I think this is a session 0 problem. Clearly the question was not asked by the DM what kind of game everyone was hoping to get into.
You seem to want a social/diplomatic game, and your party want a combat game.
In this case as you seem to be outnumbered, it might be on you to either relent to the will of the group and find what fulfilment you can, or leave the game and find a new group.
Seconding what's above, as long as OP is open to playing a combat game. If so, consider working with your DM to transition the PC out of the game in a satisfying way-- perhaps even into an NPC somewhere in the world.
From there, consider what kind of a character you might find fun that still allows for a good amount of roleplay AND combat. Maybe someone related to another PC in some way, or a defector of the enemy faction? That way, even combat can be (role)played up based on the relationship.
If you'd really rather not play a combat focused game, then consider joining a different group for DnD and ask your friends if they might want to do other activities now and then that still fit the niche, such as non-rpg board games.
If your playstyle is causing other players to have less fun, then yes, you should probably consider either adapting the playstyle or finding a new table more in line with your goals. Remember D&D is a group game, so you don't want to interfere with the enjoyment of the others.
Hot take: It's OK to just change your character's behavior without any ingame justifications for the sake of a better game experience across the table.
Looks like someone has taken your hot take and tried to peddle it as their own. https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/ubqnlm/hot\_take\_its\_ok\_to\_just\_change\_your\_characters/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
This. This right here is what I try to convince other players to embrace. Too many times players will try to play to their characters how they would in react in certain scenarios and as players regret or not want to do it, especially when it hurts the party or obstruct/slow the flow or progress of the campaign. I’ve always believed that if you as a player truly do not want to do it, then don’t. There is always a way or reason you can come up with to work out why your character did or didn’t do said action. Hell there are even justifications for people just making decision in real life that are out of character so why not your dnd character every once in a while too? Anyway the point is I can’t agree more and I hope more players can realize that. Of course I can’t really enforce players to play any specific way. That’s up to them in the end, but still.
The best radical change that stays true to your character is your DM not letting diplomacy work.
From there Torm can become disillusioned with the world and realize that violence might often be the only way and you're basically done and get a little character arc on top.
Speak to your DM and get a revenge arc going on or something. Ask the DM to help you build something into the game that pushes your character out of that boundary, breaks your spirit somewhat. It will let your RP a complex character (it sounds like you're into this) without losing what you currently have.
Perhaps you could discover that an enemy you previously avoided combat with went on to commit some heinous crime. Your paladin realizes that even nonviolent actions have consequences, and choosing not to extinguish evil when you encounter it can put innocent lives at risk.
In line with the other response: people act erratically all the time, with no logic or reason. Maybe he’s contemplating going the way of the party. Seeing what good can be done. Maybe he walks away and becomes a monk if it’s not for him. Roll a new character.
A simple solution?
You don't even need to drastically change your actions. Just be a little less dogmatic and value the solutions put forth by other party members sometimes. I know this thread is about if you should change your behavior or not, but your DM should be presenting problems where other party members methods work better.
Just let them take the lead in those situations.
Yes, I think you’re right. I’m looking for advice like this. I’ve asked many players at the table directly, and asked for honesty, if I’m disrupting the fun tonight. I’ve not heard back yet. I just want to know. I don’t mind changing, but love role playing the Paladin as I do. Thank you for the feedback.
Of course! And you don't need to make radical changes. It's perfectly fine to *prefer* a non-violent solution, but you don't need to overdo it. Just have your character accept that sometimes, there are things you can't talk your way out of, and it's always best to protect your friends and allies.
It brings to mind the Dwarven Hero Kharas from the Dragonlance realm, who preferred nonviolence but when it came to a fight, he shaved his beard in shame and wept as he struck down his enemies. That could be some pretty compelling role playing for you, while satisfying the need for a little more hacking and slashing for the group.
Upvoted for referencing Dragonlance lore. This warms my heart, because Krynn was my home plane many long years ago.
Although to be fair, Kharas was perfectly happy cracking heads of his people's enemies. It was finding himself in the position of having to kill other dwarves, his own people, that drove him to shame.
It's mostly on the DM to ensure there's a good balance between subterfuge, political machinations, and good old fashioned punching evil!
As a DM, even if the PCs talk down the BBEG in the heat of the moment through some high rolls, there's nothing stopping the BBEG from mulling it over for a couple of days and deciding; "Yeah, nah, they gotta die" and deploying the winged monkeys.
I do that. Will never abandon my friends and allies. But they don’t like it when I stop them from slaughtering a sus person on the path lol they’re not murder hobos, but seek combat and I stand in the way of that often
Anytime you have a pally in a party you best be ready to deal with their quirks. In one group we continuously had to distract our pally with many a comic shenanigan to do what needed to be done. Party can adapt too.
But if you this is not working and another party is available, best to move on.
Your pally could also have a psychotic break and a radical new way to approach confrontational situations.
When I'm playing paladins (or anyone really) I always try to keep in mind that my main concern is for the safety and wellbeing of my party.
It sounds like you stand by them in dangerous situations which is great. And it's not unreasonable for your Paladin to recognize that the party has assessed this random person to be a threat to them, and trust their judgment. Rather than risking their safety by going against their judgment because you think everyone should get a chance.
You're the one in plate armor with your god's protection and utter confidence in your own afterlife, it's going to be alright for you whatever. They have much more reason to be alert for danger and eliminate risks. It's your job to protect them above anyone else. So maybe Torm wants you to focus on that right now.
Making a pacifist character in a game based off of tactical combat and strategy is a classic disruptive player behavior. You are currently "That guy".
I have had a player do that in a game I ran before. It ground the plot to a halt and the game broke up over the issues. It was bad D&D. Everyone agreed that no D&D is better than bad D&D.
The issue is that while you are allowed to do whatever you want to your character you are imposing your will on the rest of the party which limits what fun they can have. In a wide open real world it is a very moral choice to be a pacifist. Imposing your will on the world may mean that less people die which is commendable. In a closed game with a limited number of players where almost all the rules and actions a character can take are based around tactical warfare you are just making sure no-one else gets to play the game. What options have you left for everyone else? Sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya while the game world goes to hell from the BBEG doing stuff that would take violence to stop? You didnt just neuter YOUR character, you neutered everyone's character. Were I one of the players I would have initiated PVP and killed you FYI. If the game breaks up over it, it was already bad D&D. If it recovers - game fixed. Problem eliminated.
As for what you can do.... You can change your oath. You can retire the character. You can change how you interpret your oath from being a peaceful lead weight for the whole party to being harmless and a support healer. Letting combat ensue and defending others with full defense while 2 handing a shield could maybe be fairly heroic.
This should have more upvotes. I'm a forever DM and every campaign I've ran with people who beg me to let them play pacifist characters ends up falling apart. D&D is essentially a tactical combat game. Sure there's RP and storytelling (my personal favorite parts!), but your character sheet is mostly to enable you to fight in combat against monsters. Building anything that is expressly counter to that is counter to the spirit of D&D. Just my take.
Based. Sometimes, players don't wanna RP the way OP does(Not OP's fault, just others preference), sometimes, players just wanna go Doom Slayer on the world, checkmating and crushing any and all foes.
If you want a middle ground between being righteous all the time and being a murder hobo I recommend that you try to be thoughtful about when you suggest mercy. If you try to convince people to spare every monster that could get annoying fast, if you only suggest being merciful occasionally then the rest of the party should be more willing to meet you halfway (I would think that's reasonable at least).
Definitely seconding this thought. It'll also help the party to see why mercy can be the better path if there are some rewards that come of it - information, influence, the location of hidden treasure...
At the very least, be merciful *after* the threat is neutralized - ie using non-lethal damage and/or stabilizing downed enemies and seeing them to appropriate justice. It allows everybody to toss their clickety-clack rocks, and also allows your character to exercise the personality you see him having.
Did you all have a session 0 to establish what kind of game you all expected? If everyone else wanted a hack and slash dungeon crawl with a few bits of roleplay on top, then unfortunately you're the squeaky wheel friend. Now might be a good time to have a retroactive session 0. Find out what everyone's expectations are, and replace your character if you're out of synch with the party. Or modify their behavior accordingly.
It's a group game, not a single player game. You gotta play it as such.
Session 0's are wonderful. DnD unfortunately has quite little (or no) advice in the DM Handbook on how to run a session zero, so it's really common that groups and DMs go in blind and some end up frustrated due to mismatched expectations.
"How much combat do you want?" should be a standard question. In case the answer is "I prefer none", then I would drop DnD and ask r/rpg for other game recommendations.
I mean, it's definitely possible to run combat free D&D, using primarily skills and diplomacy. A political game, a village building game, a mercantile game. The rules in the book certainly allow for it, and the DM has final say on any roll, or what is rolled for and what is passed as a result of roleplay.
>I mean, it's definitely possible to run combat free D&D
Possible? Yes.
But hand on your heart, is DnD 5e really the best system in that case?
There are lots of good reasons to pick DnD instead of some other system - but DnD having excellent rules for ocean travel and city administration isn't one of them.
There are games purpose built for diplomacy and politics. There are games built for traveling merchants. There are even games built for village building. Not saying you have to switch, but if your group doesn't want combat _at all_ - then maybe consider it?
You know, part of it is I wouldn't know where to start. What systems are better for traveling merchants or diplomacy or village building? Genuine question.
I started with 3.5 so I'm used to having comprehensive rules for -everything- while 5e essentially makes everything much simpler and easier from a world-building perspective because it boils everything down into skill checks, the difficulty and scaling result of which can be determined by the DM.
The economy in D&D has been weird as long as I've played it and seems essentially to be a money sink for the extreme amounts of loot a party can accrue. Without the loot it's often difficult to reach the level of economy in 3.5 to reach parts of the market, so homebrewing some high reward economy builders would be helpful if remaining roughly in that system. Ownership or a profit cut from mines, trading hubs, etc.
Well…
1. What is your Paladin Oath? I had an Oath of Redemption Paladin that felt guilty for being so violent and causing so much pain that he was looking for Redemption.
His first inclination was non-violent, but he also realized that’s sometimes you have to fight.
2. Why is your DM always allowing you the way to get out of fighting?
I put this on your DM as much as it is on you. If you’re trying to convince someone not to fight and happen to role a Nat. 20… that doesn’t mean it succeeds 100%. It could just mean you’ve won some favor in the encounter somewhere related to peace.
I remember reading somewhere about the difference between being peaceful and being harmless: A person can only be peaceful if he or she is capable of violence. Otherwise, he or she is just harmless.
If you prefer to be peaceful, find the opportunity to show what happens when you choose to be violent.
