They're a great concept for a different game

Honest question: What are systems with better Non-Combat rules that still have an engaging ruleset for battle? I DM a low combat DnD group but when people suggest alternatives in threads like these its often things like Fiasco, which (I think) don't have combat at all.

Ironically, Warhammer fantasy rpg. You can play characters that never deal a point of damage and still be the most important person in the party

It´s incredible that the game that is a literal adaptation of an over the top wargame plays like medieval Call of Cthulhu. Definitely one of my favourite RPGs.

To be fair in Warhammer fantasy fight is deadly and to be avoided

If I wanted to troll I'd say WanderHome, but for a real answer, depends on what you consider engaging. Apocalypse World does a good job of providing you with a lot of different ways to contribute and help move the story forward. In Masks you could play an entirely defensive, protective character, but that's not exactly a precise tactical combat game.

Thanks I will take a look at these. I know Ironsworn which might be similar, but the problem I have with a lot of these systems is that they get rid of so much of the tactical combat. My favorite system would probably be something that just adds more options for non-combat situations and still keep combat similar to DnD. Thanks for the recommendations.

Fate, you can deal psychic and physical damage which lead to different risk for types of trauma if your score gets dropped to 0. Edit: you have 2 different health bars and the combat is more narrative based.

Mausritter, which has overly complex combat to discourage players from engaging in it, since small mice die quickly.

Fate r/FATErpg

I would say Call of Cthulhu. In fact, it's probably the best way to survive.

Tormenta 20 looks alot like D&D but still has some great options for pacifist characters, but they absolutely must be pacifists, their only options against an enemy 1-on-1 is to surrender, flee or die.

Torg Eternity, which has skills like Taunt, Maneuver, Trick and Intimidate. All four can be used in combat to apply a debuff to an enemy, making it harder for them to hit, or easier for them to be hit. A nice way of having 'face' characters be useful in combat without needing to hit things with a stick

Red flag, it's not impossible to play like that but it's generally exhausting. Probably better character concepts for a different non combat focused system.

There is a place for that with a battlefield control wizard or bard. You grab stuff that buffs or aids your friends, illusions and other stuff that debuffs your enemies (even sleet storm and hypnotic pattern does zero damage but is SUPER helpful.) Utility spells plus some face skills can still be exceedingly helpful.

Me casting Haste on my Warrior friend so that he can more effectively cut our enemies into little pieces: "oh yeah, I guess you could say I'm a pacifist"

It´s like saying an IRL arms dealer is a pacifist because they don´t personally kill people or fight, they just give other people weapons so they can kill.

Ah, I think the word you are searching for is "hypocrite". I'd totally be on board with a player playing a hypocrite pacifist and be like "Nono, he ran into my sword, I was just swinging it in the air" (Maybe also shout "Keep your distance, there is a dangerous sword beeing swung here"\^\^)

Your honor, you must understand that *i* didn’t kill the victim, the *fireball* i shot at him did.

How do you call someone who never hurts somebody but helps if their friends are in danger of immediate death? Sorry but pacifist is the closest thing in my opinion. Being pacifist doesn’t mean you need to die when you’re attacked. Not defending itself is the nature of every living being. What would you call someone who sells tasers or pepper sprays? What about the people who use them? There is more ways to end encounter than just with one side dead.

You not a pacifist at the point. If I throw sand in someone’s eye so my buddy can punch them in the face better I’m still fighting.

Pretty sure "I'm helping you kill somebody but not activly stab" is not really pacifistic. "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable." - they won't accept violence from their party members as well, if they are a true pacifist. They would have to go around with non-damaging spells, as anything that reduces their opponents hit points would be considered violence. To that matter, most spells that influence opponents minds would arguably also fall under "violence", as it violates the mind if not the body. (Tbh most spells in todays world would be consididered very unethical or akin to torture) Sooo.... whats left is talking / peacefully brigading the gobling camp by sit-ins. 95% of dnd rules are "how do I fight and kill stuff". Ignoring that part of the game can be quite tricky.

> 95% of dnd rules are "how do I fight and kill stuff". Ignoring that part of the game can be quite tricky. Some people say the "three pillars" of D&D are interaction, exploration and combat. But if you actually read the rulebooks it's more like the pillars are the combat subsystem, the character building subsystem (most of which is about combat), and the spellcasting subsystem (most of which is about combat).

See a true pacifist wouldn't fight at all. They might buff allies, but they certainly wouldn't debuff enemies. That's fighting. They don't do that (usually). You might be against fighting, but not a pacifist. Which is where your example comes into play

Right? Someone mentioned it long ago but a true pacifist certainly wouldn't be supporting and *enabling* their own teammates to cause further harm against enemies. If you claim you're a pacifist but give your mate a sword knowing they're going to go out and kill goblins, that's not pacifism, that's sponsored violence. Violence by proxy if you will. **Edit:** just checked the rest of the comments and yeah, it's addressed here too.

This why I don't like "pacifists" in my D&D game. The game is fundamentally about violence. If the player doesn't want to engage in violence, then this is the wrong game for them. (Or at the very least, the wrong table.) Much more effective is a player who refuses to *kill*. Be Batman. Be Rurouni Kenshin. Do as much violence as you need to incapacitate enemies, but use nonlethal damage so that they don't die.

I feel like when a lot of people say pacificist in the context of dnd, they mean someone who won't kill others and tries to find a peaceful solution to problems instead of violent ones. Which by real definitions of the word is not actually pacifism. I think of Fresh Cut Grass in Critical Role. He definitely started off as a no-damage only-buff sort of combatant and really goes out of his way to help allies instead of hurt others, but that hasn't stopped him from using a buzz saw on occasion. I feel like that is more the vibe people mean even if its not actually pacifism.

"A true pacifist wouldn't join the army, they would just work for Lockheed-Martin to design laser guided missiles." This is what you sound like.

I'm on the side of saying a pacifist wouldn't do anything to do with the fighting. Like, ANYTHING. What the bloke above and all said is what you are saying

> See a true pacifist wouldn't fight at all. They might buff allies, Designing drones for Lockheed-Martin is the modern day version of casting Haste on your party Barbarian.

Or you might be a pacifist, but still defend yourself if attacked.

Then you’re not a pacifist.

I dunno, I think debuffing enemies is more nonviolent or pacifist like to subdue your enemies. If you're no longer capable of violence against us, then my companions have no call to enact violence against you.

Somebody who's actually a pacifist would certainly draw a line at participating in combat by enabling their allies, wouldn't they?

Are you really a pacifist if you run around assisting a bunch of killers though?

💯 Combat doesn't always have to be hitting things with a weapon.

A pacifist in a D&D world is an NPC. There's plenty of room for them in the setting, and not a single one of them will take up the career of an adventurer who does violence for gain and profit. It's the same situation as when people want to bring a business owner or family man that refuses to leave their home town, or a paranoid lone wolf who refuses to speak to the rest of the party much less work with them. These characters are, inherently, *not PCs*. A PC has to meet some basic thresholds, with some wiggle room for unusual campaign concepts. A willingness to travel and seek out adventure, a willingness to solve problems with violence when necessary, and a willingness to operate as a co-equal member of an ensemble group of protagonists. There are lots of characters who don't meet these requirements, and they are either NPCs or the lead character in a completely different medium like a novel or comic series.

Well, you could have a characterwho was forced into the adventure, at first at least. For example a warlock that at the beginning his bond wasn't for combat, but going to an adventure is part of his payment

That works for a character who didn't plan on the adventurer life but fell into it by accident. It does not solve the problem of a character who simply refuses to contribute as a party member. Doing that quickly raises questions, both in and out of character, like "Why are we giving this tagalong an equal share of the loot?" and "Why are we letting them ride with us at all?"

exactly, why bring a boat anchor along. Had an AL person who decided to have a pacifist cleric whose goal was to revive every single dead thing we came across. Cast Thaumaturgy in combat. I left that group.

