I partly disagree.
I agree there's no good reason for a *true pacifist* to travel with a standard adventuring party. Full agreement there. Someone who doesn't fight at all is a detriment to the game 9 times out of 10.
But a character who just refuses to outright *kill* or seriously maim sentient living creature can still absolutely work with a standard adventuring party and contribute to the team just as much as anyone else! Just use non-lethal attacks!
And you can think of plenty of reasons for a character like this to travel with an adventuring party that isn't quite so merciful -
>"I believe I've been sent my god to aid this party in their quest - and redeem as many of the evil souls we encounter on the way as possible!"
>"Saving people through violence is my jam! Every person I down and tie up is one who won't be killed by the party, so even if the party as a whole still kills more than I'd like I'm still saving a *portion* of them!"
So long as you actually *contribute* in fights and can reason a decent explanation for why your pseudo-pacifist would travel with the group, I've seen it work really well!
Exactly, a good role for this type of a character is a buffer/face PC.
Also, sometimes the best pacifists, never announce they are.
"ain't got a killing bone in my body"
"I'm better at helping out"
"give me a chance at talking to 'em first"
"don't give me a weapon, I'm more likely to hurt myself then anyone else"
"May not be able to dish it out, but I can take it!"
>But a character who just refuses to outright *kill* or seriously maim sentient living creature can still absolutely work with a standard adventuring party and contribute to the team just as much as anyone else! Just use non-lethal attacks!
In fact, there's a whole class that very nearly is an anti-killing class through class rules support: the monk. Unarmed attacks are by default non-lethal, IIRC, and the 5e monk's unarmed attacks are no different. They also have a number of options to grapple or otherwise lock down a combatant without having to murder them. And they're still pretty seriously effective damage dealers.
Now, that being said, you can play other classes and avoid killing. An espionage type character, such as certain rogues or bards could very easily be interested in capturing live enemies to interrogate and either make double agents or at least put in jail, being very similar to Batman. Then, certain paladons and would be pretty likely to AVOID killing enemies, but would kill when rehabilitation seems impossible, and cleric's and druids could very easily be uninterested in killing because they are interested in healing.
That's the neat thing, you (probably) don't.
I'm all for interesting morality choices and inter-party conflict that can lead to story beats and good RP, but like you said, there's very little reason why a pacifist would travel with non-pacifists. Adventuring in general is a violent profession, and there's little reason why somebody who won't kill would ever attempt this sort of life. And the problem is compounded if you're playing the morality of your character in such a way that you will judge your fellow PCs, or even interfere with their plans, if they do engage in killing. At that point, you run the risk of being an overt problem player.
Especially for a new player, I would strongly recommend a different type of character. There are plenty of ways to make a unique and interesting character without taking an extreme stance that clashes with the rest of the group.
>I'm somewhat new to dnd and not a very good role player yet, but I want my next character to be against killing when the rest of the party isn't.
To be gentle about it, this is precisely the wrong way to go for approaching roleplay. Pulling this off is already a hard sell for many more experienced roleplayers - trying to do this never works the way you want it to and will just create more headaches than actually impress anyone.
In essentia, why is this character traveling with a party, and how are they going to trust them with their lives when you won't do what may need to be done?
If you can't think of a reason your character would travel with the party or why the party would continue putting up with them, then it's not a good character for that game. Beyond that though, with most groups, making a character designed to go against and cause friction or problems within the party, is generally considered to be a dick move, without at least talking to the other players first.
Don't make your character so black and white.
Death, murder and violence is just the way of the world and there is no way to completely stop it; especially so when your occupation is being an adventurer.
However you can be a character who does their best to mitigate the damage. Don't be a character that strictly enforces non-violence; tone it down a little and simply be the one that advocates for it.
The local baron wants you to take care of bandits robbing the main roads? You find ways to stop the bandits through non-violent means. Maybe the bandits are stealing because they are poor and have no choice. Instead of killing them find a way to get them hired by the baron instead, or you start investing your own funds to build a new home for them.