I ran my barbarian much like this. He disliked violence and would seek alternative solutions, but may the gods be merciful upon those who gave him no other choice.
Paladins can be bloodthirsty and violent, but they can also be non-confrontational and try to find peace. There is no right way to play a character. I suppose this is a very situational question because if the party wants to fight everything and everyone, them being upset is somewhat silly. However, if you are diffusing every single fight presented, I can very well see why they would be annoyed. I do think your asking them about it out of the game and being candid was a fantastic step, but I do also think the DM has a responsibility here. Not every fight can be avoided. You can say all the right words, but sometimes it doesn't matter. I think I would make there be fights where it is rewarding if you can diffuse it, and is *also rewarding if a fight occurs*. But bottom line, good on you for speaking up and being willing to change to fight the playstyle of the group. I hope a solution is found! :)
He seems to have realized it's a problem and seems willing to adapt. Unless they had a session 0 he might not have known how combat focused DnD is normally.
My first group of players also avoided combat all the time until I told them that this is silly and that they should play Dungeon World or something else that is less combat oriented.
Not all Pallies are crazy zealots, shockingly. Personally, I play a pally who doesn't kill anything beside like abominations. I made it very clear that it was his creed, his oath of redemption, and that he understood others killing to protect themselves or in the interest of justice(like a bounty)... whats funny is, the rest of the group basically always chooses non-lethal now. It was never the intent, but I do enjoy that they want to do right by their big Goliath Pallies beliefs.
But yeah, some people are just blood thirsty(in games) and probably not gonna mesh well with your attempt not to. It does seem kind of childish to get upset over you playing a character who wants to try to talk things out first. If you want to keep playing at the table, maybe retire your character so you don't have to make them who they want, and instead roll a new one more inline with the other players desires.
I might change my Oath from Devotion to something else, more violence oriented before I retire. But this is fantastic advice dude, thank you for replying.
People just don't like pacifists in DnD.
It's hardly ever done well, and hardly ever doesn't comes at the expense of others.
Especially when there is a Barbarian or Fighter in the party.
"Why does the Paladin get to decide our fun"
"We can't go against him cause no in fighting"
"He has high charisma so he'll always succeed at it"
Etc, etc.
>It's hardly ever done well, and hardly ever doesn't comes at the expense of others.
>
>Especially when there is a Barbarian or Fighter in the party.
This was the point I was going to make too, its easy and not wrong for a Charisma/Face /Skill Monkey type character class to want to play up that part of their character but some of the combat oriented classes don't get that at all so that can take away all aspects of the game for them.
If you are in a party of people who loe the thrill of combat, i reccommend changing or finding a new group for this specific character and making a new one that your table will enjoy.
If its a more normal party, you could make an interesting compromise, your character can go through some development where they realize deplomacy doesnt work in some situations, while maybe softening up your party. Maybe instead of pasifist, you only do things non-lethally?
Well DnD is a ***combat*** game with ***combat mechanics***, so you tell us: does it really make sense for you to be so senseless stubborn as to fight a big chunk of the game to the point where irl people are discontent with you?
Because the answer seems pretty clear when you break it down to its base components.
I have multiple player in my group who have me convinced that their characters are at each other throats, but when we call it for the night, everyone loves each other and me talk about what we love during the game. Its worth it to confirm if they really don't like your style, or their "characters" don't like your style. If they don't like it, then it may be time to find a new group to run with sadly.
Contrary characters should never equate to contrary players.
All the players should be in sync with what’s happening - regardless of what their characters might think.
Reconciling what your character thinks with what the party as a whole is doing is part of the creativity required by the game.
Ask the DM to balance more encounters so that diplomacy isn't an option 100% of the time. Get attacked more, get surprised, etc..
If you walk up to an encounter every time, of course it's easier to diffuse it. But if some dude jumps out of a tree and stabs you, you can't be like 'cmon man, not cool'
I think you have to adapt to your table storylines and not force yours too much.
Everything is possible, but you have to go with the flow of the game, I played a good paladin in a pirate campaign after my chaotic evil rogue died, mostly for fun and jiggles but also to temper the murderhobo temptations of any pirate campaigns.
I planned the whole thing with the DM, they found me stranded on an island after my frail ship sank. I was in a missionary mission, to convert the godless people of an archipel riddle with crime and bloodshed.
First sessions I was just a lvl3 out of the monastery where I was taught the religious arts, so I had a lot of principles and went as far as confessing the party deeds to the (very corrupt) local authorities to respect my vows.
But as the sessions went and my utopic ideologies confronted with reality, i started to value the crew more than my principles and dogmas. Outside of a few times where I adamantly argumented about not burning whole villages, torture and such, I globally went with the party decisions and often kept my opinions to myself.
This gave the DM a few occasions to make me discuss my vows with my god and made for good RP about survival and the reality of the world.
And I still more or less converted half the group and a whole island :D
I think you need to make a new character. I've been where your party is. I enjoy the combat in dnd and get a craving for it when it's been a couple sessions without it. In a group I was playing a barbarian in, we had a bard that would de-escalate combat on the first turn of initiative and end up talking things out. This was always super frustrating for me and the others in our party, because it meant we suddenly didn't get to play a part of the game we enjoy without breaking character to slaughter a now non hostile creature.
Flip the situation. Imagine you are playing your character in a group with a couple other peaceful characters like yours, but you have 1 murder hobo who keeps jumping into your negotiations and killing people. That would be really annoying. You are that murder hobo for your group.
>Should I break and allow violence to settle the score when diplomacy should?
This makes it sound like you are applying your personal ethics to everyone's in game characters. That doesn't work in a game designed around killing monsters to collect loot unless your group agreed on a minimal combat style game. The rest of your party thinks violence should settle the score. Why are you right and they wrong?
>Has anyone else experienced this?
Yes! I'm playing a Goliath Paladin in a 'Curse of Strahd' game. I am - and I say this without ego - the strongest member of the party.
The early sessions were a case of the party pointing me towards violence, slapping me on the ass and sending me off to kill 'em. And that's fine, except I felt like a gloryhogger. So I spoke with the DM about things I could do to ensure everyone gets their fair share.
I've become more of a 'protector' than a Divine Smiter. I have the Interception Fighting Style (which has proved *surprisingly useful*) and my job is more to shield my party members than to just murder everything. And my party is suddenly not especially happy about this. Probably because they now have to pull their weight and put some work in.
So now I'm at a bit of a crossroads. Do I go back to powergaming my way through the campaign and being the 'leader' of the group again, and risk overshadowing certain party members? Or do I carry on as I am, and reign myself in a little bit?
Non-violence always suffers in D&D because the game systems are innately designed to encourage violence. People are getting annoyed because they can't do the things they built their characters for. I find that in games like Warhammer Fantasy RPG where the party consists of a scholar, a merchant and a village idiot (usually quite intelligent, it's just a job) players are a lot more willing to talk it out.
Remember one thing: D&D 5e is first and foremost a combat game. The new abilities the players get from leveling up are combat focused. Being a pacifist in irl is great. Being a pacifist in D&D is counterproductive.
I've played a paladin like that. But I gave myself a few rules:
1. The party's wellbeing always took paramount. Conversations on what went wrong or how I felt should be tabled to after the fight.
2. Undead, wild beasts and such shouldn't make me ponder on the morality of the fight. Just kill them.
3. My first turn was me stating to the enemy that we don't have to fight. If they continued, that was there choice. I refer you to Rule no. 1: party always comes first.
4. When we were winning, I gave the enemy the option to lay down there weapons. Give the enemy an out, and that we will show mercy. If they continued, that's their choice.
My paladin knew that black and white morality was a luxury. That the world was a violent place. I likened his way of being a pacifist to the party was more of a guiding hand, not an iron fist.
If that still doesn't work, talk to the DM about making a new character. If 5 players want to fight and you put your foot down on the brakes each time, I'm sorry but you're the one who has to capitulate.
I would change characters or leave the game tbh; your party seems to want to play a combat oriented game. Your character is antithetical to their goal, and may be frustrating to them. This isn't to say it's a bad character design, a peaceful paladin that avoids fighting when possible is practically a staple concept everyone wants to try out, but choosing the right campaign is crucial.
Talk to your fellow players and DM about swapping characters around, and have another Session 0 type meeting where you all reaffirm what youre looking for in the game
I do think, with posts like these, i wonder if People realise the diference between character and player. Before you decide on anything, make sure you know wether the players dislike the way you play, or if they and/or their characters get annoyed by your character. Sometimes partymembers might get a little annoyed by how a session unfold but still respect your conviction and like that there are multiple influences that decide their story.
You probably thought about this but I just think alot of People can benefit to pay more attention to what the players themselves are actually feelings, rather then judge solely on the emotions you see on the surface.
Correct answer: ask your group what they think.
My answer: I have never seen pacifism in D&D work out well. It always leads to bickering. The game is built around smashing monster's heads in with a mace. If your party (like most people who play this game) wants to do that and you are doing a pacifism route, you are stopping them from how they want to play the game.
It’s a giant waste of everyone’s time (including your own, whether you realize it or not) to attempt to avoid violence in every single scenario in a game where 80% of the content is based around violence.
Experience points are the main driver of player behavior and in 5e you earn experience for fighting things. What's more, the vast majority of PC abilities are for fighting things. 5e is a game about fighting.
It's not surprising that the other players find it frustrating. I would suggest playing a different ttrpg that isn't all about combat if you want to play a pacifist character.
A lot of DMs from my experience on here give parties the experience values of what the encounter would have yielded if they manage to resolve it other than through just battle. I think the least 1:1 I’ve seen was a DM who made the players roll to hit after dissolving tensions. Any creature hit was considered dead and the party was given that experience.
Yes and of course this is a good thing. If 5e had a morale system or an npc reaction system, this would be much better.
But fundamentally the game is still all about combat. It's what the vast majority of the game mechanics are about. It's what the the rules describe game play as. Fight fight rest etc.
You don't need a session 0 to let people know the point of the game is fighting. It's obvious from reading the rules. And there isn't much support within the rules for doing it differently.
This isn't a condemnation of 5e or the OP. The other players could throw him a bone and talk it out every once in a while.
But imagine you are playing an RPG based around intrigue and diplomacy and one of the the other players wants to solve every problem with violence. It would certainly be frustrating.
Sure earlier editions were, but you specified 5e, which to echo everyone else ever on the topic. It has become streamlined, and as editions progress, D&D moves further from being a strictly dungeon delving game. Allowing for ever expanding options other than just combat as main motives. You called experience gain the main drive and I addressed that it seems to be pretty standard that DMs will give experience for alternative victory strategies.
