Pacifism in RPGs ?

Kill him.

File: wizardy.jpg (359KB, 933x1352px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 933x1352px

>>so it's only a disappointment for me

Welcome to being a DM. You're job is to make it fun for the players. Your own fun in coincidental at best.

>>46034306
This never happened.

In all the things that never happened, this happened least

that being said

If it's not meshing with the game, if it's grinding the game to a halt, if it's making it unfun for you

either THE GAME NEEDS TO CHANGE

or THE PLAYER NEEDS TO CHANGE

decide which.

>>46034306
I think you're just going to have to play it out organically with the enemies. If there's a chance they could be persuaded to not fight this guy, give him the proper chances to talk his way out of trouble. If they just want to kill and/or eat him and/or worse, force him into a situation where he has to fight or run. At some point, his character will either roll so well that they beat your campaign as a pacifist, or they die trying.

>>46034306
All of this is assuming D&D, since you haven't specified. And that you have already tried the /tg/ mainstay answer of "have you tried talking to them like a reasonable adult?"

This is exactly why there are "always chaotic evil" NPC races. So players can tell immediately when something is irredeemably evil and can just kill it.
You can also throw non-intelligent enemies at him, wolves, owlbears, etc.

Remember also that diplomacy is not a combat action and takes at least 1-5-20 minutes depending on the edition. Nor can you diplomize certain levels of hostility.

>when he succeeds
You shouldn't be letting him roll for it at all.

>Everyone else in the party seems either down with it or doesn't really care, so it's only a disappointment for me

You're the GM. The game isn't about you, it's about them. If they're all having fun running a largely pacifist game, than run that type of game. This is not a difficult problem.

>>46034306
Are your players having fun?
If, so stop being a shitter and roll with it.
If not, talk to him.

Can you absolutely not roll with it?
Stop being a shitter and stop DMing.

>>46034353
Well, I guess I'll go with >>46034328 's advice then.
>>46034369
I wish I was making this shit up. It's making me loose interest in TRPGs as a whole.

>>46034306
If you aren't able to throw out entire campaigns at the action of a PC and then change some shit around and recycle ideas at a later date, then you are probably not cut out for DMing.
It's not for the faint of heart.

>>46034389
I don't let him roll on everything, it's the fact the he will try to convince everything no matter what the fuck it is. The guy thought he could reason with a fucking undead unholy abomination.

>>46034420
It's not that I can't, I kind of don't want to. I haven't stopped them from doing so because I don't want to be a huge rail roading dick.

Maybe stop being such a faggot and let your players play in interesting ways if they want to.

>>46034444
>I don't let him roll on everything,

A player should be able to roll on everything. If he so desires, he should be able to roll on flapping his arms to fly.
Doesn't mean he should be able to sceed, though. That's what impossibly high DCs are there for.
Unless you are one of those people that plays with "Nat 20 auto succeed lol".
You aren't, right?
Are you?

>>46034353
>Your own fun in coincidental at best.
Sure seems like it sometimes. Always have to say yes, because if I dislike the direction a game is going I just have to take it and put in all the hours and hours of work to plan things out in the direction the players want to go, even if it means I'm basically just taking a part time job while everyone else laughs at how whacky they can get

>>46034458
I fail to see where the fucking problem is.

>I want to try and reason with the Undead Abomination!
>I see. And how the fuck do you plan to accomplish that?
>Well, I say this and that.
>Roll for Diplomacy.
>27!
>It seems like it's not much for conversation.

>>46034496
This, honestly. Just make them fight a monster that has no free will or doesn't give a shit

>>46034472
I think it's easier if you just cut out the middleman in that scenario, but I see your point.
[/spoiler]Also, I don't do nat20 automatic success, unless it's to hit something, it which case you hit and do either max or double damage, depending on what type of weapon it is.

>>46034496
>>46034520

What these guys said. Throw things out there that can't be reasoned with.

And then maybe on the front of 'I always reason with them', have a BBEG that has his own will (of course) refuse the Shonen hero repeatedly. Test his mettle. You said that he will fight if there is no other course of action, so if he tries to talk this BBEG down repeatedly and it's evident its not working, and he STILL keeps trying to talk them down, he can't get pissy because you already warned him.

Honestly I'm kind of jealous that you have a player like that. Most of the time my group is first to go murdering something.

>>46034306
Everyone is saying to change your game or invalidate his character, but that won't change much. I'd recommend building encounters with segments that are forced fights, but also add in social encounters. He might not be able to reason with the abomination, but he might be able to convince someone to tell him its weakness.