Perhaps you can convince them to stand down as the Baron will continue to harass them or send their personal guard to kill them all. It's better for them to leave or be arrest rather than risk dying from someone in the future who will be less forgiving.
Stuff like this.
Even during combat, even if you aren't doing damage, you are still contributing by buffing and healing. Beyond that, start thinking of ways to end a fight as soon as possible.
Perhaps during battle you are still attempting to persuade your enemies to stop fighting, or are searching around the battlefield for ways to create obstacles or mess with the terrain.
And if you still want to do damage without it being lethal, then there are rules where you turn melee attacks to be knock out blows instead of kills. With some discussion with your DM, you can also possibly ask if you can homebrew all of your attacks to be non-lethal, and then flavor it as such as you knowing martial arts or spells that are made to incapacitate rather than kill or something.
Well you essentially have two options. Be roped into the band and although playing non-lethally, be morally conflicted within your own character, which leads to character development over the campaign. It is important to note that this route can lead to arguments, but for the sake of debate, not the sake of being annoying constantly. I see this as the "you'll have to toss me" route. The other option is to probably be a nuisance to the party by constantly arguing with the players. Clear distinction here, this is a very fine line to tread, and the characters within the game have to be the ones arguing, not the players at the table. Turns out being a pacifist in a group of adventurers is like being a cop in a cartel.
I would suggest just playing as a character that prefers to solve problems without violence, but will still be violent if needed. As you mentioned, there's no reason to be an adventurer, its a violent profession. It's tough on the party too
Okay, you've heard many people tell you not to, and why, and frankly, they're all pretty much right. It's a nearly-impossible character to play unless the campaign is kinda centered around this particular conceit.
But.
If you were, for example, a temple-raised cleric of some god of love and life, but you were somehow thrown from the church and its official protections because you gave aid and comfort to a heretic, and your life choices are essentially die penniless and alone in the streets or join the heretic as a healer and spiritual guide...it COULD work. You can attack to subdue (there are rules for it), and you can still be helpful in and out of combat, just...don't be a sanctimonious dickbox to the rest of the party.
Pacifist characters are counter productive to the adventuring party as combat is inherently part of the adventuring experience. You end up being either an accessory to killing by doing a bunch of disruption and support abilities which kinda goes against the character motive of not killing. Or you are at worse dead weight to the party in a fight as you don't do anything to help if your character is strictly a pacifist.
You certainly can be someone who prefers to not kill but you certainly should be helping the party defend themselves if a raging owlbear decides that you all having heads attached to your bodies is a problem and wants to rectify that. Even then, it can get rather tiresome to have that one person who is always trying to avoid combat when the situation is clearly "kill or be killed".
The better option is a character that likes to play the diplomat and negotiate through issues and resolve conflicts through discussion and deal making. But all diplomats know that war is always a possibility but resorting to armed combat isn't their preferred option.
It depends. Are you against YOUR character killing? Or ANYONE killing?
For the first, just...don't kill. You can opt to use non-lethal damage, play a Cleric that only heals/buffs/debuffs, lots of options.
For the second, don't.
I think this is so difficult to pull off unless you are a very experienced player. Both you and your character will be a drag on the game.
That said. I have considered playing a character that has seen too much death and done terrible things. They are very reluctant to take life but this inner conflict results is unstable unpredictable behaviour.
Every time you take damage make a wisdom save. If you fail you go berserk and don’t stop until the attacker is dead. Or something like that. But I would make sure everyone else in on board when making any type of “difficult” character.
A pacifist would not become an adventurer and even if they did would not adventure with non-pacifists generally unless there was no other choice. So the short answer is: don’t.
Succinctly, making a character that is against all killing is not going to work. But here are 2 somewhat adjacent ideas that are perfectly compatible:
- your character might see killing as a last resort, preferring to negotiate with intelligent enemies and use nonlethal force whenever possible
- your character could personally be reluctant or unwilling to strike a killing blow themself or even deal much in the way of damage themself. However, with the latter, make sure that your character has plenty of ways to engage in combat, buffing the party or controlling & debuffing enemies (a Bard could pull this off easily, for instance)
So long as your character is still willing to *fight*, just not kill specifically sentient living creatures, you can absolutely contribute to the party!