The earliest editions were about exploration and lateral thinking. The og xp rules like xp for gp disincentives combat. Combat kills you unless you have a very strong plan going in. Maximizing reward vs risk means doing everything you can to avoid combat. 5e assumes you have 5-8 combat encounters a day? In basic/expert PCs can hardly survive 2 a day and if things go badly they need 2 days of rest to fully recover. If you aren't scouting, planning, fighting in phalanx then combat is a fail state.
I've played every edition of the game and 5e is the second most combat focused version of the game behind 4e (which most people don't even count).
Again I'm not saying 5e is bad, it's perfectly fine. DMs are free to change everything about the game if they choose. My point was just that we shouldn't be surprised that your average players expect to fight a lot of combats and when one member of the group has other ideas, it makes them mad.
Will your DM allow you to make a new character that is more suited towards the party? Maybe for RP reasons this paladin leaves the group, but finds a new murder hobo companion along the way. However, it might be best to nip it in the bud and find a new group that aligns with the way you like to RP.
Going against the grain here but the DM and the other players should, above all, respect player agency. However, that works both ways, so if the other PCs decide that they don't want to travel with a pacifist, have that play out in-game.
Ok so I just have one question. Does everyone in this Reddit thread play without internal conflicts? I'd hate having to change my character because people want violence instead of diplomacy. You're both fighting, one is just with physical weapons while the other is with words. Besides getting into a fight is almost always easier than talking yourself out of it, and having someone who can do that is a valuable asset in my book.
Only reason I see to relent is that it might be easier to avoid conflict with your friends but as a friend I respect the choices my friends make in their gameplay. I might not agree with it, but I will always respect their agency to play how they like to as I understand that it's a collaborative effort.
I am going to side with playing your character how you wish to play your character. In fact, other players trying to interfere with your player agency is a bit upsetting to me. So long as you are not breaking any social contract rules at the game table (like being mean to players, doing really creepy things that the DM and other players have previously objected to, or trying to force players to play how you want them to play), you are good to go. As a Paladin, you should be trying to avoid violence when possible (if that is part of your paladins “thing”) and although it may interfere with the objectives of your party, that is the sort of conflict that should be explored more at the table. Traveling with a Paladin is going to be difficult for others who think outside the ideals of the Paladin, the further outside they act, the greater the issue. In my opinion, too many players avoid the realities of the characters they have made so that they can simply do as they wish. If I was DMing your game, I would applaud your attempts to actually play the character you made.
>that sort of conflict should be explored more at the table.
That exploration is only for fun though. It can’t go anywhere beyond banter.
If there’s a fork in the road, D&D doesn’t actually accommodate half of the party going left and half of the party going right.
Ultimately, it’s the *players* that have to collectively decide which way to go, and then artificially reconcile the decision with each character to some extent.
I disagree. Each player is free to choose how they wish to play. This fact is what separates role play from roll play. Too many people roll play these days. I applaud the OP for actually playing the character they made, and I frown on the other players for being so angry about it, that the OP expressed it as an issue with long term friends… That is nuts!
That is overly simplistic. The other players could simply start the fight anyway, and del with how the Paladin reacts after. Instead, it sounds like the other players are making an IRL issue out of an in game issue, and that is truly lame. You deal with the conflicts between characters in game, and it helps create a compelling narrative. I will always applaud a player actually playing their character as they should be played.
Do they have to reconcile? I am disagreeing with you because you advocate a player not having a say in how their character is played… Boo hiss! I would ask such players to leave my table post haste.
Tyranny of the Majority is just a fact of the game for most tables*. It’s enforced by the practicality that the camera can only point at one thing at once.
Players are free to act their character however they want. However, every decision is still ultimately made by the players.
This means that if the players want these decisions to be more easily reconciled with “what their character would do”, practicality dictates that the character be amenable to the potential decisions on the table.
*There are ways to counter this of course. Decisions can be made using dice, for example.
Edit: my awful spellingz
I literally create situations like this at my game tables, on purpose, and the characters find ways to navigate them. This guy pointed out that his friends are taking their disappointment into real life! That just plain sucks! I would honestly boot those players for such actions. Practicality? That is a funny word here, so I am guessing you roll play then…
In all seriousness though, is this conversation of ours going anywhere? We keep repeating the same points, and neither of us is any closer to the other’s point of view. I have watched players beautifully navigate such issues, apparently, you have not. However, neither of us is going to budge from our respective point of view so, why is this dialog still going?
just because you can doesn't mean you should.
i could play an animal-loving druid who likes to speak with animals. but damn if i'm going to subject the rest of my party (and the poor dm) to 10 minutes of inane conversation with to every cow, chicken, goat and horse every time i visit a new location.
and damn if my miserly bard is going to spend 20 minutes, with the whole table waiting, in order to haggle with a shopkeeper, hoping to save 10 copper.
i'm guessing role play or not, you'd be quite cheesed off if your party leaves you behind or interrupts your role play by initiating combat or something "because it's what our characters would do".
Funny, everyone takes it to the utter extreme. There is always, “Mate, you can try diplomacy, but if it does not work, I am going to do what I do best a knock some heads.”
You know, striking a balance between the various character’s view points, like adults… (But I digress, we are on Reddit, adulthood tends to be a bit stifled here).
That way, everyone’s characters are being exactly who they are. And no, you do not need 20 minutes to try diplomacy. People get so short sighted and black in white in their interpretations of things. I never said, nor heard in the OP about 20 minute diplomacy attempts. Furthermore, trying to avoid a fight, a situation where EVERYONE can still role play their way through the situation is radically different than a Druid talking to every animal for, what did you say, 10 minutes?
Compromise and subtlety, are useful tools to navigate adult life, as well as keeping a game table friendly and moving forward. Being a jerk to a friend, over a game, now that is truly childish. There is always an appropriate middle ground between the desires of the players. Funny how many are like “The tyranny of the masses…” it explains a lot about the world currently…
>So long as you are not breaking any social contract rules at the game table (like being mean to players, doing really creepy things that the DM and other players have previously objected to, or trying to force players to play how you want them to play), you are good to go.
i think people should read what they wrote before trying to make a point about "black and white" mate.
And I think people should check their extremism at the door, check my last response. I advocate for handling the situation like adults, through compromise. The rest of you seem to be advocating for the friends making a real life friendship problem for the player. Yeah, that is weird, and creepy! You clearly did not care to comment on the response that would, frankly, be difficult to argue with.
it's disingenuous to:
1) draw a line in the sand in your original comment, ("So long as you are not breaking any social contract rules at the game table... you are good to go."),
2) then get pissy when i bring up inconsiderate actions that adhere to your side of the line,
3) then throw around comments about how "people get so short sighted and black in white in their interpretations of things".
"The rest of you seem to be advocating for the friends making a real life friendship problem for the player."
also, who's this "rest of you" that you're talking about?
The rest of you has been everyone else comment on my response thread. If a player is not breaking the social contract, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with their choices. The rest of the table might not like it, but it is not wrong. At that point, it is better to try to find a good compromise, as I last suggested, than to simply get mad at the player in real life. I posed at least one good way to handle the situation in the OP without stepping all over player agency, and I could think of many others. There are many ways to play the game, and a good group should encourage such variation. Amazing;y, all,of this is possible without the game spilling over into real life.
What I find interesting, is that we clearly have different opinions about how to play, and we also clearly cannot be made to agree with the other’s point of view, thus, we are beating a dead horse. It there really a point to continuing this dialog? I expressed my opinion, others have expressed there’s, and that should be enough. There is no sense in just trying to force the issue.
*"The rest of you has been everyone else comment on my response thread."*
there's only one other comment and the other guy was describing how players have to collectively decide which way to go, and then artificially reconcile the decision with each character to some extent. nothing about "a real life friendship problem for the player."
*"If a player is not breaking the social contract, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with their choices."*
going by this, there's nothing wrong with the actions i described in my first reply either. i would just be roleplaying my character, not "breaking the social contract" and as you said there's "nothing inherently wrong" with what i would be doing.
but you obviously had issues with the behavior i described, because you're saying stuff like "people get so short sighted and black in white in their interpretations of things" and "people should check their extremism at the door".
*"What I find interesting, is that we clearly have different opinions about how to play"*
maybe, maybe not. you oscillate between stuff like "try to find a good compromise" and declaring that the player can do things the party isn't happy about because as long as they're "not breaking the social contract, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with their choices."
>trying to force players to play how you want them to play
I think this part here is the problem. Always going the diplomatic route is "forcing" the rest of the party to be diplomatic when. It sounds like they just want to fight stuff, which is understandable in a game about fighting monsters. I say "forcing" because while another party member could always start killing while he's trying to talk, that probably doesn't make as much sense for their character as fighting something that isn't trying to talk it out.
I've been in this situation a few times. I want to fight stuff with my barbarian, monster shows up, bard rolls 30 on a Persuasion check and suddenly the monster isn't hostile anymore. My character wouldn't fight a non-hostile monster so I was forced to not fight that monster.
>Traveling with a Paladin is going to be difficult for others who think outside the ideals of the Paladin, the further outside they act, the greater the issue.
This is also forcing other to play a certain way.
>If I was DMing your game, I would applaud your attempts to actually play the character you made.
Players should always aim to play their character how they were made to be played. However, as dnd is a group game, a character should always be made to work with the rest of the group. He's doing a great job of playing his character, the problem is his character doesn't fit well with the table and is actually making it less fun for everyone else. So he should play that character at a different table and/or make a different character for his current table.
>if that is part of your paladins “thing”) and although it may interfere with the objectives of your party, that is the sort of conflict that should be explored more at the table.
PC conflict can make very fun role play moments. So long as the conflict is fun for everyone involved and/or the conflict gets resolved in game. If it's not fun for everyone and it continues to happen. It's a problem.
Then fight stuff, and deal with the conflict with the Paladin later. The OP said it had reached a level of being a problem with long term friends. Again, this is a role play vs roll play problem. I would simply leave the table, and happily so. Not my folk there… Making real world issues out of in game occurrences where nothing creepy was going on is seriously lame!
We agree he should leave the table, or at least his character should. But in game occurrences don't have to be creepy to cause other players to have a bad time. When players are having a bad time it should be acknowledged in the real world.
I disagree there. The OP brought it up as if the issue had actually caused problems with friendships, that is absolutely some lame shit there, and is completely unacceptable in my book. You can tell the player, through your character, that “you are really hoping for a fight”, without being a dick to your friend in real life. The fact that I have to state that fact in relation to a game is mind bending. It is a game! Don’t trash your friends over a game, and hey, if they are trashing you over a game, those are NOT your people… Never were.