>>46034520
>>46034496
I have, but that won't stop him from trying or arguing that he can.

>>46034555
That's reason I'm not really mad at him, but just frustrated. It really cool to watch, but it's also really annoying.

Talk to him, talk to the other players. If this is what they want either roll with it or end the campaign.

You know that there is a pacifist, play with that. Not every encounter is a fight and definetly shouldn't be. There are other kinds of challenges.

Make him question his own believes: "either kill these men or they will burn the town"

Make sure he knows that there are non letal ways to fight and win an encounter.

It's not that hard even on the grindfest that is D&D

>>46034595
>I have a 27!
>You need an 80 to argue with the Abomination.

There is no argument here.

>>46034595
>that won't stop him from trying or arguing that he can
Yes it will.

>I want to try and talk to the demon
>Rolls diplomacy
>Demon stabs him because it doesn't fucking care
Done and dusted

>Player's dumb as rocks grunt gets killed in one of his many firefights
>Randomly generates new character
>Becomes a highly charismatic pacifist
>Have a standing rule about moving speeches and genius ideas getting a pass in-game
>Proceeds to convert gangsters, bums, dealers and hookers into repenting for past misdeeds
>Builds a support network of volunteers
>Tears down poverty and crime from inside the city
>Begins to convert slums into DIY housing projects for reconnecting families
>Takes my entire campaign about Detroit on ultra-crack and turns it into a humanitarian volunteering simulator
>Very recently helped refund the police's IA and rooted out the worst dirty cops
>Crime lords can't pay or intimidate their way out of things anymore
>Next he plans on using a form of low socioeconomic gentrification and non-violent occupation to force out gangs occupying the largest housing projects so they can be returned to the people for low-cost housing, reducing homelessness.

He destroyed my original campaign, but everyone's enjoying being an ethical goodguy so much I just have to roll with it.

You can't negotiate with an owlbear or a giant alligator.

Sure, you can lure one away, or trap it, or sneak past it, or any number of other non-combat solutions. But that makes for interesting gameplay.

>>46034660
That actually happend in this campaign. He didn't die but came damn near close to.

>>46034737
You know what you could do for fun? Flip the table on him. Have someone convince him to trust them, then just stab him in the back and take his money or something. I've done it, and in addition to causing players to get so butthurt they will literally sprint headlong into anything, it makes people a little more weary, and causes tension in social situations

>>46034306
setpieces
>>46034409
lose
>>46034737
happened

How does he try to "reason" with evil things? Have you had them respond to his parley with their own demands? Like "oh, sure we don't need to fight. Just get me this object I need and we'll talk."

Evil intelligent things wouldn't be averse to talking instead of fighting if they thought they could use manipulation to get what they want. Some creatures are specifically stated to gain the greatest satisfaction from corrupting people and manipulating them to do evil things.

>>46034768
Considering some of his new found "friends" were ex-warlords and murderers among other horrible shit, it's not a big stretch to have one betray him.

>>46034306
What's the problem boss? There's a reason you don't see charismatic pacifists convincing people to lay down their arms on battlefields every day. Because there are legitimate real world reasons why that very rarely works.

Of course sometimes it can work and he should be fine to pursue that. I can understand that throwing you for a loop in your first dungeon or two but now that you know it's a possibility you can just build on top of it. The same way the mage having a spell that lets him easily circumvent some dungeon makes you have to reevaluate how you create future encounters for the party.

>>46034782
God, my spelling and grammar is terrible.
Anyhow, his character has this concept that everyone has this sort of inner goodness in them, no matter how how much evil shit they've done. (Including what amounts to Satan in this setting... apparently) His main strategy is to give a inspiring speech how he can fill your dark soul with the light or some bullshit. To be fair, he comes up with a new one on the spot each time, and half of them have been actually quite cool. Now, if that doesn't work, he will then try reason with logic, and then pathos. Now, if it's a supposedly mindless creature, he'll attempt to tame it like a normal beast.

>>46034955
It's a little boring on my end. It's also just kind of annoying when attempts this even when it makes no sense.

>>46034997
What shit are you throwing at him, because if he can speak the language of every single monster hes come up against...

>>46034997
>his character has this concept that everyone has this sort of inner goodness in them
Well, this depends on the setting, but for the most part in D&D Evil is an actual force of the multiverse that exists physically. So he would be wrong.

I think that character is actually a basis for a good story. A tragedy, that is. Break him in the most devious way, have him fall for an evil trick and make him admit in the end that Evil truly exists. If his worldview is that strong, challenge it. Make him either lose it, or die defending it.

>>46034473
Exactly, I think some healthy communication with your players to know their expectations is the best preparation.