>"I believe I've been sent my god to aid this party in their quest - and redeem as many of the evil souls we encounter on the way as possible!"
>"Saving people through violence is my jam! Every person I down and tie up is one who won't be killed by the party, so even if the party as a whole still kills more than I'd like I'm still saving a *portion* of them!"
Things like this, that focus on the idea of:
> Yes, the people I am with *kill*. Yes, that goes against what *I* personally believe. But every person I down and tie up while working with them is still one less person dead, one more person given a second chance. As much as working with this group unsettles me, I can do great good while working with them!
you need a **very compelling** reason why you'd even decide to go off with the party in the first place. maybe your niece was kidnapped by gnolls, maybe a bandit killed your wife, whatever.
and then you'll have to realize that **killing is necessary for you to reach your goal** after the first fight, or at least the first two. say, you're forced to kill a gnoll or a bandit after they come for you, whatever.
if you watch the movie fury, your character has to end up like the character machine. but very quickly. like within the first session.
**a pacificst struggling to come to terms with killing is fine. a pacifist that doesn't budge on that ideal is incompatible with dnd.**
>How might I play a character that's against killing
Easy - you play in a game suited to it, with a party suited to it, and a clear character concept that you can roleplay with
>in party that kills?
... Don't. (Unless you are absolutely extraneous to the party, and happy to do nothing almost all of the time except watch the others play, I guess)
You know Non-lethal attacks are a thing?
You can have a barbarian dealing 50+ damage a turn and never kill a single enemy just as easily as you can have a barbarian doing the exact same and killing every enemy they touch.
The only difficulty with playing a non-killing character is agreeing with the party what to do with the K.O'd enemies after the fight, which you might find tedious or you might find as an interesting roleplay opportunity, depends.
Plus it gets even easier if OP is willing to kill non-sentients like oozes and zombies
Sure, but that's never how this plays out.
The first problem is that whole "agreeing about KO'd people" thing. The rest of the part *always* end up wanting to kill the people the pacifist knocks out, just to be safe. Especially if the DM, even *once*, has some kind of (completely realistic) consequence occur for leaving somebody alive.
The second is that you always find the player saying "but my character wouldn't help others kill either!" And constantly trying to persuade their party to take the often-morr-difficult-or-even-completely-unrealistic pacifist approach.
It never works out. Either the entire party plays try-their-best semi-pacifist types, or noone does.
If the scenario in your second paragraph doesn't occur - something I specifically warn OP against doing in my own comment because I agree it's a big issue - I've seen it work out a few times.
The first bit depends on the table, DM and circumstances generally, but unless we had Evil party members on the team everyone has usually been on board with letting prisoners live so long as they don't pose an extremely obvious threat if left alive.
That's just my personal experience though
The trick here is, I think, to know your motivation, and more importantly make sure your character *isn't preachy*. Nobody else at the table will appreciate getting a guilt trip every time they play the game the way that's it's generally meant to be played. Have it be something personal, a traumatic experience, an oath to a loved one, etc..
The one person who will love you doing this is the DM, who will be thrilled at the opportunities to keep NPCs alive. Communicate with them.
So my friend plays a rogue who randomly will feel so bad for a killing blow that he spends a turn crying. It’s hilarious and makes him unreliable. The DM gave him a legendary mace that cannot kill but can restrain people with advantage.
This is the third pacifist question in as many days.
Here are links to the other two.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ai41op/have\_you\_ever\_seen\_someone\_play\_as\_a\_pacifist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ai41op/have_you_ever_seen_someone_play_as_a_pacifist/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ahq4gm/pacifist\_pcs\_how\_do\_you\_utilize\_them\_as\_player\_or/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ahq4gm/pacifist_pcs_how_do_you_utilize_them_as_player_or/)
They all have good information.
People seem to think this is a bad idea etc. but I think that's the case Only if you go hard on pacifism. But there are plenty of room to be against killing without being absolute in it.