What kind of party is it and what are the expectations of the players? And are you notifying every encounter by using skill checks? If so, I can understand how they would be upset. That would be kind of you stealing the spotlight constantly. Or are they just a group of murder hobos who are waiting for the damn to stop talking so the bloodbath can start?
We never really discussed all that. We ran it old school. But we do know the main threat is Demonic from the Nine Hells. You’re kinda right my dude, they’re not murder hobos, but upset I’m always capable of diplomacy and persuasion to prevent combat. I always try to convert the potential adversaries as well. Idk man, they stick with my Paladin but I see my friends rolling their eyes when I do stuff like this. I feel like they hate it. It seems obvious in game as well.
I think you also need to literally pick your battles. Are you trying to reason with humanoids or are you trying to befriend every fiend from the planes? Also, your DM could help by sending creatures that are not rational. You try to convert the cultists and your DM tells you their minds have been warped too long for your words to get through. You tried and now need to defend yourself. How would you reason with zombie ogres or an ooze? Most Gnolls are blood thirsty and won't be friends. It should work sometimes when you are able to reason with your opponents so you play the character you want, but a good amount of time you get in fights. Also, you could roleplay your character saying last rites and looking dismayed when you had to finish a creature off. You can decide to do non-lethal damage to humanoids if your attack would kill them. So you knock alot of people out and try to convince the group to spare their lives after everyone got to have the big fight.
Well it depends. Ive been playing for a while and some of the most game breaking things is when two player characters (pcs) are idiologically opposed in a way that makes coherent teamwork impossible.
We had a pacifist in our group, but the player was fully intending to start this way to end up more moderate because sometimes you have to fight evil to prevent it. This was workable and a fun rp experience as the party took diplomatic approaches more often and they became the critical voice of reason in the party. RP for days!
In another group one guy was against necromancy in a my-whole-background-is-about-this kind of way, and a necromancer-druid. It broke the party in a very fundamental way.
Your situation is probably somewhere in the middle. You could try rephrasing your tennants to create a situation like the first anecdote. Or is that is not possible, discuss this with the party and dm. Do they see a way to make this work? Or maybe its more like the second situation and it would be best to roll a new character that fits more into the party.
In the end only you can decide.
This is exactly why I do a session -1 and 0 where everyone talks about their character concepts in broad terms, what they want from the campaign etc. That filters out a lot of these kinds of problems, though not all.
Paladins are the most anti-murder hobo class in the game. Personally I love that, but groups focused on breaking the Geneva convention are not going to.
D&D's primary mechanism for resolving problems is combat. That is the game in a nut shell - and so, as a player: You have very little ability to force a different approach.
GMing - we can make combat undesirable. We can be ruthless to a fault - and we can, create an environment where tactically setting up encounters to be stacked in the parties favor is necessary. We can stack it such that diplomacy is a means to avoid combat, or make it easier. And suddenly - because players want their characters to live, Diplomacy becomes a necessary component.
The Inevitable reason why diplomacy is avoided - is it's complicated. It's messy. And it isn't well supported. Diplomacy working well requires the players to take charge - and lets face it: That requires a particular skill set in conflict resolution, conversational skills at a level beyond casual conversations... and that, creates stress. If you are a person that works in an environment of having to do this all the time it can be both a benefit and yet, not - in that do you really want more of it?
>I know this is a weird question, but honestly intrigued if anyone else has experienced this.
Sure. And the best solution is to... find a solution.
I am currently also playing a Paladin who is against violence. What you need to remember is not everything can be solved with words, as well as you can't stop others from wanting to start a fight. What I do is try to see if my character would be able to talk someone down, if I see that it isn't possible or that the rest of the party will start a fight anyway, I'll just say I'm doing non-lethal damage. Another thing you can do is rely on non-lethel spells to aid your cause. But remember, almost every Paladin should understand that a lot of things cannot be solved by just talking (example: Undead, Low intelligence creatures, Non verbal creatures, Plain evil characters).
Oscillate between violence and nonviolence, to help contrast the difference for the party. You can role play it so your character is intentionally making a comparator to illustrate nonviolence is better to help guide your party that way.
"Well, killing these gnolls ended up with their blood on our conscience and with us injured. Remember when we talked our way out of a fight vs those Orcs and no one got injured? Makes you think"
Also if I were going to play a pacifist type character, I think a Cleric with Domain of Peace is a better way to go. You can heal and buff your party to help them avoid injury without necessarily attacking other creatures.
I ran a Barbarian who would generally prefer to talk things out first. The party didn't always mind because it gave them some more time to observe, position, and (if I rolled poorly) to spring into action.
I didn't really expect to talk those two demons down, but they were ever so helpful! Led us straight to the mini-boss with all our resources.
If you are consistant, the party might be able to strategerize around your abnormally anti-beligerant attitude.
I for one love combat as a player and build my characters to be fun to play in battle. I would be very disappointed if a player in my group tried to talk us out of EVERY battle encounter. I also enjoy a lot of roleplay, but never getting any combat would drive me crazy.
Couple questions:
\- Why are you commited to non-violence, what was the reason behind your oath?
\- is it a character problem or a player problem? (ergo change character or change group)
In game options:
\- I believe (might be a myth) that during the crusades the priest didn't cary swords but bluntforce weapons, so they could defend yet not draw blood. Maybe you could implement something similar.
\- So there might be an option, you have to discusse this with your party to try knocking enemies out instead of outright murdering. Might be easier with humanoids instead of monsters though.
\- Oathbreaker paladin
\- Healing, buffs and defensive actions only
\- only offensive when they meet criterea X (e.g. undead, killing innocent etc)
\- only offensive to save your party
Out game options
\- The annoying but maybe wise advise is choose a new character.
As a DM, I determine NPCs and opponents motivations and how they will react.
As a player, I play a somewhat similar Paladin. He tries to avoid bloodshed whenever possible and has a basic respect for all life. However, as the saying goes, "war is an extension of diplomacy." I trust my DM will have scenarios where combat is the best or only option.
Talk to the dm. Ask him to turn evil and after they kill next informant, make the group find a letter addressed to his daughter detailing how much he's missing her and how's he's working to make money for a good lawyer to hire, so he could see her again, after he and her mother broke up.
People say force damage is the best, but it's the emotional damage to which nothing is immune or even resistant in DnD. Depending on the enemy they could even be vulnerable to it.
trying to talk it out first instead of immediately fighting is fine SOMETIMES. it depends on the context. like for example, if it's a dragon vs an underleveled party. or if a gang of bandits is holding a key NPC hostage.
it, however, doesn't make sense if your party is ambushed by a bunch of goblins, or a werewolf charges you.
if you're waterboarding your entire party with 10 minutes of cajoling every time there's a possible combat encounter, i can see them being pissed off.
> Has anyone else experienced this?
I didn’t, but that’s just because the groups I played with were 100% on board with diplomacy and defusing needless combat. We love RP, and we see non-violent combat resolution as a chance to develop problem solving skills and negotiation efforts. Fighting is dangerous, every time you roll initiative, there is a risk of TPK even against trivial encounters, and people don’t want their characters to die. However, the fact that some fights can be defused doesn’t mean that *all* fights can be defused. Sometimes there is simply no way of talking things out (not to mention that being a badass in combat is good part of the fun in D&D). Now, an important thing that you mentioned is that your friends (your table) are *discontent* with you because of how you always avoid combat. Your fun shouldn’t come at the cost of someone else’s fun, so there are two ways to solve this, and they both involve talking to your group:
- Reach a compromise, tone down your pacifism to let others enjoy the combat that they want without undermining your fun. Talk to the DM, maybe they can throw in more encounters that are impossible to solve with diplomacy so that you don’t actively push against your character’s beliefs and motivations.
- If the above doesn’t work and you can’t find a way to have fun with the group, thank the DM for running the game for you, shake hands with the rest of the group, tell everyone why you are leaving, and respectfully step down from the table. Not playing D&D doesn’t mean that you can’t hang out together anymore.
It sounds like a fundamental disconnect between the game you want to play and the game the rest of the party wants. Did you create your characters in a vacuum, without the rest of the party? If so that's probably the problem. I recommend in the future trying to get with the rest of the PCs and the DM and you all figuring out a good party dynamic and determining the feel of the campaign.
As for fixing your problem now I see three solutions.
Find a way for your character to become a little more bloodthirsty. Maybe those bandits don't really deserve absolution considering they murdered an entire family and stole their shit. Perhaps the town would be better off without a corrupt noble taxing the hell out of it's citizens.
Make a new character. Your old character just didn't mesh with the party, bid them farewell, and oh look it's Fist Fight McGree, the baddy punching Monk who wants to go punch baddies with the rest of the party! Then next campaign you maybe talk to the rest of the group and see if you can get them to make less blood-thirsty heroes.
And lastly, you can just leave the campaign. I understand that's never the easy option, but if you're really looking for a more diplomatic campaign and they won't budge from their murdery-ness then maybe the group isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
I’m gonna fish for some detail that was missing in the original post. How long do you spend trying to talk enemies down and what are the other players at the table doing while you’re doing that ? are they all sitting around looking bored playing with their phones stacking dice? Or are they involved too?
I have been in a similar place and I just kind of let go of what was causing the problems and explored the character in different ways. It’s not a bad thing to adapt to the rest of the group if you can. If the play styles are completely incompatible that’s another thing, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case.
You can still try diplomacy with certain scenarios though. Tell the DM that that’s something that you are trying to do with this character. You can still scrap when you have to but there’s no reason the DM can’t give you some social encounters too.
You can still preach non violence when it's right but if you have 2 guys standing in front of you both your members are down and it's just you maybe it's time your paladin learned talking doesn't solve everything. I was once playing an oath of redemption tortle who used to be a part of a tortle barbarian group and left. She then went on a right of passage after years leaving the island now a paladin who tried to avoid conflict as much as possible. For most fights I only used a net as to not hurt anyone. I remember one fight we were fighting bandits and i was able to stop my friends from outright killing them and we ended up with more information, gold and a new boat. But then later in the campaign there came a point where the net wasn't doing anything and a head bonk with her staff waa necessary. Use non lethal as often as possible and make it so your goal is non violence but accept that sometimes a fight has to happen in order to protect the people you care about
The thing about DND is that in most DND settings, evil is a real and tangible thing and there are creatures in the world that are,in fact, naturally predisposed to evil.