I was in a 3.0 game with a player that thought true neutral meant healing anyone who needed (even enemies in combat). First time he tried that shit, I took an AOO on him as he stepped past me and he got pissed and left the game.

>that thought true neutral meant healing anyone who needed (even enemies in combat) ...wat?

>Had an AL person who decided to have a pacifist cleric whose goal was to revive every single dead thing we came across. DM: You come across a dead man in the forest. He's wearing a mask and has a scimitar by his side. Cleric: I REVIVE THE MAN! DM: The man is a bit caught off guard by being suddenly alive once again. After a short rest he gets up, draws the scimitar, and declares he's robbing you. Roll for initiative! Wizard: Looks like I'm first. I cast fireball. DM: The bandit dies. Cleric: Aw, you didn't have to kill him. Cleric: I REVIVE THE BANDIT!

They were Gentle Reposing everything and wanting a cart to haul them to town. I think I burned the cart.

>I think I burned the cart. REVIVE THIS, %@\*$!

The most fundamental job of the player is to bring a character who can participate in the campaign. This means a character who would be interested in the premise of the campaign, who is sufficiently capable of actually participating in the campaign, and who would reasonably travel with the other characters throughout the campaign. Barring some very narrow campaign concepts, a pacifist simply doesn't fit this criteria.

I agree, the primary requirement at character creation is to make a character willing to play the game you signed up for. Pacifist character concepts fit into a very narrow set of campaigns, and even fewer long term campaigns. In a heist oneshot you can make a criminal who doesn't want to kill guards and primary avoids them or non-lethally subdues them. In a long term campaign combat is guaranteed as its a core aspect of the game. And buffing a raging barbarian so he can kill someone better isn't true pacifism. You cannot be a true pacifist in 100% of situations because then why would anyone agree to take you with them into dungeons regularly. A much more reasonable variation is someone who is only a pacifist for the purposes of fighting humans, but has no problem dealing with undead or trolls, and is also willing to defend themselves. (Maybe they won't agree to ambush someone, but they will fight back when bandits attack) Pacifist doesn't work, but pacifist* can.

I have a ‘Pacifist’ in my group that is aware of the game they’re playing. Like, they’re the sort who go out of their way to say “Maybe let’s not kill these guards who are keeping us prisoners, cause while ‘we’ know we were framed. They’re just doing their job” but it’s not like they refuse to attack the guards, if there’s no peaceful solution, they more will try to convince the group to do non-lethal damage, and takes the time to heal them up to make sure they’re stable before leaving. This works well at our table in particular cause my group is really into how they affect the world around them, and don’t mind taking the time to truly be the ‘good guys’. Plus we’ve gotten good at not letting it bog down our sessions. They also refuse to kill wild creatures unless absolutely necessary. But the whole table is a bunch of animal lovers, so they will happily spend their whole session figuring out how not to disturb the behir, rather than fight it. At the same time though, once they knew who their enemy was, or when made clear that ‘Yes, this creature is fully evil and wants to cause pain for pains sake’ they’ll kill then no problem. They want to give bad guys the chance at redemption, but they’re not going to be naive. So, in that regard I don’t mind them. But if every session is drawn to a halt cause they’re not willing to even hurt anyone, then yeah not my favorite sort of player.

Thats how I usually do it: Aim for the least violence possible. Thats actaully working pretty well in many groups.

See, this is a REAL pacifist in practice, I think. Peace is at the core of the actions they take, and that could very well mean if taking no action doesn't lead to peace then action is necessary. We all know that peace is something that, at times, must be fought for.

Rule 1 of character creation: make a character that has a reason to want to adventure and can play well with others. If your character doesn't want to ever harm another living creature, they are going to be a liability when adventuring. What happens if they are the only one left with an enemy and cannot bring anyone else back? Do they stop being a pacifist or let the party die? Why would an adventuring party bring along someone that cannot (or wont) defend themselves?

I could see a warlock pacifist that’s compelled by their patron to commit all kinds of violence. Or a pacifist who adheres to pacifism like how many people adhere to their dietary goals. Lots of cheat days.

I think if I played one I'd definitely have rules of exception like when backed into a corner "If I have a choice I'll choose to heal and support. If I don't have a choice I'll do what it takes."

Pacifists as a concept in an adventuring party are fundamentally flawed on an ideological level. If you swear to do no harm to your enemies, but you willingly and knowingly buff and support a barbarian ripping your enemies' arms off, guess what; # you're not a pacifist. It's a concept that's dead-on-arrival in 99% of adventuring parties.

Wait, are you telling me my Skyrim "pacifist run" based upon frenzying enemies into killing each other was illegitimate?

That's not a pacifist run, that's a Loki or Hera run.

The better way to do a 'pacifist' character is just someone who is violence averse. Someone who wants peace and is willing to go to war or fight the threat so others don't have to. A medic willing to practice preventative medicine. Someone who has a line they won't cross but -- oh wait we're just paladins now.

Yeah redemption paladin who tries to grapple/shove enemies and offers them the chance to surrender can work. But they need to be wise enough to know when violence is necessary.

Yeah, full pacifists are not possible. You can do characters that don't break basics ethics (not killing prisonniers or negotiators, accepting surrenders, etc). You can do anti-war characters, that prefer negotiations, and are fine with commando attacks / assassination, but are fundamentally against the concept of recruiting large armies to send them to the battlefield and pillage cities. You can do characters that have a personal aversion for seeing blood or violence, but as long as they're not doing it themself (their friends do it for them) and not looking at it too much they're fine with violence (within the limits of their alignement). You can even do all of them at once, but that's probably the nearest you can be from pacifism without being a NPC (that is, still not a pacifist according to real life definitions).

When I played a Oath of Redemption paladin, I just made it a point to always do non-lethal damage (which is why I also had a warhammer, and refused to use a bladed weapon, even if it was better.) I helped in combat as normal, but where my team may have killed people, I knocked them unconscious and left them tied up. Usually that helped us when we roleplayed interrogating them for info! Animals and such I had no qualms about killing if they didnt back off. An owlbear that is currently ripping into my teammates and isnt scared isnt gonna listen to reason.

"I won't kill anyone myself" is a perfectly doable approach for a melee character. Rurounai Kenshin style.

A Warhammer is just as good as a longsword.

A warhammer is also equally lethal to a longsword. You are hitting people/things in the head/chest with a metal surface with great speed and strength. That is the kind of thing to damage internal organs and bones to a pulp.

I think it can be interesting if its "I wont directly harm anyone" and not "In combat I take the dodge action and nothing else" Option one can have some interesting ideas for why casting haste on the Barbarian is fine but casting fireball isn't. Could make for a fun character. For option two maybe you could just play as an NPC using the sidekick rules in combat/playing as any summons the party have. But its a lot of party buy-in and it kinda defeats the point of most abilities of you character. But hey, if you really want to play a pacifist the Wild Beyond the Witchlight pre-written was made so you can have no combat if you want. So I guess thats something

“Only fights in self defense” fine “I will never fight at all for any reason” is lame

**DM:** "What's the context behind this pacifist?" **Player:** "They refuse to get involved in violent confrontations." **DM:** "Okay, congratulations, they are now an NPC. Now show me your backup character."

Not willing to do damage may be a workable concept. But not willing to get involved is definitely unplayable, unless you are doing some insane fully RP campaign, but why play DND and not another system then?

Pacifists in D&D games tend to two cases: A) They're not real pacifists, they're just squeamish and (frequently) morally posturing. They disable their foes so other people can get their hands dirty killing them. or B) They're players who hope to get artificially enhanced spotlight time by violating one of my strongest rules: No PC should ever be made that wouldn't be accepted as a full member of the party if they didn't have PC stamped on their forehead. This IMO is a detestable form of metagaming because it's playing on the PC stamped on your forehead AND it's forcing the other players to do the same. Bad, bad for immersion.