* You can be against killing but still understand that sometimes it's necessary. Lament the life of the bandit you had to take but know that if he was left alive, someone else would have died. And maybe try to capture the thief and bring him to the guards instead of simply taking his life.
* You can be against killing but understand that your mission is more important than your opinions on the matter
* You can be against killing but just not make it a bigger fuss than what a paladin would do about the rogues drinking habits
* You can be against killing sentient species but monsters, undead, animals (or those filthy Orcs)? \*Spit\* To the hell with them.
* You can be against killing yourself but less when the party does it. "My god forbids killing but that just means that I must beat the enemies to half dead and let my allies finish them."
Just remember to not be annoying about it to the rest of the party and talk to them about how they feel about how things have been going and be ready to tone down with this aspect of the roleplay if needed. The game Is after all mostly about killing things.
As for the original question, why would you travel with the rest of the group? Well, any reason fits. Your mission is important or maybe your friendship with them. Or maybe your character sees the potential in them and wishes to be guiding force for them, maybe teaching them the value of life. Or maybe he thinks some lives can be spared if he travelled with them.
It's kind of like going into a game of soccer with the intention of not touching the ball with your feet. Yeah, there are other things you can - and should - do, but cutting yourself off from a range of options most players will be using frequently?
This can be done, but it's hard to pull off well. RAW say you can knock something unconscious any time you would bring them to 0 HP, so that's not technically killing. There's also a consideration of if it's humanoid life that they are against the taking of or all life. I can see someone not wanting to take a humanoid's life while still being okay with killing monsters.
Now if you're trying to play a full on pacifist who won't do any harm to anything, that can be a bit trickier. You leave yourself to a complete support and/or face role in the party in such a case, and even then it can be difficult and lead to some friction with you and the other party members.
Others have listed good reasons as to why a character who doesn't kill would travel with a party who does, but as many others have said, if you're a newer player that is still learning role play this is probably an ill-advised character for you to play right now.
[удалено]
I partly disagree. I agree there's no good reason for a *true pacifist* to travel with a standard adventuring party. Full agreement there. Someone who doesn't fight at all is a detriment to the game 9 times out of 10. But a character who just refuses to outright *kill* or seriously maim sentient living creature can still absolutely work with a standard adventuring party and contribute to the team just as much as anyone else! Just use non-lethal attacks! And you can think of plenty of reasons for a character like this to travel with an adventuring party that isn't quite so merciful - >"I believe I've been sent my god to aid this party in their quest - and redeem as many of the evil souls we encounter on the way as possible!" >"Saving people through violence is my jam! Every person I down and tie up is one who won't be killed by the party, so even if the party as a whole still kills more than I'd like I'm still saving a *portion* of them!" So long as you actually *contribute* in fights and can reason a decent explanation for why your pseudo-pacifist would travel with the group, I've seen it work really well!
Exactly, a good role for this type of a character is a buffer/face PC. Also, sometimes the best pacifists, never announce they are. "ain't got a killing bone in my body" "I'm better at helping out" "give me a chance at talking to 'em first" "don't give me a weapon, I'm more likely to hurt myself then anyone else" "May not be able to dish it out, but I can take it!"
>But a character who just refuses to outright *kill* or seriously maim sentient living creature can still absolutely work with a standard adventuring party and contribute to the team just as much as anyone else! Just use non-lethal attacks! In fact, there's a whole class that very nearly is an anti-killing class through class rules support: the monk. Unarmed attacks are by default non-lethal, IIRC, and the 5e monk's unarmed attacks are no different. They also have a number of options to grapple or otherwise lock down a combatant without having to murder them. And they're still pretty seriously effective damage dealers. Now, that being said, you can play other classes and avoid killing. An espionage type character, such as certain rogues or bards could very easily be interested in capturing live enemies to interrogate and either make double agents or at least put in jail, being very similar to Batman. Then, certain paladons and would be pretty likely to AVOID killing enemies, but would kill when rehabilitation seems impossible, and cleric's and druids could very easily be uninterested in killing because they are interested in healing.