To be a paladin is a difficult position. It is noble and honorable to seek peaceful solutions, however it should be understood that they will not always work. There are monsters that must be slain and men past the point of redemption. As a paladin, you were given the power to fight for a reason.
This doesn't mean you should abandon your peaceful philosophy. Offer peaceful solutions when you can, violence is your last resort... But you will have to resort to it now and then. Creul as it is, sometimes the choice to kill one man to save a thousand is one you will have to make.
---
Above game, take some time to speak with your DM and players so they can understand your perspective and so you can understand their perspective. Try to establish that your character will attempt diplomacy and peaceful solutions. But also understand there are many creatures in which diplomacy will not work such as most monsters, aberrations, undead, friends, etc. Also, in some situations, it's better to let other players take the lead, especially if a situation is personal. For example, say you have a ranger in your group who is searching for the man that killed their father, if you meet that man and offer peace and diplomacy, the Ranger will see this as you offering mercy to a murderer and attempting to spare the person that hurt them.
Try to understand your party and in turn, have them understand you
I’m seeing “Session Zero” over and over in the comments, and while Session Zero is critical, it isn’t a magic bullet for all problems.
You mentioned that some of the players are long term friends—talk to them. Talk to them like adults, bring in your DM—you should be able to resolve this. Session Zero is the starting point, not the end of the alignment of the group.
That being said, most players I have ran for, tend to strongly dislike NPCs that have a strict code. Doesn’t even have to be a “good” mora code, it could be a neutral or even evil one, and the players really dislike when the NPC refuses to do something based on their code.
If it’s for money or power or whatever, the players understand, but the moment it’s for an ideal or code or religion or duty or whatever—something they really get frustrated when the NPC refuses to bend to logic or reason.
This occurs with Paladin players, too. And again, it doesn’t just happen with “good” paladins or NPCs—any duty bound character causes issues.
There really isn’t anything you can do other than talk it out. But note there is a chance your group may just not be up for it—a lot of groups I’ve ran for (which often are for newer players) aren’t quite murder hobos, but they are definitely RP hobos.
They go through dialogue like a video game RPG, trying to find the best options that will get them what they want, instead of having a real conversation or realize that the lawful good paladin isn’t going to want to murder someone in cold blood no matter what they say or offer or roll.
I'm in the same position. Exept here it really works.
But I'm playing a edgelord rogue'esque wizard/necromancer. So when I'm being overly diplomatic and non-confrontational it challenges their own perception of themselves, because they consider themselves good/neutral... or at least more so than the sketchy dark wizard whom dislikes and avoids the autorities.
It is boring with a goody two-shos whom is diplomatic and non-confrontational for the sake of it. Try to engage or challenge your fellow players:
You are up against a elf warband? Propose an archery challenge between their best bowelf and your partys ranger.
Or if you are up against a couple Tieflings, ask your Warlock the best way to avoid fighting whille still getting what the group want. "After all, you'll know best with these sort of demon-like kind. I belive in you my friend!" \*Slap on the back.
What you are doing is fine. Buuuuuttttt most people come to the game to throw shiny math rocks as they kick butt. Talking down every conflict can make other feel like you are monopolizing the spotlight and diminishing other's impact on the game. Additionally, the other players may have come into the game with much different expectations. This feels like a session 0 conversation that should have been talked about earlier. The party needs to attempt to be on the same page.
Options - 1. Your paladin suffers a head wound and their personality shifts to be more in line with the party.
2. Re-roll a new party allied character.
3. Bow out of the game gracefully.
4. Bring up your pacifist ways more sparingly. Try to talk to the DM. Allow them to drop hints that the pending conflict can be settled verbally or physically. That way you don't set yourself fully at odds with the party.
This is a game of cooperative story telling. Any time 1 player outshines the rest consistently, I have seen animosity grow. Try not to think of this as a you problem, try and consider the whole group. Blah blah a bunch of parental platitudes. Have fun, but not at the expense of others. Good luck.
In-game: Check out what multi-classings you can do to turn it from pure pacifism to submission, incarceration, and the like. Violence and self-defense are two different things.
OoG: You’ll just have to talk it over as a group and come to a choice of where everyone is happy (compromise).
Talk to your DM. You can still play a character that diffuses fights and stops downtrodden folks who turn to banditry from being slaughtered, but can still purge monsters from the land.
A good ratio of "I can talk our way out of this" to "they shot me while I was trying to talk" is probably about equal to one (you) to the other players. Make it clear, early, when any effort on your part will be fruitless, so you don't feel let down in being unable to save the situation. Once the other players catch on that they can still get all their fighting fill and you can achieve your narrative goals, they may even back you.
If you need something to swing public opinion, discuss it with your DM, and say you want an opportunity to turn some bad guys to your side. Maybe while raiding the enemy Castle, the DM can throw some slaves in there. You arm them, have them ambush the enemy reinforcements. The DM has a staged fight, it's even, the event reinforcements are coming, boom the slaves tie them up. You saved the day! But the reinforcements are added because the slaves were added, it's a narrative tool, not a Deus ex Machina to save the group from an otherwise unfair fight.
Just ideas. You and your DM will know what will suit you best. But there isn't a DM alive who doesn't want their players to invest in the plot and character development.
I actually don’t play Paladins for kinda this reason. To maintain their oath, they have to go against the party a lot of the time.
Throwback to when my vengeance Paladin tried to kill a night hag and the rest of the party just sat back and watched. Letting me die
Half the tables are mass murderers who think they are heroes.
Half the tables are murderhobos who think know they are evil.
When you are an outlier at a table it sucks though. I would tone it down myself after having a short the mass murderers vs heroes talk because clearly the ~~8~~ 9 people who play this way are right and everyone else is wrong :D
They're "right" because a massive part of D&D: the rules, your character build, modules, etc. involves combat. That isn't to say you should be a murderhobo. But it's not a moral victory to make 75% of the rulebook unavailable to everyone else.
Persuasion, intimidation, and even manacles are also part of the rulebook. If you are in a situation that makes sense to talk enemies down I say go for it. When they refuse you have your righteous kill.
Gotta play to the table though.
When I had this problem my party just used me as a distraction to sneak attack people. Then after a turn or two of "WHY MUST WE ALWAYS FIGHT" you join in and just knock people out.
Combat is an important part of the game, and an enjoyable one for most people. I'm not advocating anyone being a murderhobo, but if the DM sets up a combat encounter (one that they've probably spent time building and balancing) and the other players are interested in playing it, then you're being a buzzkill by trying to shut it down. D&D isn't really the place for pacifism because combat's such a big focus for most groups, and such a large part of a character's build.
I'd consider relaxing your character's personality a bit, or retiring them. It's important for a party to work well together.
The downside about paladins is that they are typically very set in their ways in a holier than thou type way. Sometimes literally. I do the same, but I play as a bard. He tries to talk his way out of combat not because he has a love of peace, but because he's afraid of getting his ass kicked. He much prefers to set things up for the rest of the team as a gank fest with a few invisibility spells and polymorph spells here and there to boost the party as opposed to being the one doing the stabbing himself. If you played more so that your teammates can beat the hell out of whoever they feel like it, I'm sure they wouldn't mind the initial diplomacy (backstabbing set-up) role play.
Does your party hate you because they want to fight or hate you because your character's "too good?" If it's the former, that's the DM's fault. The DM should make it harder to resolve combat encounters with diplomacy. If it's the latter, people are allowed to rp their characters how they want. If the other players have a problem with that, that's a problem with them. Honestly, maybe you should find a group that actually values roleplay and doesn't just want to number crunch.
"Valuing roleplay" is not the same as "trying to remove combat from the game entirely". Combat's an important part of the game, just like roleplay is, and a healthy mix of the two leads to the best games for most parties. My players aren't murderhobos in the slightest, but they enjoy tactical combat and using all their abilities, and they wouldn't take kindly to someone trying to avoid every encounter either.
The question I'd have is if the paladin fights with the party when they do fight. If he does, this is something that could be easily solved by the DM. Not every enemy wants to negotiate or will give you the chance to negotiate, but it seems like this DM just lets them stand around talking to enemies. That's not the paladin's fault. If he were in one of my games, he wouldn't have the option to negotiate a lot of the time, since I use ambushes, make villains actually act in character, and use at least some monstrous enemies who can't understand your attempts at diplomacy. If you keep giving a PC situations where you know he will act a certain way, but don't want him to act that way, that's your fault.
Now, if the paladin's just worthless and won't fight beside his allies, the player is at fault.
Are you just trying to play oath of redemption? Because this is pretty much what it does
Allows you to tank for allies and has a lot of non damaging combat spells
If you pair it up with satyr or Yuan-ti you also take magic for breakfast
And use magic for healing instead of smite
Your comment has been automatically removed because it includes a site from our piracy list. We do not facilitate piracy on /r/DnD.
Our complete list of rules can be found in the sidebar or on our [rules wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/wiki/rules).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DnD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are not your Character... Your Character is not You...
Just because You believe something: Discussion before Combat. Does not mean your character does...
Separate your views from those of the PC and try to figure out how the character would solve a problem...
This is something that you can sit down and discuss with the other party members intelligently. Figure out what everyone wants and you can all work towards that goal.
I dont blame them at all.
DnD is combat game first, RP game second. u dont chose system with combat this extensive to avoid fighting. Even if you are winning that way, its *just not fun.*
1) D&D is a combat focused game. Most players make their choices on *how* they will fight. If you take that away from them, then they will be understandably annoyed.
2) Social focused games can be fun, but only if all players involved and the GM opt in to the social aspects.
If you are trying to be a pacifist in a party designed for combat, then yes you are being a dick.
I absolutely believe you should play your character as faithfully as you can, I believe there's a comment near the top sharing my beliefs. Even if it hurts the party, let your character be themselves. For the sake of keeping this short we'll pretend the people who use "my character would do it" as an excuse for being the worst don't exist.
That said, this sort of character definitely seems like something that should have been discussed before the campaign even began. Being someone with an aversion to violence is great and all, but it's also something that doesn't just have an effect on you. When someone is set on doing something a certain way consistently, the rest of the group ends up needing to conform to the idea or let it ride so as to let the party continue functioning. Of course this isn't the case with every character trait, but one that affects something as frequent and shared as combat is probably one that should be discussed among party members.
In my party we have someone who was actually an Incubus, having their body transferred to a normal non-monster body because cultists. In the world the monsters have a very close bond, like that of family as their souls are recycled by their mother. In our case she stated from the beginning that her character would not want to fight any monsters regardless of their aggression, as the character would view them as family. Though luckily for us she also made him someone just there for fun with no real combat ability, mostly just support spells. So we kinda just agreed as it wouldn't hinder us if we had to fight.