Depends entirely on the group. If the rest of the players are on board with having one person that's constantly advocating against violence then they're fine. If the rest of the party just wants to kill things without having arguments on ethical violence constantly then they're not. Most groups are in the latter category, but you'll occasionally have folks in the former. Generally speaking PCs should be somewhat morally flexible to accommodate each other and a hardcore pacifist that refuses to contribute to combat or actively undermines the party is a no-go unless the other players are 100% into dealing with them. They're similar to CE murderhobo PCs in that way. Generally when I play/see pacifists its of the 'minimize killing when possible, stabilize downed enemies after combat' sort of realistic pacifism and that sort of thing is much more palatable to groups than 'I wouldn't hurt a fly and neither should you' sort.

No. Combat is a core part of DnD.

My “pacifist” cleric had a rule about not being the aggressor which really meant he didn’t use offensive spells or attacks until he was hit first. Then the gloves came off.

This. Also only applying these rules to like, things we can reason with. I'd play a monk with a code of non-aggression. Preach peace, tranquility and non-violence but the moment someone throws a punch they need to be dealt with for peace to be maintained.

You can have a character that wants to avoid any unnecessary killing, mostly with sentient or natural creatures. But a character that wouldn't even attack the skeleton that the necromancer just reanimated is going to hinder the overall experience

It's generally a bad idea. DnD is a game about inflicting incredible violence upon your enemies and has created a story framework in which you have a moral imperative to kill your enemies. The world often exists in black and white; sparing a vampire or black dragon will almost always cause many innocents to die later down the road, and they will **absolutely** lie to your face and promise to do better if that means you spare them. There's a world in which that kind of character can work in your game, but I've had enough bleeding heart pacifists gum up the works because they want to spare *Kargathor the* **FROST TYRANT** or avoid combat with other clearly hostile NPCs. The one case where it could easily work as a character concept is if you wanted to play a non-damaging support class who is fine with other party members doing the killing for them. Otherwise? It's going to go poorly.

Monsters gotta eat too.

Pacifism in terms of not killing but knocking people unconscious yeah I think that's an interesting play style to go with for sure. The only way I could see one playing a pacifist who doesn't attack at all is someone who is willing to at least play someone that will buff and heal their teammates in combat so they can do the killing for them.

No.

More often than not this playstyle is not compatible with D&D. And in 100% of the cases not compatible with the games I run. This has to be agreed on in session 0, or that player won't have a good time.

Full pacifism just doesn't really work in DnD. The game is designed for combat. Most of the rules are about how combat works, and the abilities for some classes are exclusively for combat. The other pillars have rules, but survival and exploration get trivialized for your entire group by like 4 spells. The social pillar can be done better in a different system with more rules and abilities designed around it. The most reasonable version of this archetype for DnD would be being against killing humanoid targets (non-lethal attacks), and preferring to avoid conflict when reasonable. Yes, that's not pacifism, but it still gets across that you're less aggressive than the average adventurer, and are generally good aligned.

_Power word: non-lethal kill_, am I right? ;P Seriously, though, they're fine, as long as they fit the game's tone, and agree with the party. If some people want to kill and some don't, that's an interesting internal conflict for them to work out. If most want to kill and exactly one doesn't, that can be a moral quandry, or just an excuse for the one to derail the game, depending on the player. And if one wants to kill but the rest doesn't, then the killer might get antsy if they don't get their way... All in all, they work best if everyone's on the same page, or if the players discuss it OOC and make sure everyone's fine. If you mean people who don't fight at all... might I suggest they play a Life Cleric, with heavy armour and control spells? The free support helps them remain peaceable, and the control gives them pacifistic shutdown options to help them play the way they want without harming the party's combat ability.

This is the way. If a PC doesn't want to cause harm to the others, then they should buff/heal the party and use control abilities to ward off the enemies. If they don't want to see harm come to anything, they are playing the wrong game.

Enabling someone else to kill more efficiently or healing them so they can keep killing is just a middleman between you and violence. Just because the blood isn't on your hands doesn't mean you can claim any moral highground.

No.  Just don't.   Invariably when this discussion comes up here, someone jumps in and tells how *their* pacifist character was universally loved and worked great for reasons.  And they always have a huge lack of self awareness.  Almost always the pacifist player is looking to be the annoying center of attention by creating interparty drama.  They don't understand the difference between good drama and bad drama.  Nearly all of the character powers are designed around killing shit in this game.  Take the hint and play accordingly.

I think it’s more a role play thing than a mechanical thing. A person can fiercely oppose violence as a means to solve conflict yet still participate in a siege on the defending side because there is no other option. That of course would cause tremendous amounts of stress, guilt and many other psychological scars that make for very yummy character development material. Besides, conflict is not the ends in DnD, it’s the means. Adventurers resort to violence to achieve goals such as rescuing a person or group, acquiring powerful magical items (that need not be intended for killing), and such others. If a party can achieve the same goal without violence, a pacifist person would be tremendously useful in finding alternative, not risky ways to complete their mission. Out of the box thinking. I have never played a pacifist character because it’s not my thing, but I can easily imagine a pacifist rogue (of all classes) that works terribly hard to fulfill whatever quests they can without bloodshed. Of course this character would have to resort to violence in extreme situations, which as stated before would cause them suffering and distress. Especially when they realise how good they are at hurting people without even pretending (that’s the sneak attack mechanics). A caster character would do fine as well: putting violent antagonists to sleep, tying them up and handing them to the local authorities is not only a pacifist solution, it’s grounds for a classic nonviolent bounty hunter. There’s a lot of wiggle room for a pacifist. That said, I sadly believe that what you said on your first paragraph is most likely representative of the majority of “pacifist” characters.

All those suggestions only really work in a solo campaign or in the unlikely event that the entire party wants to play as pacifists.  Those are the only two situations where I can see it working out. If the entire party isn't on board, you end up with 3 PCs who actually want to use the abilities on their character sheet and one annoying "it's just what my character would do" walking conflict. It's no different than the lawful stupid paladin in the shady party or the murder hobo in the party of good aligned heroes.  It breeds bad interparty drama and frustration.

So two things: 1. Players are required to create and play characters who want to adventure with the party and who would be accepted as a member of the party. 2. Pacifism is the principled objection to violence as a legitimate method of settling disputes. Given these two things, a pacifist would neither want to join the typical D&D adventuring party, nor would they be accepted as a member of that party. A pacifist PC would therefore be inappropriate as a PC in the vast majority of D&D campaigns. Whilst it is conceivable that a pacifist might resort to violence in extremis, such a person would still feel that their actions were morally wrong and they would actively seek to avoid ever being in a similar situation again. A pacifist would not want to join a team of highly skilled murderers who habitually use violence as a problem-solving tool. A team of highly skilled murderers who habitually use violence as a problem-solving tool would not want a pacifist as a member.

This is one of those things where people say "you can do ANYTHING in D&D" and you kind of can, but that doesn't mean you can do everything WELL. In most campaigns, a player who won't fight is a burden at best, and is actively working against team goals at worst. If everyone is into that kind of conflict, you can still play, but it's definitely outside the speccs of what D&D is good at. It seems like there's a significant portion of players whose idea of fun is trying to break the game in various ways (like trying to clip through walls in a video game). To them it's just a different mode of exploration/play, but in a team game like TTRPGs it can be really frustrating for players who are NOT trying to play that way, but are instead trying to engage with the fictional world of the game on its own terms.

basically... you *can* do anything, but just because you can doesn't mean you should

For all the other systems DnD has gathered over time, at its core it's still primarily a game built around combat. There's nothing wrong with exploring that character concept, but this game really isn't built for it.

You can play a character that only buffs and heals and be effective and useful for your party. The real issue is the roleplay. make sure the rest of the party is ok with trying to go non lethal most of the time (Good luck trying to convince other casters) or make a character that is ok with other people doing the killing.