>>46035026
Well, most of the enemies are soldiers, bandits, and evil mages. Still, he thinks the language barrier is not a problem, and the raw emotion he's giving off wil convey the message. In short, he can try, but will get huge minuses for it.

>>46035026
>>46035065
Gents, considering he said "offers max or double damage on a nat 20", it's clear he is NOT playing any version of D&D, because all have that hammered out that a nat 20 does a specific thing.
So everyone, kindly drop the D&D assumptions.

>>46035100
hombrew doesn't exists

>>46035115
And houserules.

>>46035115
So it's a d20 homebrew, not D&D. They are not the same.
>>46035130
Who houserules crits, anon? The odds of that being the case are so low, it's almost unreasonable.

>>46035197
>it's almost unreasonable
but anon, this whole thread is unreasonable.

>>46035018
If he is attempting things that don't make sense there is probably something you are not realistically punishing him for.

You want to make an impassioned speech in front of your enemies? You're either getting cut off after the first sentence because guess what they don't give a shit what you have to say or you're getting cut down because you're leaving yourself open focusing on a speech instead of defending your hide.

Let me ask these questions.

1. Why is it boring to you specifically?
2. Why is the session getting dragged to a snail's pace? Is he getting into intense philosophical debates with people?

Stop planning encounters based on what you expect them to do.
Plan set pieces and let the players interact with them as they see fit.

>>46035197
It's actually the first option.
>>46035307
>1
I actually want to run some fights occasionally that aren't mudded down by half the party holding back and the other screaming at the enemy. Also. I had this story planned out, but now it's adventure's guild sim 2k15 with all the people he recruits.
>2 Not only does take up physically more time, but also if its something that can't or won't be reasoned with, he will argue it can

>>46034306
Find this hard to believe. You're telling me this guy rarely ever fights, only drawing his weapon if there is literally no other option, drags encounters to a snail's pace, and attempts to convince any and all enemies to join his side? That he's just so god damn excellent at roleplaying he manages to convince bandits, murderers, pillagers, enemy soldiers, to give up their lives, their dreams, their wants and needs and goals, to just NOT fight?

It sounds fucking asinine. I'm all for encounters and battles ending in ways other than 'all enemies are on the ground with their guts opened up' and will often have enemies try and flee when the situation seems hopeless, or surrender and beg for mercy. But how the fuck is the party down with and/or indifferent to stalling combat every single time it comes up so that one character can improvise a speech about why everyone should be friends?

>>46034306
Just plan the encounters, story setpieces and campaign events around the fact he'll do it. Give him allies that will fight for him when he doesn't, because for all the love their have for their leader, they know he's a bit too stubborn when it comes to pacifism. Talk to the player about not always being able to diplomance his way to victory, so he agrees to fight using the NPCs you give him.

Put him in a position where being a pacifist means that cute NPC gets hurt and loses faith in the PC.

Put him up against NPCs who will never stand down. "If I don't kill you here, they'll kill my wife and kids."

Put him up against a tricky NPC who was waiting for this kind of gullible idealist so he can infiltrate and rob the party.

Put him up against another tricky NPC who talks on and on with him just to buy time for his boss to complete his plan.

Make a fighter at the tavern spit in his face, laugh at him, and then leave with the busty shopkeeper under his arm.

Make a craven, reappearing villain who swears he will be good every time the party stops him but always reappears after committing a more heinous crime than the last.

Make the victim's husband reappear in a frothing rage, demanding revenge where mercy was given and accusing the PC of working with the perpetrator.

Make NPCs that abuse his pacifistic behavior, throw themselves at his feet begging for mercy, and then turn on the party at the first chance.

Make a child struggling with bullies come to him for help. He can talk to the bullies but they will not stop tormenting the child. Then the fighter that cucked him earlier comes along and teaches the child to fight back. Suddenly the child is confident, unafraid, and has a lot of new friends who respect him.

In short, show him that pacifism does not serve an adventurer well and that being a pacifist all the time is not the best. Make the character question himself whenever possible.

>>46035455
>I actually want to run some fights occasionally that aren't mudded down by half the party holding back and the other screaming at the enemy. Also. I had this story planned out, but now it's adventure's guild sim 2k15 with all the people he recruits.

Well let's look at this scenario. Let's think honestly and realistically what happens to a party where they are in a fight and half of them are holding back while the other half is focusing more on talking than fighting. They are going to get killed, there are going to be bad consequences for trying diplomacy and failing at diplomacy in a fight.

