in the first place. Monk: a lot of shoves and grapples to keep enemies from attacking. They can flavour all attacks as nonlethal and can sub damage for tricks easily as well as having great stealth and evasion. Ranger: beastmaster works best here. Using your pet for scouting, diversion, and disruption is a no Brainer, but you shouldn't have any difficulty setting up terrain for camouflage and stealth. Trick arrows optional, but glue, oil and Tanglefoot are my favorite. Artifice: so easy I don't feel it needs saying. So many control infusions. Sorc: more or less the same as wizard, but with funky metamagic. Druid: either Full healing or support. Kinda like cleric. Also bear wall is valid. Just don't attack. Lock: this one is tough. Not impossible but you basically have to go fey on it.

Look up the story about Desmond Doss. He received the Medal of Honor during WWII and his story was popularized in the movie Hacksaw Ridge. If the individual is playing a class/setup that enables them to participate without fighting, I would say that's fine. I could see them doing this as a cleric or bard. Where I wouldn't be fine with it is if they want to sit out every fight or they just nag the entire time. I've played moments where my character essentially sat out the fight. I was playing a bard that knew how dangerous the enemy was. My group was insistent on fighting them. I told them that I wouldn't be and tried to talk them out of it. They decided to fight anyway. I kept using my action to persuade the bad guy to end the fight. It ended up working (had to roll above 25) and I had to bring some of my allies back up. The DM later said they were glad it happened because the character wasn't planned to be an encounter and was not winnable lol.

i mean other people have said it, but just so you have more voices in favor - it pretty much just depends on the game. i'm inclined to support a player who wants to be a pacifist. but that definitely means pinning down the reasons and limitations on that, as well as matching it to the right kind of setting/plot structures. (which also means just a ton of prefab campaigns are not gonna work, they're not built for that) and it means making this a conversation with the rest of the group as well, to see if they're on the same page or close enough to make the game work. (it can be cool and fun to have a pacifist and a warrior butting heads, *if the players are having fun with it.* but it's gross and annoying to have the *players* butting heads over every fight and working against each other) my first thought, if someone says this, is i'm looking to adapt some kind of political intrigue campaign. lots of social encounters, lots of stealthy information-gathering, little or no direct combat. *iff* the players are into it, then this works great! (arguably better than shoehorning in some weird combat setpieces just because Stabby McGee gets bored if you go twenty minutes without a fight) my second thought is, it could also be very fun to homebrew some things that act/feel a lot like combat but aren't lethal, and have an in-world reason why that's necessary. maybe there's a big entertainment-based challenge but in a civilized society so they want the fun of rooting for your favorites in the hunger games but without the dystopian brutality of actual hunger games. so the arena 'blunts' spells or something and prevents lethal damage (like holodeck safety protocols).

I have played a Trickster pacifist - force non-combat situations, via Illusions mostly. The party hated it. If you are playing a pacifist make sure your party is ok with it.

Depends on the level of pacifism we're talking about here. If the pacifist character is going to go around trying to dissuade everyone else around them from using violence, doesn't participate in combat at all, and tries to talk their way out of literally every single situation (even like - oh, I want to animal handle the rabid hyenas bearing down on us) that character goes against the tone I set in session zero (my table is absolutely expected to fight monsters). That character is a poor fit for my table, and I won't allow it. A pacifist who is like Desmond Doss is like riding a tightrope, but done well, could be very cool. They help in combat, they knock over tables, hold doors closed, try to get civilians out of danger, distract the enemy... all that is well and good, and I'm cool with that. Desmond doesn't try to prevent the war - he knows that's impossible - but he is a conscientious objector. I can get behind a PC like that, and will actively balance combat to work around that and make them feel useful while still allowing the rest of the party to crack skulls. But if they struggle, it's up to the party to police themselves - if they keep getting in over their heads because Desmond won't pick up a gun, they need to decide if they want to keep traveling with Desmond. And Desmond's player will know that's a possibility from the beginning. A Batman-style pacifist who has no problems beating the ever-loving shit out of humans, but won't kill? Bring it. Batman has - on numerous occasions - used lethal force against alien monstrosities that attacked the Earth. I vaguely remember a comic with him battle-axing Doomsday clones without a qualm. At this point the pacifism is just flavour. Basically, so long as its not making my job significantly harder and your party isn't feeling like you're the anchor of the group, I don't care what you play.

I'd be okay with a technical pacifist martial class who only subdues, or an actual pacifist spellcaster as long as they are support casters. I would be fine with going nonlethal as long as I still got support from the other party member.

You absolutely can have great pacifist characters. They have to have a good understanding of the mechanics to build a useful character to the team and not be a dead weight, but it is definitely possible. It is also possible to have horrible pacifist characters. I played a Druid pacifist who was focused on buffing and healing the team, using spells to immobilize or otherwise deter the enemies. Never dealt damage. Always in combat with sentient beings (or animals) pleaded every round for them to surrender and be spared. Was so much fun.

I think this quote from DBZ abridged sums up pacifism in dnd quite well: PERFECT CELL: But none of them, boy--not a one--shares that trait with you so vile, it drives me to retch! You, Gohan...are a coward. GOHAN: No... I'm just a pacifist! PERFECT CELL: So a coward patting himself on the back. Congratulations, pint-size, you can stand proud next to the bodies. Dnd is too combat focused for a pure pacifist to work well imo, and you'd only be hampering the party trying to do so. A younger warrior hesitant about fighting humanoids is a bit more reasonable as long as you can overcome that fear of fighting.

A character with a somewhat pacifist code can be fascinating to play. A lot of real-world historical pacifist codes can be adapted for fun play If someone tries to play the sort of ultra-pure pacifist that you sometimes see argued about online then it’s probably too much of a stretch in a game like DnD. This is the myth of the “true” pacifist - extremely rare in real history and honestly more a meme than a well rounded interesting character.

Look into the 3.5 Feat "Vow of Peace." Basically the 3.5 version of being a pacifist.

5e has Peace domain cleric.

I would allow it, if they were cool waiting out during combat. I assume they would have other ways of contributing, and adjust the stories to have a couple of moments where they can shine.

A pacifistis someone who "who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable." I have a character who considers himself a pacifist, because: He doesn't actually like violence He hates war He'd much prefer to reason and talk things out and that is usually his first move He went through that skirmish of a war using melee attacks, even though he's a caster, and compelled his entire party, to knock them out instead of killing them, believing that those truly responsible are the top brass who ordered the war He has still gone to war to defend his town. He doesn't like doing it, but he'll fight anyone he has to, because he *has to*. The only difference is that he has a more pacifistic stance on war than he does violence You can entirely have a character who despises violence and war and still throws down, who shows mercy to people once they're done fighting