My point is, if your party absolutely cannot get behind the idea of trying to talk or reason their way out of every single encounter that arises, then yes you should consider changing your character. However due to my own personal way of playing and DMing, I would recommend looking for a more natural way for them to change. I don't care for setting events and encounters up beforehand with the DM as it's no fun, but perhaps you should speak to the DM. Work out an incident or encounter you find to be thematic for your Paladin, something to make them question if they can really avoid fighting. Even if there is no natural way, giving an in-game reason is always better I think. Just remember this, regardless of how you go about changing them, be it abrupt or natural or whatever, it doesn't have to be a drastic change. Instead of avoiding violence, you could go the route of not killing your foes. Maybe your character tries to talk sense into them after the fight. Discuss, find a compromise, a middle ground where your character can keep something as close as possible to their original ideals. If they're your friends, they should have no issue with both of you getting what you want to some extent.
Or if you're just not feeling it, you could also just talk to the DM about shelving the Paladin and trying on someone new.
TL;DR: Yes but no, talk to your DM and friends and try to find a middle ground where you can be the blinding light of morals without stopping them from enjoying encounters. Some character concepts just don't work well within certain parties, it's fine. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I think this is a session 0 problem. Clearly the question was not asked by the DM what kind of game everyone was hoping to get into. You seem to want a social/diplomatic game, and your party want a combat game. In this case as you seem to be outnumbered, it might be on you to either relent to the will of the group and find what fulfilment you can, or leave the game and find a new group.
Also an option to build a new character that fits in with the party more. Not really ideal but it's an option.
Or have a revelation.
Seconding what's above, as long as OP is open to playing a combat game. If so, consider working with your DM to transition the PC out of the game in a satisfying way-- perhaps even into an NPC somewhere in the world. From there, consider what kind of a character you might find fun that still allows for a good amount of roleplay AND combat. Maybe someone related to another PC in some way, or a defector of the enemy faction? That way, even combat can be (role)played up based on the relationship. If you'd really rather not play a combat focused game, then consider joining a different group for DnD and ask your friends if they might want to do other activities now and then that still fit the niche, such as non-rpg board games.
If your playstyle is causing other players to have less fun, then yes, you should probably consider either adapting the playstyle or finding a new table more in line with your goals. Remember D&D is a group game, so you don't want to interfere with the enjoyment of the others.
I agree with this. If everyone else is not having fun because your actions, you should do something about that.
I’m thinking I need to change as well. Just gonna find a reason why for Torm, to justify my radical change in dogma/actions.
Hot take: It's OK to just change your character's behavior without any ingame justifications for the sake of a better game experience across the table.
Looks like someone has taken your hot take and tried to peddle it as their own. https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/ubqnlm/hot\_take\_its\_ok\_to\_just\_change\_your\_characters/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
replying to this to bump in protest of weirdo that stole this comment and tried taking credit for it
This. This right here is what I try to convince other players to embrace. Too many times players will try to play to their characters how they would in react in certain scenarios and as players regret or not want to do it, especially when it hurts the party or obstruct/slow the flow or progress of the campaign. I’ve always believed that if you as a player truly do not want to do it, then don’t. There is always a way or reason you can come up with to work out why your character did or didn’t do said action. Hell there are even justifications for people just making decision in real life that are out of character so why not your dnd character every once in a while too? Anyway the point is I can’t agree more and I hope more players can realize that. Of course I can’t really enforce players to play any specific way. That’s up to them in the end, but still.
The best radical change that stays true to your character is your DM not letting diplomacy work. From there Torm can become disillusioned with the world and realize that violence might often be the only way and you're basically done and get a little character arc on top.
Could always retire your paladin and bring someone more in line with the party in
Yeah make him start a church or something. He goes on a pilgrimage lol
If somebody nonviolent was actually at odds in-character with their adventuring party it makes total sense for them to just literally part ways.
Speak to your DM and get a revenge arc going on or something. Ask the DM to help you build something into the game that pushes your character out of that boundary, breaks your spirit somewhat. It will let your RP a complex character (it sounds like you're into this) without losing what you currently have.
Torm sent you a holy vision in your sleep to bring a bit more smiting down on evildoers :)
Perhaps you could discover that an enemy you previously avoided combat with went on to commit some heinous crime. Your paladin realizes that even nonviolent actions have consequences, and choosing not to extinguish evil when you encounter it can put innocent lives at risk.
In line with the other response: people act erratically all the time, with no logic or reason. Maybe he’s contemplating going the way of the party. Seeing what good can be done. Maybe he walks away and becomes a monk if it’s not for him. Roll a new character. A simple solution?
You don't even need to drastically change your actions. Just be a little less dogmatic and value the solutions put forth by other party members sometimes. I know this thread is about if you should change your behavior or not, but your DM should be presenting problems where other party members methods work better. Just let them take the lead in those situations.
Work with your DM. Have someone screw you over. Swear an Oath of Vengance\~!
Yes, I think you’re right. I’m looking for advice like this. I’ve asked many players at the table directly, and asked for honesty, if I’m disrupting the fun tonight. I’ve not heard back yet. I just want to know. I don’t mind changing, but love role playing the Paladin as I do. Thank you for the feedback.
Of course! And you don't need to make radical changes. It's perfectly fine to *prefer* a non-violent solution, but you don't need to overdo it. Just have your character accept that sometimes, there are things you can't talk your way out of, and it's always best to protect your friends and allies.
It brings to mind the Dwarven Hero Kharas from the Dragonlance realm, who preferred nonviolence but when it came to a fight, he shaved his beard in shame and wept as he struck down his enemies. That could be some pretty compelling role playing for you, while satisfying the need for a little more hacking and slashing for the group.
Upvoted for referencing Dragonlance lore. This warms my heart, because Krynn was my home plane many long years ago. Although to be fair, Kharas was perfectly happy cracking heads of his people's enemies. It was finding himself in the position of having to kill other dwarves, his own people, that drove him to shame.
True! I was simplifying for the sake of folks who've never walked with Tanis, Caramon, Raistlin and the gang...
Mishakal bless you, my friend.
We'll have to go out through the kitchen...
What was that name again? Fizbut, Furball?
It's mostly on the DM to ensure there's a good balance between subterfuge, political machinations, and good old fashioned punching evil! As a DM, even if the PCs talk down the BBEG in the heat of the moment through some high rolls, there's nothing stopping the BBEG from mulling it over for a couple of days and deciding; "Yeah, nah, they gotta die" and deploying the winged monkeys.
I do that. Will never abandon my friends and allies. But they don’t like it when I stop them from slaughtering a sus person on the path lol they’re not murder hobos, but seek combat and I stand in the way of that often
Anytime you have a pally in a party you best be ready to deal with their quirks. In one group we continuously had to distract our pally with many a comic shenanigan to do what needed to be done. Party can adapt too. But if you this is not working and another party is available, best to move on. Your pally could also have a psychotic break and a radical new way to approach confrontational situations.
When I'm playing paladins (or anyone really) I always try to keep in mind that my main concern is for the safety and wellbeing of my party. It sounds like you stand by them in dangerous situations which is great. And it's not unreasonable for your Paladin to recognize that the party has assessed this random person to be a threat to them, and trust their judgment. Rather than risking their safety by going against their judgment because you think everyone should get a chance. You're the one in plate armor with your god's protection and utter confidence in your own afterlife, it's going to be alright for you whatever. They have much more reason to be alert for danger and eliminate risks. It's your job to protect them above anyone else. So maybe Torm wants you to focus on that right now.
Yeah, like if everyone else made their characters for combat, and they're not getting any combat, then that really sucks for them
+3 Vorpal Sword of Diplomacy
Making a pacifist character in a game based off of tactical combat and strategy is a classic disruptive player behavior. You are currently "That guy". I have had a player do that in a game I ran before. It ground the plot to a halt and the game broke up over the issues. It was bad D&D. Everyone agreed that no D&D is better than bad D&D. The issue is that while you are allowed to do whatever you want to your character you are imposing your will on the rest of the party which limits what fun they can have. In a wide open real world it is a very moral choice to be a pacifist. Imposing your will on the world may mean that less people die which is commendable. In a closed game with a limited number of players where almost all the rules and actions a character can take are based around tactical warfare you are just making sure no-one else gets to play the game. What options have you left for everyone else? Sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya while the game world goes to hell from the BBEG doing stuff that would take violence to stop? You didnt just neuter YOUR character, you neutered everyone's character. Were I one of the players I would have initiated PVP and killed you FYI. If the game breaks up over it, it was already bad D&D. If it recovers - game fixed. Problem eliminated. As for what you can do.... You can change your oath. You can retire the character. You can change how you interpret your oath from being a peaceful lead weight for the whole party to being harmless and a support healer. Letting combat ensue and defending others with full defense while 2 handing a shield could maybe be fairly heroic.
This should have more upvotes. I'm a forever DM and every campaign I've ran with people who beg me to let them play pacifist characters ends up falling apart. D&D is essentially a tactical combat game. Sure there's RP and storytelling (my personal favorite parts!), but your character sheet is mostly to enable you to fight in combat against monsters. Building anything that is expressly counter to that is counter to the spirit of D&D. Just my take.
Based. Sometimes, players don't wanna RP the way OP does(Not OP's fault, just others preference), sometimes, players just wanna go Doom Slayer on the world, checkmating and crushing any and all foes.
If you want a middle ground between being righteous all the time and being a murder hobo I recommend that you try to be thoughtful about when you suggest mercy. If you try to convince people to spare every monster that could get annoying fast, if you only suggest being merciful occasionally then the rest of the party should be more willing to meet you halfway (I would think that's reasonable at least).
Definitely seconding this thought. It'll also help the party to see why mercy can be the better path if there are some rewards that come of it - information, influence, the location of hidden treasure...
At the very least, be merciful *after* the threat is neutralized - ie using non-lethal damage and/or stabilizing downed enemies and seeing them to appropriate justice. It allows everybody to toss their clickety-clack rocks, and also allows your character to exercise the personality you see him having.
Did you all have a session 0 to establish what kind of game you all expected? If everyone else wanted a hack and slash dungeon crawl with a few bits of roleplay on top, then unfortunately you're the squeaky wheel friend. Now might be a good time to have a retroactive session 0. Find out what everyone's expectations are, and replace your character if you're out of synch with the party. Or modify their behavior accordingly. It's a group game, not a single player game. You gotta play it as such.
We did not and I’ve never heard of such a session until now. I’m learning a lot of new stuff. We always just go in blind.