I would be honest with your players. "Guys, there is a reason you don't see people taking on foes set out to kill them with only words and winning. If you want to try this it is your choice, and hell sometimes it might/will work, but there are going to be consequences. Your decision."

If the fight is getting mudded down by this I think you are being less than willing to impose real consequences on your players, because if one side is restraining themselves while the other side is going all out and they are equal in power the fight should end more quickly not take longer.

>>46035455
Cont.

>2 Not only does take up physically more time, but also if its something that can't or won't be reasoned with, he will argue it can

First, I don't think whether something can be reasoned with should take a long time to decide (in-game speaking). You never see someone going to kill a guy, the guy says "Wait!", and then they debate back and forth for 10 minutes on whether he actually wants to wait to kill him or not. People are going to be open to discussion or they are not and you realistically have a small window to convince them to become open to discussion.

Second, my philosophy as a DM is that my word is final, take it or leave it. I am more than open to a player challenging how I do something, whether it be how far they flew when they got punched by an ogre or whether the elf merchant is open to haggling, and I am more than willing to tell my players the reasoning I used to come to the conclusion I came to (assuming it's not spoiling something). They are fine to argue their reasoning for something else happening instead but it's ultimately DM discretion if they want to agree with them or not.

Obviously it matters how mean you are about this, I wouldn't just tell the guy, "No he is not open to discussion, take it or leave it." but if you truly believe you are being reasonable then that's it. If you say the sky is blue because X and he screams no the sky is red because Y, it's a case of "ok go find a game where the sky is red then" OR "ok I guess a game where the sky is red isn't bad." Your decision to make.

>>46034306
WTF

Its just callled consequences to your actions.


He is at a fantasy setting, and based on the fact he want to be a pacifist, stuff would happen to him because of that.

>>46036246
>cause and consequences
>on fantasy setting that is not hard fantasy

by your logic, famine would be fixed with magic.
people wouldnt bury their parents on place with zombies (or if they still do it wouldnt be afraid of zombies)
[....]

OP is your player an undertale fan that is trying too hard that "nobody has to get hurt?"
Pit him agaisnt a ruthless genocider or make it so the enemies begin torturing others until he attacks

File: 1443848522340.jpg (6KB, 187x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 187x200px

>>46035842
God tier advice. This is the best way to handle it.

>>46034306
Honestly, this seems like an opportunity, not an obstacle. The party likes it, the player likes it, and it's a nice deviation from the usual murderhobo problem. And you say it's role-played excellently, which is always a plus. When you've got a player with a favored strategy like this, the best thing you can do is find ways to use it to add some spice to an encounter. Want to make things harder for them? That's already been covered pretty well ITT, but here's a couple other ideas:

>An NPC that's been burned by smooth-talkers before, and inherently distrusts everything this guy says.
>An NPC that believes combat is almost a religious right, and sees diplomacy as an insult to his way of life.
>An NPC that's too stupid to properly talk with.

Want to reward them? Include a couple NPCs that are meant to be recruited, that add something interesting to the party or grant some kind of boon (This guy's a great cook! This bandit is a blacksmith's daughter, she helps you repair your weapons! The mage specializes in a certain utility spell!). If you really want to make the player feel cool, include a tough boss that's hard to beat in combat, but can be talked into making peace with the party.

Basically, I think this has a lot of cool potential, and that should be embraced, not squandered.

>>46034306
He wants to be playing a different game. Maybe try a different game? But if you're set on playing a dungeon crawler, and there's nothing wrong with that, tell him his character and/or preferred playstyle isn't appropriate for this game.

What kind of character is this pacifist adventurer, when adventurer is a generally accepted euphemism for mercenary monster slayer? What role does he serve in the party that they think it's worth bringing him along?

>>46037260
Honestly, convincing enemies to join you sounds really fucking useful.

>>46034306
I would play my characters exactly the same.
I would.... because i never actually get to play anything because i dislike grimdark shit and would play my characters like that.

>>46035087
>>46035087
>join me for these reasons!
>"no hablo"
>stabbing ensues

Emotions and body language can bridge some linguistic gulfs, but not alien ways of thinking. There is no good reason things such as aberrations, outsiders, undead, constructs or probably even dragons would even be able to relate to him, much less be swayed to his point of view. For example why would a beholder, who intrinsically hates all things non-beholder (and probably any beholders significantly dissimilar to itself) not disintegrate him on the spot for daring to think a human could alter its perfect behavior?

>>46034680
I want to believe.

>>46034306
Tell him to stop playing Undertale, it's a shitty game.

>>46034659
A DC 80 is completely viable and at times easy to reach by High Level D&D.

>>46034306
It sounds like you're a fag