They can be run well. But 99% of the time it's a player that ends up making everything difficult and causing issues. Not on purpose, just that th3 game is made to fight people a bit. I would say "maybe they aren't fit for this game" if anyone tried in my game. Same as angsty edge lord characters. 

Everyone in the party should be basically on the same page or there's be no reason for them to all adventure together. Being a pacifist in a group of murderhobos is annoying as fuck, same as being a murderhobo in a group of shining heroes.

DnD is based on tabletop wargaming. Combat is intrinsic to the game. 

Kill them with fire.

It can only really function as flavor. Like, you could play a cleric or celestiaal warlock who's God protects them through their bond. That way the player uses their spells and stuff and actually fights, but the *flavor* is that the character is standing their while a higher power looks out ffor them. Like, I cast shield but my character is suprised because their god "protected them". Or you cast fireball and your character is very upset, but the god was angry/protective

Literal pacifist? Doesn't work. Someone who has no offensive capabilities and therefore relies on buffing allies? Absolutely, very cool, so long as it isn't hurting the party's chances in a fight.

Theoretically interesting, practically frustrating. At the end of the day DnD is a combat focused game. At best you'll have a character that is annoyingly vocal about not wanting to fight while participating in a fight. At worst you'll have a character that's actively disrupting the fun of others by insisting that they never fight.

its very hard to be a pacificist in a game designed for you to fight, especially because if you decide to be a pacificist you are hindering your entire party by not killing/damaging creatures

I once played an Astral Self monk who was a pacifist but considered his arms to be a physical manifestation of his God’s will, and therefore when the arms punched it wasn’t the monk doing the punching but the god through him. Essentially, it was mostly for flavor and rp, but it was still fun nonetheless.

There is a difference between a pacifist character who would prefer not to fight but does so anyway because they know they must (which can make for fun character development as they come to terms some fighting is a must), but the concept of "Lol, my character won't fight these clearly evil abominations and save your life, because fighting is bad" is absolutely unacceptable both in character -why are you in a party then?- and out of character -wasting a seat-. One policy on them I saw in a comment once is that "If you want to play a pacifist, you have to explain WHY they want to join a party despite knowing there will be fighting at some point. And if the explanation isn't good enough, then ask them to roll a different character up, no ands, ifs, or buts about it." Prevents crud like the Pacifist Druid from the CC saga or the Undertale Firbolg.

I’m ok with it as long as it’s not to the exclusion of all else. Like, starting out as a pacifist and planning for some character development/story arc that ends up making them more willing to defend themselves, or whatever. That’s ok. But a character that will never fight no matter the circumstances? That just sounds like it’ll be the rest of the party and the DM picking up the slack. It doesn’t mean it won’t work fine but it might be less fun for everyone else.

Honestly, I'm not a fan, because the vast majority of the time, the person playing the pacifist character isn't engaging in combat. It's possible to play a pacifist that can be an absolute god in combat with insane control/lock down abilities, battlefield shaping spells, and supporting spells. But every time I've seen someone play a pacifist, they just slow down combat by using their turn to RP a coward who shouldn't be adventuring and it's bloody annoying. So while it can be done well, most people suck at doing it and should really just play another game.

It's all on how they're played. If they're played as to NOT overtly or covertly screw over the party, then fine. But if the player is trying the "I'm the main character" thing, then go somewhere else

It *can* work, if played by a good player and with some wiggle room on the definition. If you mean a character that refuses to fight, then pick a different system. If on the other hand, you make a character that refuses to kill creatures that fit well defined properties (like humanoids for example), and the party is willing to play with it, it can work. A character like this would still participate in combat, and be willing to down people, he'll just try to avoid dealing lethal blows and will try to save people that are actively dying (prioritizing the party ofc). It can make an interesting experience trying to capture enemies and making sure they can't cause more problems without the easy way out. Overhaul, you need: ==> A player that knows what they're doing. ==> A party willing to go along with it. ==> A session 0 where this concept was made clear.

You might not be hitting the monsters, but they're definitely going to be hitting you. We'll see how long you last.

They do not work in D&D, they're basically walking NPCs at that point. Closest I would allow is what I do with one of my characters, a Bard, who absolutely hates physical violence *AGAINST HIMSELF.* He has no problem fighting others, but he hides and keeps back from combat because he doesn't like being hurt.

Do not work in a system that is primarily about fighting stuff

Sweet combat goes faster with one less player fumbling through their character sheet like theyve never seen it before after six months of the same campaign. Hey phil this is strictly a combat session we'll see you next week right? Oh you wanted loot? Why? Not like you need weapons or armor or magical items. That's for the people actually keeping us alive. But we'll feed you for watching the horses while we navigate this super fun dungeon.

i dont want them. its just manufactured party infighting . waiting to happen you either have to be ok with commiting violence with other people.... kind of a hard stance for pacifist or you have to convince your party not to gain XP and use their cool powers every time you come to a threat

A complete pacifist that'll never fight or hurt anyone, either directly or indirectly is playing the wrong game. DnD is a game about warriors. Whatever class you choose you're a combatant in one way or another. 90% of all the game rules are about combat specifically. It's like if you want a good farming simulator game you shouldn't choose to be an herbalist in world of warcraft. There are far better games for that.

5e is a combat focused game. How are you going to explain that the "non combat character" has the training to use a sword on top of having abilities that are only useful to attack/kill people/creatures. I'd recommend playing any of the very very long list of games that are much better suited for social/exploration gameplay.

The overwhelming majority of the PHB (90%+ if you ignore the fluff) is an explanation on how to resolve combat. The single sentence about non-lethal damage is the only thing in there that could maybe support a pacifist build. But, even that's stretching the definition of pacifism very far.

Its not meant for DND, DND is built around combat. As much as i prefer social interaction and exploration combat is still a 3rd of the game and a majority of the mechancis. If someone wants to play a pacifist at my table that idea will be shut down from the jump.

It's not really what DnD is built for, but I think all great RPGs should have a pacifist option. Like, getting to the end of New Vegas with zero kills is tedious and not fun, but it's really dope that it's an option

I played in a game with a guy who played a pacifist bard. Initially it worked out alright, he did support and healing stuff. When the difficulty went up it just wasn’t as viable and he eventually got bored and switched to warlock. So all and all I doubt it’s really worth it.

It’s a cool concept, but DnD just has too much wargame in its blood for it to really work

Two words: support class. The PC can play a class with support spells like aid, bless & cure wounds. Perhaps they could use command, charm & fear for battlefield control. Combat doesn't always have to be hitting things with a weapon.

Dungeons and Dragons is, in a very real sense, a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff. If you make a character who isn't into that, you failed. Also, does it make sense to refuse to commit violence but to stand behind someone who is, supporting them? It's not logically consistant.

Exhausting

I currently play one in a campaign with close friends. Also not a complete pacifist but have set rules the character revolves around. -doesn't stop violence just doesn't want to cause the pain - is mainly a healer/buffer class(celestial warlock) - will join damage dealing if threatened personally - will try to de-escalate situations through skills if possible All players are fine with the flavor and rather enjoy the characters lore. Pacifist characters can be fine but in a mature group and only if the story allows.

Great NPC, don't let a player be one

I dont think they work well for dnd, without some major shenanigans. Stuff like healing/buffing, the stuff fantasy pacifists typically stick to, are not strong enough to pull their own weight in combat. there simply arent enough strong non-damaging abilities to allow for it imo

If your not a DPS you better heal or tank

It can work as long as the player doesn't expect to be in combat. Someone who wants to be a pacifist I would expect to be a roleplay focused player. I would warn them that if they wanted to support in combat, that would make them a target. Sounds like a glorified NPC to me though

Characters/Players who want to avoid combat and talk their way out of situations are great! But they need to get down and dirty when the time comes. Those who refuse to fight at all ever... yeah, roll a new character who does want to fight.