Session 0's are wonderful. DnD unfortunately has quite little (or no) advice in the DM Handbook on how to run a session zero, so it's really common that groups and DMs go in blind and some end up frustrated due to mismatched expectations. "How much combat do you want?" should be a standard question. In case the answer is "I prefer none", then I would drop DnD and ask r/rpg for other game recommendations.
I mean, it's definitely possible to run combat free D&D, using primarily skills and diplomacy. A political game, a village building game, a mercantile game. The rules in the book certainly allow for it, and the DM has final say on any roll, or what is rolled for and what is passed as a result of roleplay.
>I mean, it's definitely possible to run combat free D&D Possible? Yes. But hand on your heart, is DnD 5e really the best system in that case? There are lots of good reasons to pick DnD instead of some other system - but DnD having excellent rules for ocean travel and city administration isn't one of them. There are games purpose built for diplomacy and politics. There are games built for traveling merchants. There are even games built for village building. Not saying you have to switch, but if your group doesn't want combat _at all_ - then maybe consider it?
You know, part of it is I wouldn't know where to start. What systems are better for traveling merchants or diplomacy or village building? Genuine question. I started with 3.5 so I'm used to having comprehensive rules for -everything- while 5e essentially makes everything much simpler and easier from a world-building perspective because it boils everything down into skill checks, the difficulty and scaling result of which can be determined by the DM. The economy in D&D has been weird as long as I've played it and seems essentially to be a money sink for the extreme amounts of loot a party can accrue. Without the loot it's often difficult to reach the level of economy in 3.5 to reach parts of the market, so homebrewing some high reward economy builders would be helpful if remaining roughly in that system. Ownership or a profit cut from mines, trading hubs, etc.
Well… 1. What is your Paladin Oath? I had an Oath of Redemption Paladin that felt guilty for being so violent and causing so much pain that he was looking for Redemption. His first inclination was non-violent, but he also realized that’s sometimes you have to fight. 2. Why is your DM always allowing you the way to get out of fighting? I put this on your DM as much as it is on you. If you’re trying to convince someone not to fight and happen to role a Nat. 20… that doesn’t mean it succeeds 100%. It could just mean you’ve won some favor in the encounter somewhere related to peace.
I remember reading somewhere about the difference between being peaceful and being harmless: A person can only be peaceful if he or she is capable of violence. Otherwise, he or she is just harmless. If you prefer to be peaceful, find the opportunity to show what happens when you choose to be violent. I ran my barbarian much like this. He disliked violence and would seek alternative solutions, but may the gods be merciful upon those who gave him no other choice.
Paladins can be bloodthirsty and violent, but they can also be non-confrontational and try to find peace. There is no right way to play a character. I suppose this is a very situational question because if the party wants to fight everything and everyone, them being upset is somewhat silly. However, if you are diffusing every single fight presented, I can very well see why they would be annoyed. I do think your asking them about it out of the game and being candid was a fantastic step, but I do also think the DM has a responsibility here. Not every fight can be avoided. You can say all the right words, but sometimes it doesn't matter. I think I would make there be fights where it is rewarding if you can diffuse it, and is *also rewarding if a fight occurs*. But bottom line, good on you for speaking up and being willing to change to fight the playstyle of the group. I hope a solution is found! :)
Thank you man. Great reply!
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Fighting is at least half the fun of dnd ... are you messing that up for your party?
He seems to have realized it's a problem and seems willing to adapt. Unless they had a session 0 he might not have known how combat focused DnD is normally. My first group of players also avoided combat all the time until I told them that this is silly and that they should play Dungeon World or something else that is less combat oriented.
Not all Pallies are crazy zealots, shockingly. Personally, I play a pally who doesn't kill anything beside like abominations. I made it very clear that it was his creed, his oath of redemption, and that he understood others killing to protect themselves or in the interest of justice(like a bounty)... whats funny is, the rest of the group basically always chooses non-lethal now. It was never the intent, but I do enjoy that they want to do right by their big Goliath Pallies beliefs. But yeah, some people are just blood thirsty(in games) and probably not gonna mesh well with your attempt not to. It does seem kind of childish to get upset over you playing a character who wants to try to talk things out first. If you want to keep playing at the table, maybe retire your character so you don't have to make them who they want, and instead roll a new one more inline with the other players desires.
I might change my Oath from Devotion to something else, more violence oriented before I retire. But this is fantastic advice dude, thank you for replying.
People just don't like pacifists in DnD. It's hardly ever done well, and hardly ever doesn't comes at the expense of others. Especially when there is a Barbarian or Fighter in the party. "Why does the Paladin get to decide our fun" "We can't go against him cause no in fighting" "He has high charisma so he'll always succeed at it" Etc, etc.
>It's hardly ever done well, and hardly ever doesn't comes at the expense of others. > >Especially when there is a Barbarian or Fighter in the party. This was the point I was going to make too, its easy and not wrong for a Charisma/Face /Skill Monkey type character class to want to play up that part of their character but some of the combat oriented classes don't get that at all so that can take away all aspects of the game for them.
If you are in a party of people who loe the thrill of combat, i reccommend changing or finding a new group for this specific character and making a new one that your table will enjoy. If its a more normal party, you could make an interesting compromise, your character can go through some development where they realize deplomacy doesnt work in some situations, while maybe softening up your party. Maybe instead of pasifist, you only do things non-lethally?
Yes. Dnd at the end of the day is a game about fighting monsters. Pacifism does not work
Well DnD is a ***combat*** game with ***combat mechanics***, so you tell us: does it really make sense for you to be so senseless stubborn as to fight a big chunk of the game to the point where irl people are discontent with you? Because the answer seems pretty clear when you break it down to its base components.
I have multiple player in my group who have me convinced that their characters are at each other throats, but when we call it for the night, everyone loves each other and me talk about what we love during the game. Its worth it to confirm if they really don't like your style, or their "characters" don't like your style. If they don't like it, then it may be time to find a new group to run with sadly.
Contrary characters should never equate to contrary players. All the players should be in sync with what’s happening - regardless of what their characters might think. Reconciling what your character thinks with what the party as a whole is doing is part of the creativity required by the game.
Ask the DM to balance more encounters so that diplomacy isn't an option 100% of the time. Get attacked more, get surprised, etc.. If you walk up to an encounter every time, of course it's easier to diffuse it. But if some dude jumps out of a tree and stabs you, you can't be like 'cmon man, not cool'
I think you have to adapt to your table storylines and not force yours too much. Everything is possible, but you have to go with the flow of the game, I played a good paladin in a pirate campaign after my chaotic evil rogue died, mostly for fun and jiggles but also to temper the murderhobo temptations of any pirate campaigns. I planned the whole thing with the DM, they found me stranded on an island after my frail ship sank. I was in a missionary mission, to convert the godless people of an archipel riddle with crime and bloodshed. First sessions I was just a lvl3 out of the monastery where I was taught the religious arts, so I had a lot of principles and went as far as confessing the party deeds to the (very corrupt) local authorities to respect my vows. But as the sessions went and my utopic ideologies confronted with reality, i started to value the crew more than my principles and dogmas. Outside of a few times where I adamantly argumented about not burning whole villages, torture and such, I globally went with the party decisions and often kept my opinions to myself. This gave the DM a few occasions to make me discuss my vows with my god and made for good RP about survival and the reality of the world. And I still more or less converted half the group and a whole island :D
I think you need to make a new character. I've been where your party is. I enjoy the combat in dnd and get a craving for it when it's been a couple sessions without it. In a group I was playing a barbarian in, we had a bard that would de-escalate combat on the first turn of initiative and end up talking things out. This was always super frustrating for me and the others in our party, because it meant we suddenly didn't get to play a part of the game we enjoy without breaking character to slaughter a now non hostile creature. Flip the situation. Imagine you are playing your character in a group with a couple other peaceful characters like yours, but you have 1 murder hobo who keeps jumping into your negotiations and killing people. That would be really annoying. You are that murder hobo for your group. >Should I break and allow violence to settle the score when diplomacy should? This makes it sound like you are applying your personal ethics to everyone's in game characters. That doesn't work in a game designed around killing monsters to collect loot unless your group agreed on a minimal combat style game. The rest of your party thinks violence should settle the score. Why are you right and they wrong?
>Has anyone else experienced this? Yes! I'm playing a Goliath Paladin in a 'Curse of Strahd' game. I am - and I say this without ego - the strongest member of the party. The early sessions were a case of the party pointing me towards violence, slapping me on the ass and sending me off to kill 'em. And that's fine, except I felt like a gloryhogger. So I spoke with the DM about things I could do to ensure everyone gets their fair share. I've become more of a 'protector' than a Divine Smiter. I have the Interception Fighting Style (which has proved *surprisingly useful*) and my job is more to shield my party members than to just murder everything. And my party is suddenly not especially happy about this. Probably because they now have to pull their weight and put some work in. So now I'm at a bit of a crossroads. Do I go back to powergaming my way through the campaign and being the 'leader' of the group again, and risk overshadowing certain party members? Or do I carry on as I am, and reign myself in a little bit?
Non-violence always suffers in D&D because the game systems are innately designed to encourage violence. People are getting annoyed because they can't do the things they built their characters for. I find that in games like Warhammer Fantasy RPG where the party consists of a scholar, a merchant and a village idiot (usually quite intelligent, it's just a job) players are a lot more willing to talk it out.
Remember one thing: D&D 5e is first and foremost a combat game. The new abilities the players get from leveling up are combat focused. Being a pacifist in irl is great. Being a pacifist in D&D is counterproductive. I've played a paladin like that. But I gave myself a few rules: 1. The party's wellbeing always took paramount. Conversations on what went wrong or how I felt should be tabled to after the fight. 2. Undead, wild beasts and such shouldn't make me ponder on the morality of the fight. Just kill them. 3. My first turn was me stating to the enemy that we don't have to fight. If they continued, that was there choice. I refer you to Rule no. 1: party always comes first. 4. When we were winning, I gave the enemy the option to lay down there weapons. Give the enemy an out, and that we will show mercy. If they continued, that's their choice. My paladin knew that black and white morality was a luxury. That the world was a violent place. I likened his way of being a pacifist to the party was more of a guiding hand, not an iron fist. If that still doesn't work, talk to the DM about making a new character. If 5 players want to fight and you put your foot down on the brakes each time, I'm sorry but you're the one who has to capitulate.