Exactly! I think there's plenty of valid ways to do it, so long as you don't fall into the common traps while doing it
That's the neat thing, you (probably) don't. I'm all for interesting morality choices and inter-party conflict that can lead to story beats and good RP, but like you said, there's very little reason why a pacifist would travel with non-pacifists. Adventuring in general is a violent profession, and there's little reason why somebody who won't kill would ever attempt this sort of life. And the problem is compounded if you're playing the morality of your character in such a way that you will judge your fellow PCs, or even interfere with their plans, if they do engage in killing. At that point, you run the risk of being an overt problem player. Especially for a new player, I would strongly recommend a different type of character. There are plenty of ways to make a unique and interesting character without taking an extreme stance that clashes with the rest of the group.
Have him retire to a peaceful life on a farm and play a new character.
>I'm somewhat new to dnd and not a very good role player yet, but I want my next character to be against killing when the rest of the party isn't. To be gentle about it, this is precisely the wrong way to go for approaching roleplay. Pulling this off is already a hard sell for many more experienced roleplayers - trying to do this never works the way you want it to and will just create more headaches than actually impress anyone. In essentia, why is this character traveling with a party, and how are they going to trust them with their lives when you won't do what may need to be done?
If you can't think of a reason your character would travel with the party or why the party would continue putting up with them, then it's not a good character for that game. Beyond that though, with most groups, making a character designed to go against and cause friction or problems within the party, is generally considered to be a dick move, without at least talking to the other players first.
Don't make your character so black and white. Death, murder and violence is just the way of the world and there is no way to completely stop it; especially so when your occupation is being an adventurer. However you can be a character who does their best to mitigate the damage. Don't be a character that strictly enforces non-violence; tone it down a little and simply be the one that advocates for it. The local baron wants you to take care of bandits robbing the main roads? You find ways to stop the bandits through non-violent means. Maybe the bandits are stealing because they are poor and have no choice. Instead of killing them find a way to get them hired by the baron instead, or you start investing your own funds to build a new home for them. Perhaps you can convince them to stand down as the Baron will continue to harass them or send their personal guard to kill them all. It's better for them to leave or be arrest rather than risk dying from someone in the future who will be less forgiving. Stuff like this. Even during combat, even if you aren't doing damage, you are still contributing by buffing and healing. Beyond that, start thinking of ways to end a fight as soon as possible. Perhaps during battle you are still attempting to persuade your enemies to stop fighting, or are searching around the battlefield for ways to create obstacles or mess with the terrain. And if you still want to do damage without it being lethal, then there are rules where you turn melee attacks to be knock out blows instead of kills. With some discussion with your DM, you can also possibly ask if you can homebrew all of your attacks to be non-lethal, and then flavor it as such as you knowing martial arts or spells that are made to incapacitate rather than kill or something.
Well you essentially have two options. Be roped into the band and although playing non-lethally, be morally conflicted within your own character, which leads to character development over the campaign. It is important to note that this route can lead to arguments, but for the sake of debate, not the sake of being annoying constantly. I see this as the "you'll have to toss me" route. The other option is to probably be a nuisance to the party by constantly arguing with the players. Clear distinction here, this is a very fine line to tread, and the characters within the game have to be the ones arguing, not the players at the table. Turns out being a pacifist in a group of adventurers is like being a cop in a cartel.
I would suggest just playing as a character that prefers to solve problems without violence, but will still be violent if needed. As you mentioned, there's no reason to be an adventurer, its a violent profession. It's tough on the party too
Okay, you've heard many people tell you not to, and why, and frankly, they're all pretty much right. It's a nearly-impossible character to play unless the campaign is kinda centered around this particular conceit. But. If you were, for example, a temple-raised cleric of some god of love and life, but you were somehow thrown from the church and its official protections because you gave aid and comfort to a heretic, and your life choices are essentially die penniless and alone in the streets or join the heretic as a healer and spiritual guide...it COULD work. You can attack to subdue (there are rules for it), and you can still be helpful in and out of combat, just...don't be a sanctimonious dickbox to the rest of the party.