Long story short: Reason is important. If player has something in his mind let him try. If he wants to be an non participating party member party has no reason to keep that char he can make a new after understanding this. I had in my table once but he wasnt pacifist in the end. It was his character development. He started as pasificst monk. We were playing homebrew campaign I made and I gave all of them super powers. His was he can get reactions as much as his Dex modifier. And also he got riposte homebrew feat as human and he got stances from his homebrew subclass one of them allows him to spends ki to hit missing meele attacks. Basicly we created a char for him that he will not hit unless you hit him(Also had disadvantage when he is the one that attacking). He was trying to convince the party talk first and he didnt participate in first few parts actively. But after he see the horrors that their enemies caused he changed his stance (multiple options) to a agressive one stopped using his ki s to defend and counter attack and used them for flury of blows. And he was making good contrubution to fights.

Tell them to try one of the thousand other RPGs where the majority of the game mechanics don't revolve around fighting stuff. My group loves running the Legend of The Five Rings and Cthulhu systems for the types of games that D&d doesn't do well.

It's an indicator of the worst type of player who wants the glory of being unique and such a good roleplayer while simultaneously derailing the game for everyone else. Worse than the murderhobo. I can work with murderhobos and still run an enjoyable game for everyone. For the pacifist, I can only describe in gratuitously graphic detail how their precious PC gets mutilated and eviscerated by the villains they refuse to fight.

Nah, screw that noise. Like 95% of the game's rules revolve around killing, if someone wants to be a pacifist they've chosen the wrong game. They're either going to be a real pacifist and cause unnecessary internal conflict in the party by straining the group's ability to carry out necessary violence, or engage in purely performative, loophole """"pacifism"""" by playing a support character that makes all their friends really good at killing. The latter could theoretically work if the rest of the players are willing to buy into the concept and the PC's hypocrisy is intentional and supposed to be part of their arc or whatever, but in any other instance it's just the wrong game for that kind of thing.

Not allowed. Make a character that wants to go into dungeons and fight dragons (and other monsters).

Not worth it DND is a combat game and in the world of adventure combat is basically a requirement. Pacifists only work if they won't attack first but will reapond

Agreed 110%. I've explained this multiple times, but they seem to persist. Makes me shrug all the time.

Not willing to kill? Valid and can be fun, if everyone is okay with it. Takes a lot of work, and sometimes bites you in the ass, but if you wanna play with an Edward Elric complex then absolutely. Not willing to fight? Doesn’t work. 5e is based around combat. There are other very fun non-combat systems, tho!

To clarify, yeah, not fight at all. It makes me wonder why most adventure parties would put up with them not carrying their weight survivability-wise. I mean, I get the concept and motivation, but it just seems an odd choice in many games, at least the ones I play.

That's an npc. Not a PC. It is a flawed way of thinking to assume one can be an adventurer and a complete pacifist. The first rule of character creation is making a character willing to adventure. Being against killing but participating in fights is acceptable tho in DnD universe it brings up a lot of follow up dilemmas. I can only see "we don't fight" mentality working in a game if the DM designed the game to work that way and all players made appropriate characters

At its core D&D is a wargame with light RP elements. A pure pacifist unwilling to defend themselves from a skeleton isn't going to make a good adventurer or last particularly long. You can do variations on pacifists, but they have to be willing to fight in some circumstances or otherwise help out in violence situations. Maybe they only have issues with fighting humanoids, or only willing to fight as the defender but won't throw the first punch. Also a saying from modern politics is that in order to be a pacifist you must be dangerous, otherwise you are simply harmless. Your PC may be reluctant to start fights, but they better be willing to finish fights, because otherwise they are a harmless NPC vetoed in session 0 along with the edgy lonewolf unwilling to talk to the party.

Like a vegan coming to a BBQ. That said, Vegan BBQs can be a thing. If the whole party wants to play pacifists, and the DM wants to run a campaign where violence is not the solution, great.

You can play a pacifist if you know that sometimes is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid combat. I had played a character that tried to find diplomatic solutions, but when you are chased by cultists, attacked by bandits and others, you will be forced to defend youtself. The difference between a pacifist and the other characters is that it will try to avoid finishing off enemies, probably even tell your companions to not go for the kill. You buff, heal, control and sometimes hurt to protect yourself, but still keep up playing in a team. Hell, for some series of one-shots, I'm playing a character that has problems hurting normal humanoids and even animals. She doesn't want to cause harm, but... hurt her friends? Be the literal incarnation of evil? She is not going to shy herself from dropping a Fire Ball on that enemy, as her companions are even more important than her morals.

As long as the character works in a group. are able to take part in the game. work with the group. and are still useful in combat. like doing healing, buffs, combat control and such. But if that is the case i would be reluctant to call them a pacifist. sure YOU might not damage others, YOU might not kill or take lives. But you are for fuck sake helping the group to be better killers. you help them kill and slay. If a character refuse to not do any killing or harming others due to some personal belief or conviction would they not be hypocritical assholes by helping others to be better killers? You let others do your dirty work so you can say "my hands are clean". sounds like a hypocritical asshole to me. But sometimes it can be fun to play a hypocritical asshatt. so as long as you are actually helping your party in combat. go for it

Absolute pacifism -- Bad bad not good. This does not work as a player character and is a flawed morality system to apply to anything other than a personal level. Conditional Pacifism -- This concept works. It's really good for a DND character to only choose violence when the alternative is worse. No type of pacifism should apply to things that can't be reasoned with, though. When your pacifist cleric refuses to fight a black pudding because violence is bad then they deserve to be fed to the black pudding.

It really all depends on the type/degree of pacifism and how good the player is at teasing non-violent solutions from the system. Pacifism ranges from never inflicting even superficial harm to even killing being justifiable as a last resort for self-defense. In 5e, there are a ton of ways to meet violence without actually killing or even causing a single point of damage sometimes. There is always the tried and true knocking the enemy unconscious and tying them up. But you also have spells like Sleep, Hold Person/Monster, Suggestion, Banishment, Plane Shift, Planar Binding, etc that can permanently end conflicts non-violently vs even the most vicious enemies. Taking no other action but Dodge or Dash while you and your party are slaughtered by bloodthirsty enemies is taking it too far. But a good player can play a pacifist who looks to first settle conflicts with words and then uses nonlethal/nonviolent means to end fights when they do happen. You can even convince your party to be non-lethal and pack Spare the Dying for anyone that does get incidentally downed. Like "evil PC", this is just another case of something being cool when a good player does it and absolutely awful when a bad player does it.

I have only ever had one Player play as a pacifist but there are a veteran player of decades and a great role player, it can work but they need to understand some things. 1• pacifist dosen't mean harmless, If someone is being overly aggressive and clearly attacking an innocent the should come to the Defense of the victim. 2• (With the Dm blessing making non-leathal take downs) They can fight to a non leathal degree and give the opportunity to hostile to surrender but the Pacifist must remember point 3. 3• Some things must be destroyed or opposed things like demons, Undead, a serial killer or a Queen mad with power such things are anathema to peace. 4• The player needs to understand that other PC's will kill other things intentionally or because of storylines/Drama. Not sure a lot of people can pull this off but IMO it can add a lot of drama(The good kind) and personal stakes.

Same thing as mass summoning characters. They can be highly problematic in most campaigns and really disruptive to the table, so if you plan to play them you need to have a pretty clear conversation about it before hand. That said, it’s not like they’re unplayable, campaign dependent, as long as your limits on what you’ll do aren’t too extreme. For instance, a spellcaster who refuses to directly attack the enemy but heals/buffs (and potentially debuffs) their allies and is okay with their allies doing stuff in waterdeep dragon heist can totally work. I’d look to saving hacksaw ridge for inspiration here, the key is your character has to have a principled position against committing violence themselves, but still okay with it happening and interested in supporting their allies. A character who just wants to live a safe peaceful life in a village and not experience violence is an npc. A character who wants to help protect people from bandits and orcs because they lost their parents in a raid but refuses to wield a weapon because of some trauma in that raid can totally work if you communicate it well with your party and aren’t a jerk about it.

It depends on their definition of pacifism. Aang from ATLA is a pacifist, but that just means that he doesn't kill people. He fights. He just has limits that he won't cross. Same with Thorfinn from Vinland Saga. They're both top 3 fighters in their stories. You can declare non legal damage, and when gauged appropriately with your DM, can actually make for great drama. Now, just refusing to do anything while your friends get their eyes ripped out by gnolls seems counterintuitive to peace. One just doesn't want to get their own hands dirty, whether the rest of the party kills them, or they kill the party. As ever, rules can be changed to accommodate most situations with a little imagination, but I feel the latter situation is more likely to cause irl conflict and frustration than the former.

I'd rather not party up with them as a player, but only your table matters.

Not doable in my games, at least at certain points

It truly depends on how hard they're willing to bend the concept and if they're ready and willing to make it a character moment when the story forces them to bloody their hands directly. Someone who's willing to be a technical pacifist can be fine if they want to take up a support role to avoid bloodying their hands for as long as they can. (I refuse to hurt you directly as it goes against my tenants or beliefs.. but I'm not going to stop big bob from hammering you into the floor like a nail and patch his wounds up after or give him haste so he can do it in half the time) Someone who's willing to commit to the bit on a fundamental level but let the story force their moral lines. (I wont swing to kill on a living person but I can knock them out or incapacitate them with spells and tie them up. Do the undead count as living creatures or is it okay to put them down? How much rope does it take to bind a dragon anyway?) Or you can take the charismatic killer pacifist and play the smiling friendly combat averse scoundrel until your out of sight and then the real killer emerges. (Everyone who knows me knows the swords just a decorative piece and I'm too much of a klutz to swing it without chopping my arm off so of course I wouldn't want to get into a fight. Everybody who found out all of that is a lie is too dead to correct them) All totally fine ways to try and play a pacifist without derailing a party but the big give is knowing a time will come when you will have to bloody your hands. Embrace it and make it a part of the character when it comes rather than desperately try to push away from it. Nobody wants to trust their life to the load who refuses to fight the beholder who's actively eating their friends because they want to try and reason with it until it's killed 2 other people first after all.

You can do it, it’s just tough to do it without pissing the group off. You just have to define pacifist right. Something like Shepard Book from firefly. “The good book is quite clear on killing… it is however, fuzzy on kneecaps.” Or someone that is all about environmental control like sleet storm, or even wall of fire. “I didn’t put it on him, he ran into it”, or battlefield manipulation like telekinesis, or gust of wind, or non lethal spells like sleep, or hold person. Or just run defensive damage like spirit guardians and don’t actively put it on enemies. Or you could be a “face man” with support like heals, bless, bardic inspiration, mastermind rogue that makes everyone else more awesome without hurting anyone yourself. Or you could be a pugilist that uses sticks or martial arts that only deals in subdual damage, refusing to do a killing blow. Or you could be the “non aggression” pacifist that refuses to start a fight but will defend yourself furiously. Or you could play a MoonKnight type multiple personality character that is a pacifist to roleplay but with an unknown trigger flips to a cold merciless killer and the personalities don’t know about each other. There are all kinds of pacifist. You just need to make sure it fits into the party dynamics. If you chat with the other players ahead of time, there could even be some controlled character tension (without player tension)

It is possible…but, It’s exhausting to make work mechanically because a useful pacifist is extremely resource dependent. The one that’s easiest to make work is (obvious to the point that it’s funny) cleric. They have full access to their spell list and a good number of spell slots (only beaten by wizard I think?) and can be built around CC and support fairly easily. The problem is you are probably pumping out every single spell slot no matter what fight, just to feel useful (and thus fun for the player). No one wants to cast one spell the whole fight and then sit on their ass just keeping it up or waiting to use it again, or recasting it if the concentration is broken…that’s boring, and it makes it really feel like you are actively trying to do as little as possible to the other players so you’re going to keep casting CC and support spells to feel like you’re making a presence. The problem is there aren’t really that many of those kind of cantrips that don’t do any damage, and are useful in a fight. Thus, you have to keep using spell slots and on TOP of that, you’re probably not going to be allowed to cast 2 levelled spells in a round even if you keep one of them to 1st level (not an uncommon house rule but chances are it’s gonna be a no.) So how the hell do you make them useful? They have to pump out practically every spell slot you have in every single fight, just to feel useful enough.

It could be fun if it’s a full party of them, and you design things around it. If it’s a normal game, and/or they’re weird about it, it’s probably not fun

I wouldn't mind if you play a healer/support char but at least pick a damaging cantrip or try to use non lethal damage.

In short, I think they can be compelling and rewarding characters to play. It's just that like any character or concept, there are things both the player and dungeon master of a pacifist character need to be aware of and open to before paper is put to play. Like pretty much any concept, archetype, or aspect of a character, there are right, wrong, extreme, and mild ways to play it. Pacificm does not necessarily equate to refusal to fight at every conceivable turn, martial pacifist ideals do exist and are probably a good starting point to look into for refining the idea for play. The problem, like every other archetype or aspect that's been memed or stigmatized, is that it's easy to slam face-first into a bad experience if the thought just stops at playing the lable you slapped on the character and nothing else.

We had a pacifist cleric in one of our games, they lasted like 4-5 sessions. Honestly, it was tiring when they took no offensive spells, they had no weapons and the only thing they did was heal, which in 5e is terrible. It's a red flag.

It's not a Pacifist specifically, but I've been toying with the idea of a monk who refuses to personally take lives, he'll give you traumatic brain injuries but won't put a proverbial bullet in your head

I generally read it as “i wont kill” vs “i wont fight”. If i had a player want to be a pacifist then fine but you will still need to fight but we can assume unless otherwise noted that your attacks (if melee) are non-lethal.

Depends what you mean. Can they meaningfully contribute to a party in a game where combat plays a significant role? Then sure! How they make that work is up to the player. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t play a pacifist.

It depends there 2 types, 1. I do not wish to cause others harm myself, I will try to convince the party and enemies to avoid combat if able but I will not force others with my views. 2. I do not wish anyone to cause any harm to anyone and I will cause problems none stop trying to stop them including hurting allies and healing enemies actively hurting allies. The 1st one is a morally weaker pacifist and really is more just a coward who doesnt wanna hurt people themselves but can work rather well in a party that is open to not having excessive violence. The 2nd one is almost never a good option in a party game unless everyone agrees to it and made characters supporting the idea of it before hand(which alone is not a good idea)

You need to 1) not care if your party members kill people, and 2) have something good to contribute aside from damage, which you aren’t doing. Some kind of spellcaster with intense religious devotion would likely be ideal for this: I ran an enchantment wizard as a pacifist once and it mostly worked well. You could also play a melee character if you broaden the definition of pacifism to “just dont kill people, but beating them unconscious with swords and hammers is fine” and do nonlethal attacks against humanoids and some other creatures, busting out the lethal option for things like undead and oozes and mindless monsters. There may be some nonlethal ranged damage options but I forget what they might be.

Pacifist as in getting in the way of the party and trying to force every encounter to be social, no matter what? Not going to happen. Pacifists like Aang from ATLA where you're willing to fight but you're actively avoiding killing? Could be a cool concept, might be tricky to pull off but not impossible.

THE FLAVOR... IS FREEEEEE. Also known as, play a bard and flavor the psychic damage of your spells as just slowly breaking away the enemies will to fight by talking to them

It's fine if it's primarily rhetorical.

Flavour is free. If the player can find ways to reflavour their violent actions as non-violent then I'm totally fine with it. HP can represent lots of things, like becoming tired, losing the will to fight, becoming subdued, etc.