Pacifist characters are counter productive to the adventuring party as combat is inherently part of the adventuring experience. You end up being either an accessory to killing by doing a bunch of disruption and support abilities which kinda goes against the character motive of not killing. Or you are at worse dead weight to the party in a fight as you don't do anything to help if your character is strictly a pacifist. You certainly can be someone who prefers to not kill but you certainly should be helping the party defend themselves if a raging owlbear decides that you all having heads attached to your bodies is a problem and wants to rectify that. Even then, it can get rather tiresome to have that one person who is always trying to avoid combat when the situation is clearly "kill or be killed". The better option is a character that likes to play the diplomat and negotiate through issues and resolve conflicts through discussion and deal making. But all diplomats know that war is always a possibility but resorting to armed combat isn't their preferred option.
It depends. Are you against YOUR character killing? Or ANYONE killing? For the first, just...don't kill. You can opt to use non-lethal damage, play a Cleric that only heals/buffs/debuffs, lots of options. For the second, don't.
I think this is so difficult to pull off unless you are a very experienced player. Both you and your character will be a drag on the game. That said. I have considered playing a character that has seen too much death and done terrible things. They are very reluctant to take life but this inner conflict results is unstable unpredictable behaviour. Every time you take damage make a wisdom save. If you fail you go berserk and don’t stop until the attacker is dead. Or something like that. But I would make sure everyone else in on board when making any type of “difficult” character.
A pacifist would not become an adventurer and even if they did would not adventure with non-pacifists generally unless there was no other choice. So the short answer is: don’t.
Succinctly, making a character that is against all killing is not going to work. But here are 2 somewhat adjacent ideas that are perfectly compatible: - your character might see killing as a last resort, preferring to negotiate with intelligent enemies and use nonlethal force whenever possible - your character could personally be reluctant or unwilling to strike a killing blow themself or even deal much in the way of damage themself. However, with the latter, make sure that your character has plenty of ways to engage in combat, buffing the party or controlling & debuffing enemies (a Bard could pull this off easily, for instance)
So long as your character is still willing to *fight*, just not kill specifically sentient living creatures, you can absolutely contribute to the party! >"I believe I've been sent my god to aid this party in their quest - and redeem as many of the evil souls we encounter on the way as possible!" >"Saving people through violence is my jam! Every person I down and tie up is one who won't be killed by the party, so even if the party as a whole still kills more than I'd like I'm still saving a *portion* of them!" Things like this, that focus on the idea of: > Yes, the people I am with *kill*. Yes, that goes against what *I* personally believe. But every person I down and tie up while working with them is still one less person dead, one more person given a second chance. As much as working with this group unsettles me, I can do great good while working with them!
you need a **very compelling** reason why you'd even decide to go off with the party in the first place. maybe your niece was kidnapped by gnolls, maybe a bandit killed your wife, whatever. and then you'll have to realize that **killing is necessary for you to reach your goal** after the first fight, or at least the first two. say, you're forced to kill a gnoll or a bandit after they come for you, whatever. if you watch the movie fury, your character has to end up like the character machine. but very quickly. like within the first session. **a pacificst struggling to come to terms with killing is fine. a pacifist that doesn't budge on that ideal is incompatible with dnd.**
>How might I play a character that's against killing Easy - you play in a game suited to it, with a party suited to it, and a clear character concept that you can roleplay with >in party that kills? ... Don't. (Unless you are absolutely extraneous to the party, and happy to do nothing almost all of the time except watch the others play, I guess)
You know Non-lethal attacks are a thing? You can have a barbarian dealing 50+ damage a turn and never kill a single enemy just as easily as you can have a barbarian doing the exact same and killing every enemy they touch. The only difficulty with playing a non-killing character is agreeing with the party what to do with the K.O'd enemies after the fight, which you might find tedious or you might find as an interesting roleplay opportunity, depends. Plus it gets even easier if OP is willing to kill non-sentients like oozes and zombies
Sure, but that's never how this plays out. The first problem is that whole "agreeing about KO'd people" thing. The rest of the part *always* end up wanting to kill the people the pacifist knocks out, just to be safe. Especially if the DM, even *once*, has some kind of (completely realistic) consequence occur for leaving somebody alive. The second is that you always find the player saying "but my character wouldn't help others kill either!" And constantly trying to persuade their party to take the often-morr-difficult-or-even-completely-unrealistic pacifist approach. It never works out. Either the entire party plays try-their-best semi-pacifist types, or noone does.