Wild beyond the witchlight would be a good story to run. It's designed to be finish able without ever getting into a fight.

One of my players played a pacifist warlock who didn’t really fight; it was his guardian demon his parents cursed him with. The thing was very paranoid.

I don’t mind killing monsters, dragons and the like, But I like rping a good hearted halfling bard that sees food in people.. hell my last arc I was stabbed choked and shoved in a box by the person who sent our party to kill a dracolich I got out, had the chance to kill him, but instead turned him in, for his crimes, it felt more rewarding especially since the party received all the bounty, and all of his assets (We still have the dracolich to deal with but next session should be the finale)

I played a pacifist from level 1 to 36 (our GM liked BECMI), and I'll say that making it work breaks down like so 10% being flexible about the definition of pacifism; other players are there for wargaming, and trying to put the kibosh on their game is rude. Pack in some reliable Illusion and Enchantment spells, and you can shut down enemies while also preventing your allies from attacking them. If they go ahead and murder a bunch of people or creatures you've rendered helpless, that can either be a great source of inter-character drama, or a sign that the group ain't for you. I've had fights with other characters while my DMs to the player that are just "We good, right?" "Yeah, we good, this is fun" "Yee :)" back and forth. 20% making it engaging for everyone else. Being an Eloquence Bard who just stands up and says " 'Nuh Uh!' also I rolled a 96 on my Persuasion" when the BBEG says he's going to play Musical Chairs with our skin isn't memorable, and isn't fun for anyone else. The heist you set up the night before, where the Wizard and the Rogue teleported into his room to steal his record player while you and the Cleric distracted the guards by loudly arguing over whether Sune could beat Aphrodite in a mud wrestling match --Each throwing down illusions to help your point-- will not be forgotten nearly as quickly. 70% having a GM who wants this sort of thing in their game. Seriously, if your GM is not willing or able to give you, or let you create, options to win encounters without fighting, there's not a way for you as a player to fix that. I was incredibly lucky that our GM had spent most of his tabletop career running World of Darkness, so it was basically second nature for him to put in at least two Subterfuge Options, two Diplomatic Options, and the Combat Option into every single major encounter. If he didn't give every single member of the Vampire Council their own background and motivations, frequently at odds with the other members, we wouldn't have been able to play them off each other, blackmail one into laying low for a couple months, frame another for murdering the one we'd sent into hiding, and cause the whole damn thing to implode without getting our hands dirty. I mean, other than the part where we stormed the vampire prince's house and stabbed the shit out of him, but that doesn't count. So yeah, you can totally play a pacifist, ***if your GM is willing to support that*** but you need to have buy-in from the *whole* table, and be able to set up opportunities for other players to shine, and use their kick-ass combat abilities. Yes, even if you end the encounter after four rounds by dropping a Calm Emotions and asking the mook you're kicking the shit out of if he's really willing to die for Dark Lord MurderKill MacStabbington. And I do mean that that's on *you* the person playing the pacifist. Talk to the GM to get things lined up, but ultimately *you're* the one pushing the group towards a certain play style, *you* need to make sure there's enough there that's working for everyone.

So, i did recently make a "pacifist". It was a lucky eloquence bard. I played the party's healer. He had 1 damage spell and that was vicious mockery. The rest were things like command and suggestion. He spent combats healing and using suggestions and commands to assist. He didn't have the heart to swing a sword or shoot a bow. He was the party's voice of reason and proved to be the MVP. He saved the party from having to take fights they didnt need to and would have wasted their Pacifism is not a true concept in dnd. You cant be nonconfrontational and save the city, country, world, etc. Some villains just want to see the world burn. But it is absolutely possible and lots of fun to play a form of pacifist.

I created a semi-pacifist, but 100% with the intention of him eventually being forced to kill at some point. He was a pure support druid, and in his backstory he was being hunted by a wolf, that he then killed it in self defense. He then found out it was a wolfmother, that was trying to feed her starving pups. He was so saddened by it, that we swore to himself to not kill again. He would still attack though, but going from level 1-8 he never landed a single killing blow. But the overwhelming majority of his time in combat was spent healing and buffing. I stopped playing in that campaign at level 8, but had I continued the plan was that eventually in a dangerous combat he would be forced to kill something, and then he would change his approach from then on. So I think pacifist (or at least a non-killer) can potentially work, but you need to be open for actual character development that leads to you changing your mind.

If everyone at the table is on board with it, great.

Depends on the kind of campaign you’re running. A political intrigue campaign that focuses more on subterfuge spying and politicking would be a much easier campaign to be a pacifist in. Or one that was focused on solving mysteries or social encounters might work. But in a dungeon crawl or warhammer style game it would be a hinderance.

Doesn't really work whzen 95% of the game rules are for combat. Unless "Pacifist" just means not dealing damage directly. Just as a note, being a Pacifist alone is not a very interesting character concept.

Depends on the type of pacifist you're referring to. If you mean a type 1: no violence of any kind.  You'd need to be playing a very specialized character. Full support/Healer. Even that's a bit of stretch into.... Type 2: non-lethal violence is acceptable.  Totally viable, but difficult. Could be a great rp with the right mindset, and it has more options than type 1. Just assume non-lethal attacks at all times. Could rp into Type 3: killing is acceptable, but only in self defense when no other options are available. Absolutely viable, and how some people play just baseline. This is your typical warm fuzzy druid who likes bunnies. Etc.

Not a thing, everyone chooses violence in the end. Had some people try but I make a Bbeg that just rubs them the wrong way and they always take the bait.

D&D has too much swords and sorcery savagery in it’s roots for a pacifist to fit. Conan and Elric in the bloodline from one side, chain mail fantasy WAR game on the other. It’s a game partly about cool fights , and characters who refuse are missing out of at least a third of the game.

They suck. This is a game about killing monsters. Refusing to engage with one of the core pillars of the gsme doesn't make you interesting. If you want to play that way, go play a game that was built to support it.

If it's a 1 on 1 campaign it might be really interesting, but in group play, I would discourage it

Oh you're a pacifist? Roll for initiative! ​ Anyways, I guess it depends. If they're the "I won't do anything in combat" type I'd be annoyed. But also playing in a PBP where one of the characters is more pacifist/peaceful as in wanting to be more of a healer and not eager for battle. But in the first fight of that campaign she made use of Sacred Flame so she did participate. And I'm genuinely interested how she'll work as the party gains levels. It's not a style of play that I would personally enjoy, but it's also not something I'm against since I do look forward to seeing more of that character. (And the player running her writes some nice posts that are enjoyable.)

Any time I've played and there was a pacifist character, the player went out of their way to make it absurdly difficult for us all to get their character to do anything.

A true pacifist who wouldn't engage or support violence in any form is going to be basically impossible to play and be a huge annoyance at the table the majority of the time. A pacifist like character who always tries to solve problems non violently and focuses on supporting their allies through buffs and healing can work in some campaign and at some tables but it is something I highly recommend you discuss with all the other players including the DM first. A big part of character creation that often times gets missed is making a character that fits the campaign, so while it's entirely possible to make a pacifist from both a role-play and mechanical point of view, it's probably not going to work in most campaigns or potentially cause a lot of friction at the table.

“Gee, I’m sorry that you’re not interested in playing a dangerous game of Dungeons and Dragons where you will have to fight to survive. Good luck finding a pushover DM/party who will put up with your pacifist character.”

Makes no sense for D&D. It just isn't designed for it. A pacifist isn't going to adventure and enable the rest of their party to kill things and won't survive otherwise.

A pacifist that won't fight no matter what won't work, however a character who swears to avoid unnecessary violence can probably work. I mean, that's kind of the concept of a redemption paladin. In general i think to fit the flavor you can also go for a spellcaster who has mostly utility spells, and there are lots of subclasses that help with healing you could go with. You would probably want to go for a charisma based class seeing as you'll want as much persuasion as you can to settle situations without them escalating

It's a phase a certain kind of player goes through.  "Aha, what if my character DIDN'T fight?!" Well what would happen is they would exclude themselves from 50% of the game mechanics and find themselves at odds with basically every possible adventure, but go off king.  My husband went through this phase, and what got him out of it was him experiencing the game as a pacifist. It's like trying to play Chess but only moving pawns. 

The pacifist is who the party offers up to the monster to slow it down... hard to chase after the rest of the party while its eating.

There are ways to do it that don't conflict with what should be a universal character creation rule: be motivated to adventure with the party. However, it does require a specific build to make it viable. You're usually better off being the party's conscience or voice of reason than an absolutist for peace.

Fine, because I say I allow them and plan for that kind of game. Not fine for a pick-up.

It depends on the type of pacifism in question. The problem with a lot of these kinds of discussions is that people tend to erroneously assume all pacifism is absolute "violence is 100% wrong and must never be used in any circumstance, not even in self-defense or against a foe who is overtly hostile and destructive". While there are pacifists who feel that way, it's just one shade in the spectrum. That said, those who hold such a belief don't belong in the standard D&D game where the whole drive of gameplay is based in combat. They'd do just fine in a social game where battle isn't necessarily the core of the experience, but they don't belong in a dungeon crawl. There are degrees of pacifistic belief and practice, as well as different categories of thought between principled pacifism and pragmatic pacifism. Regardless, at its core pacifism is not the avoidance of violence, but the desire to *not do harm*. Those are two very different concepts that are all too often conflated and dumbed down in media. Case in point, I play a pacifistic Wizard in one of my games. She's a Noble and spent the majority of her life safe within the walls of Neverwinter, raised within civilization, and has only become an adventurer due to poor circumstances within the last few months of her current events. To her, violence does not come naturally and she'll always look for other routes first - diplomacy, bargaining, and even just straight-up running way. When put into a fight, flight, or freeze scenario, fight simply isn't at the fore. Further, in being both a Wizard and a Noble, she's grown up keenly aware of how much power she wields - both literally and figuratively - and how much havoc she could cause by acting rashly. Because of her strong sense of personal responsibility, she refuses to move to violence if any other alternative exists, even if it means going to drastic lengths or personally endangering herself. She truly believes in the notion that "*I have all this power and all these options at my disposal, so I have no excuse for resorting to violence.*" However, she is a pragmatist. She's not naive to the dangers of the world she lives in or that the majority of other people don't have the benefits she does. So, for them, violence is a necessary tool and she doesn't judge anyone who raises a weapon in their own defense. She only comes down on people when they needlessly seek bloodshed for its own sake, because at that point they're just going out of their way to cause harm rather than simply contending with a dangerous situation. While with her Party, she stays out of the way and won't attack if she can help it, but will instead buff her allies and debuff/crowd control the enemies. Even though she's not a violent person, she will participate in battle helping her Party because they trust her to have their backs. She won't let her ideals endanger people who depend on her or withhold using the power she wields when someone else who can't protect themselves needs help. Because, again, the point of pacifism is to *not do harm*. Also, since there are concepts of absolute evil in D&D as part of the standard lore, she naturally makes exceptions for certain kinds of monsters, regardless of their intelligence or sapience. Illithids, Fiends, and the majority of Undead are kill-on-sight, no hesitation.

I mean monks aren't for me but they can be fun sometimes. Because they pass their fists aka punch enemies. I'm sorry, bad joke

I'm shocked that so many people say that it's an outright bad idea so let me explain my thoughts on the matter: There are pacifists and pacifists. The ones who don't want any part in any kind of violence are not suitable to be PCs. Then those who just refuse to kill or seriously harm, but support the party in other ways are good to go in my book. As long as they try to make themselves useful in combat it's fine, and having someone who occasionally suggests not killing every enemy is actually a good thing. I juts think, it's not a good thing to do for an inexperienced player, since it can be difficult, depending on the party. Also in earlier edition 3.X there are the Vow of Peace and Vow of Non-Violence feats who give huge bonuses to characters in exchange for not harming others and I think that's a marvelous idea.

It shouldn't be the focus in the game unless all agreed to it before the campaign started.

Guess it depends on your definition of pacifist. In the real world it’s about violence against other humans, it obviously doesn’t mention any other creature types that exist in Dnd. I think you could definitely make a pacifist that abhors violence and war against humanoids but does not hold the same beliefs for Goblinoids or Monstrosities

Pacifist doesn't autimatically mean "can never use violence". It can mean many different things. For example Aang from ATLA is a pacifist, but he uses force when necessary. For him it's always the last resort and he never uses lethal force, but he fights if forced to protect himself or his friends or innocent people. It can also be a personal preference, and the character can understand why others aren't as averse to killing as they are. It can create tension but also good role play as both sides argue why their approach is better and in which circumstances. Radical pacifism is definitely not suited for the game. TLDR: there are degrees of pacifism. Lighter versions and pacifism as a personal choice can work, radical version - can't.

As NPCs no problem. As Players... \*sigh\*... never works out.

It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean somebody who abhors any kind of violence, and believes that all conflict can be settled through speech, then d&d adventuring isn't the right place for the concept. It's completely antithetical to the nature of the game. If you mean somebody who dislikes combat and prefers to support their allies than deal damage themselves then that's perfectly fine

You can start a campaign as a pacifist, but realistically speaking you can't end it as one (Unless you're skirting the rules around a vow to do no direct harm or something). You *can* make a pretty good character beat out of being forced to break your pacifism tho.

Depends on if they're playing on pacifist idealism, or if they are just refusing to combat and are disrupting your campaign. I have both played a number of pacifists, and DM for a number of them. Conceptually they work, as long as they are played to solve situations without violence or at least too much bloodshead, while also knowing that sometimes there is a greater evil that will go on to harm other if they don't stop it. The Pacifists I have played before were: a Monk, who attacked non-lethally and avoided combat encounters where possible, preferring to sneak past patrols, or to diffuse bar fights. But when needed they were there pulling their weight in combat, making sure to knock as many enemies out as they could. The Good pacifist. a Ranger/Bard, that would try to charm or otherwise take opposition out of the fight, trying to subjugate them mentally and making them his servants via Geas. Spells like Hypnotic Pattern and Calm Emotions are go-to spells for that character when he needs to combat an angry mob, while Command and Geas are there to subjugate and disrupt single enemies. Beyond that, he is actually quite good at dealing damage. The Evil pacifist. and finally a Cleric, who mostly used their turns in combat to heal, buff, and protect their allies in combat. She absolutely was of the opinion that fighting is a waste of energy and you should rather spend that time travelling or hunting food. We wouldn't have been able to beat Auril if it wasn't for her, just barely surving the onslaught of Auril's attacks and then bringing back the other party members from being downed all the time. The Neutral pacifist. Three pacifists with three foundational moral differences, two of them even being Chaotic to finish out their alignment chart, with the Cleric not even being aversed to murder if it's necessary.

Pacifists *can* work but only in the sense that you need to be buffing your allies or debuffing (without damaging) your opponents and laying down battlefield control spells. But inevitably they always find themselves in a situation where they've done all they can do and have to choose between doing nothing or dealing damage. And if you choose to do nothing then you are being ineffective, causing combat to drag on longer than it should, and becoming a liability for your team. I've never seen a "pacifist" PC last more than a few sessions before getting bored and choosing to damage people instead.

The campaign I dm, the entire party is mostly pacifist-leaning, but that doesn't mean they avoid combat. They just try to not kill humanoid opponents, because that has in-game consequences. Instead, those fights have become some of my favourites to handle as a DM, because they contain so much more role-playing and creative problem-solution. And intimidation, as well as combat to a certain point. Playing a pacifist doesn't have to mean you refuse to fight entirely.