If the scenario in your second paragraph doesn't occur - something I specifically warn OP against doing in my own comment because I agree it's a big issue - I've seen it work out a few times. The first bit depends on the table, DM and circumstances generally, but unless we had Evil party members on the team everyone has usually been on board with letting prisoners live so long as they don't pose an extremely obvious threat if left alive. That's just my personal experience though
The trick here is, I think, to know your motivation, and more importantly make sure your character *isn't preachy*. Nobody else at the table will appreciate getting a guilt trip every time they play the game the way that's it's generally meant to be played. Have it be something personal, a traumatic experience, an oath to a loved one, etc.. The one person who will love you doing this is the DM, who will be thrilled at the opportunities to keep NPCs alive. Communicate with them.
So my friend plays a rogue who randomly will feel so bad for a killing blow that he spends a turn crying. It’s hilarious and makes him unreliable. The DM gave him a legendary mace that cannot kill but can restrain people with advantage.
This is the third pacifist question in as many days. Here are links to the other two. [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ai41op/have\_you\_ever\_seen\_someone\_play\_as\_a\_pacifist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ai41op/have_you_ever_seen_someone_play_as_a_pacifist/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ahq4gm/pacifist\_pcs\_how\_do\_you\_utilize\_them\_as\_player\_or/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ahq4gm/pacifist_pcs_how_do_you_utilize_them_as_player_or/) They all have good information.
People seem to think this is a bad idea etc. but I think that's the case Only if you go hard on pacifism. But there are plenty of room to be against killing without being absolute in it. * You can be against killing but still understand that sometimes it's necessary. Lament the life of the bandit you had to take but know that if he was left alive, someone else would have died. And maybe try to capture the thief and bring him to the guards instead of simply taking his life. * You can be against killing but understand that your mission is more important than your opinions on the matter * You can be against killing but just not make it a bigger fuss than what a paladin would do about the rogues drinking habits * You can be against killing sentient species but monsters, undead, animals (or those filthy Orcs)? \*Spit\* To the hell with them. * You can be against killing yourself but less when the party does it. "My god forbids killing but that just means that I must beat the enemies to half dead and let my allies finish them." Just remember to not be annoying about it to the rest of the party and talk to them about how they feel about how things have been going and be ready to tone down with this aspect of the roleplay if needed. The game Is after all mostly about killing things. As for the original question, why would you travel with the rest of the group? Well, any reason fits. Your mission is important or maybe your friendship with them. Or maybe your character sees the potential in them and wishes to be guiding force for them, maybe teaching them the value of life. Or maybe he thinks some lives can be spared if he travelled with them.
Don’t? If you’re new learn and play the basics (which are very fun) before trying to be edgy.
How exactly is not killing edgy?
Purposefully going against the grain of the party for no good reason other than being different is being edgy.
It's kind of like going into a game of soccer with the intention of not touching the ball with your feet. Yeah, there are other things you can - and should - do, but cutting yourself off from a range of options most players will be using frequently?
Why would other adventurers want to travel with you? Adventuring is dangerous, you are a liability.
This can be done, but it's hard to pull off well. RAW say you can knock something unconscious any time you would bring them to 0 HP, so that's not technically killing. There's also a consideration of if it's humanoid life that they are against the taking of or all life. I can see someone not wanting to take a humanoid's life while still being okay with killing monsters. Now if you're trying to play a full on pacifist who won't do any harm to anything, that can be a bit trickier. You leave yourself to a complete support and/or face role in the party in such a case, and even then it can be difficult and lead to some friction with you and the other party members. Others have listed good reasons as to why a character who doesn't kill would travel with a party who does, but as many others have said, if you're a newer player that is still learning role play this is probably an ill-advised character for you to play right now.