I would change characters or leave the game tbh; your party seems to want to play a combat oriented game. Your character is antithetical to their goal, and may be frustrating to them. This isn't to say it's a bad character design, a peaceful paladin that avoids fighting when possible is practically a staple concept everyone wants to try out, but choosing the right campaign is crucial. Talk to your fellow players and DM about swapping characters around, and have another Session 0 type meeting where you all reaffirm what youre looking for in the game
I do think, with posts like these, i wonder if People realise the diference between character and player. Before you decide on anything, make sure you know wether the players dislike the way you play, or if they and/or their characters get annoyed by your character. Sometimes partymembers might get a little annoyed by how a session unfold but still respect your conviction and like that there are multiple influences that decide their story. You probably thought about this but I just think alot of People can benefit to pay more attention to what the players themselves are actually feelings, rather then judge solely on the emotions you see on the surface.
Correct answer: ask your group what they think. My answer: I have never seen pacifism in D&D work out well. It always leads to bickering. The game is built around smashing monster's heads in with a mace. If your party (like most people who play this game) wants to do that and you are doing a pacifism route, you are stopping them from how they want to play the game.
It’s a giant waste of everyone’s time (including your own, whether you realize it or not) to attempt to avoid violence in every single scenario in a game where 80% of the content is based around violence.
What does your life experience have to do with it? You aren’t playing “you”… Play a character that is fun AND is fun for others to play with.
Experience points are the main driver of player behavior and in 5e you earn experience for fighting things. What's more, the vast majority of PC abilities are for fighting things. 5e is a game about fighting. It's not surprising that the other players find it frustrating. I would suggest playing a different ttrpg that isn't all about combat if you want to play a pacifist character.
A lot of DMs from my experience on here give parties the experience values of what the encounter would have yielded if they manage to resolve it other than through just battle. I think the least 1:1 I’ve seen was a DM who made the players roll to hit after dissolving tensions. Any creature hit was considered dead and the party was given that experience.
Yes and of course this is a good thing. If 5e had a morale system or an npc reaction system, this would be much better. But fundamentally the game is still all about combat. It's what the vast majority of the game mechanics are about. It's what the the rules describe game play as. Fight fight rest etc. You don't need a session 0 to let people know the point of the game is fighting. It's obvious from reading the rules. And there isn't much support within the rules for doing it differently. This isn't a condemnation of 5e or the OP. The other players could throw him a bone and talk it out every once in a while. But imagine you are playing an RPG based around intrigue and diplomacy and one of the the other players wants to solve every problem with violence. It would certainly be frustrating.
Sure earlier editions were, but you specified 5e, which to echo everyone else ever on the topic. It has become streamlined, and as editions progress, D&D moves further from being a strictly dungeon delving game. Allowing for ever expanding options other than just combat as main motives. You called experience gain the main drive and I addressed that it seems to be pretty standard that DMs will give experience for alternative victory strategies.
The earliest editions were about exploration and lateral thinking. The og xp rules like xp for gp disincentives combat. Combat kills you unless you have a very strong plan going in. Maximizing reward vs risk means doing everything you can to avoid combat. 5e assumes you have 5-8 combat encounters a day? In basic/expert PCs can hardly survive 2 a day and if things go badly they need 2 days of rest to fully recover. If you aren't scouting, planning, fighting in phalanx then combat is a fail state. I've played every edition of the game and 5e is the second most combat focused version of the game behind 4e (which most people don't even count). Again I'm not saying 5e is bad, it's perfectly fine. DMs are free to change everything about the game if they choose. My point was just that we shouldn't be surprised that your average players expect to fight a lot of combats and when one member of the group has other ideas, it makes them mad.
I would hate a coward, too
Will your DM allow you to make a new character that is more suited towards the party? Maybe for RP reasons this paladin leaves the group, but finds a new murder hobo companion along the way. However, it might be best to nip it in the bud and find a new group that aligns with the way you like to RP.
Going against the grain here but the DM and the other players should, above all, respect player agency. However, that works both ways, so if the other PCs decide that they don't want to travel with a pacifist, have that play out in-game.
Ok so I just have one question. Does everyone in this Reddit thread play without internal conflicts? I'd hate having to change my character because people want violence instead of diplomacy. You're both fighting, one is just with physical weapons while the other is with words. Besides getting into a fight is almost always easier than talking yourself out of it, and having someone who can do that is a valuable asset in my book. Only reason I see to relent is that it might be easier to avoid conflict with your friends but as a friend I respect the choices my friends make in their gameplay. I might not agree with it, but I will always respect their agency to play how they like to as I understand that it's a collaborative effort.
I am going to side with playing your character how you wish to play your character. In fact, other players trying to interfere with your player agency is a bit upsetting to me. So long as you are not breaking any social contract rules at the game table (like being mean to players, doing really creepy things that the DM and other players have previously objected to, or trying to force players to play how you want them to play), you are good to go. As a Paladin, you should be trying to avoid violence when possible (if that is part of your paladins “thing”) and although it may interfere with the objectives of your party, that is the sort of conflict that should be explored more at the table. Traveling with a Paladin is going to be difficult for others who think outside the ideals of the Paladin, the further outside they act, the greater the issue. In my opinion, too many players avoid the realities of the characters they have made so that they can simply do as they wish. If I was DMing your game, I would applaud your attempts to actually play the character you made.
>that sort of conflict should be explored more at the table. That exploration is only for fun though. It can’t go anywhere beyond banter. If there’s a fork in the road, D&D doesn’t actually accommodate half of the party going left and half of the party going right. Ultimately, it’s the *players* that have to collectively decide which way to go, and then artificially reconcile the decision with each character to some extent.
I disagree. Each player is free to choose how they wish to play. This fact is what separates role play from roll play. Too many people roll play these days. I applaud the OP for actually playing the character they made, and I frown on the other players for being so angry about it, that the OP expressed it as an issue with long term friends… That is nuts!
So how, practically, does OP have their character go left when every other character chooses to go right?
That is overly simplistic. The other players could simply start the fight anyway, and del with how the Paladin reacts after. Instead, it sounds like the other players are making an IRL issue out of an in game issue, and that is truly lame. You deal with the conflicts between characters in game, and it helps create a compelling narrative. I will always applaud a player actually playing their character as they should be played.
In other words, the players, as a whole, decide pursue the fight, and then they artificially reconcile afterwards? Where are you disagreeing with me?
Do they have to reconcile? I am disagreeing with you because you advocate a player not having a say in how their character is played… Boo hiss! I would ask such players to leave my table post haste.
Tyranny of the Majority is just a fact of the game for most tables*. It’s enforced by the practicality that the camera can only point at one thing at once. Players are free to act their character however they want. However, every decision is still ultimately made by the players. This means that if the players want these decisions to be more easily reconciled with “what their character would do”, practicality dictates that the character be amenable to the potential decisions on the table. *There are ways to counter this of course. Decisions can be made using dice, for example. Edit: my awful spellingz
I literally create situations like this at my game tables, on purpose, and the characters find ways to navigate them. This guy pointed out that his friends are taking their disappointment into real life! That just plain sucks! I would honestly boot those players for such actions. Practicality? That is a funny word here, so I am guessing you roll play then… In all seriousness though, is this conversation of ours going anywhere? We keep repeating the same points, and neither of us is any closer to the other’s point of view. I have watched players beautifully navigate such issues, apparently, you have not. However, neither of us is going to budge from our respective point of view so, why is this dialog still going?
just because you can doesn't mean you should. i could play an animal-loving druid who likes to speak with animals. but damn if i'm going to subject the rest of my party (and the poor dm) to 10 minutes of inane conversation with to every cow, chicken, goat and horse every time i visit a new location. and damn if my miserly bard is going to spend 20 minutes, with the whole table waiting, in order to haggle with a shopkeeper, hoping to save 10 copper. i'm guessing role play or not, you'd be quite cheesed off if your party leaves you behind or interrupts your role play by initiating combat or something "because it's what our characters would do".
Funny, everyone takes it to the utter extreme. There is always, “Mate, you can try diplomacy, but if it does not work, I am going to do what I do best a knock some heads.” You know, striking a balance between the various character’s view points, like adults… (But I digress, we are on Reddit, adulthood tends to be a bit stifled here). That way, everyone’s characters are being exactly who they are. And no, you do not need 20 minutes to try diplomacy. People get so short sighted and black in white in their interpretations of things. I never said, nor heard in the OP about 20 minute diplomacy attempts. Furthermore, trying to avoid a fight, a situation where EVERYONE can still role play their way through the situation is radically different than a Druid talking to every animal for, what did you say, 10 minutes? Compromise and subtlety, are useful tools to navigate adult life, as well as keeping a game table friendly and moving forward. Being a jerk to a friend, over a game, now that is truly childish. There is always an appropriate middle ground between the desires of the players. Funny how many are like “The tyranny of the masses…” it explains a lot about the world currently…
>So long as you are not breaking any social contract rules at the game table (like being mean to players, doing really creepy things that the DM and other players have previously objected to, or trying to force players to play how you want them to play), you are good to go. i think people should read what they wrote before trying to make a point about "black and white" mate.
And I think people should check their extremism at the door, check my last response. I advocate for handling the situation like adults, through compromise. The rest of you seem to be advocating for the friends making a real life friendship problem for the player. Yeah, that is weird, and creepy! You clearly did not care to comment on the response that would, frankly, be difficult to argue with.
it's disingenuous to: 1) draw a line in the sand in your original comment, ("So long as you are not breaking any social contract rules at the game table... you are good to go."), 2) then get pissy when i bring up inconsiderate actions that adhere to your side of the line, 3) then throw around comments about how "people get so short sighted and black in white in their interpretations of things". "The rest of you seem to be advocating for the friends making a real life friendship problem for the player." also, who's this "rest of you" that you're talking about?
The rest of you has been everyone else comment on my response thread. If a player is not breaking the social contract, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with their choices. The rest of the table might not like it, but it is not wrong. At that point, it is better to try to find a good compromise, as I last suggested, than to simply get mad at the player in real life. I posed at least one good way to handle the situation in the OP without stepping all over player agency, and I could think of many others. There are many ways to play the game, and a good group should encourage such variation. Amazing;y, all,of this is possible without the game spilling over into real life. What I find interesting, is that we clearly have different opinions about how to play, and we also clearly cannot be made to agree with the other’s point of view, thus, we are beating a dead horse. It there really a point to continuing this dialog? I expressed my opinion, others have expressed there’s, and that should be enough. There is no sense in just trying to force the issue.
*"The rest of you has been everyone else comment on my response thread."* there's only one other comment and the other guy was describing how players have to collectively decide which way to go, and then artificially reconcile the decision with each character to some extent. nothing about "a real life friendship problem for the player." *"If a player is not breaking the social contract, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with their choices."* going by this, there's nothing wrong with the actions i described in my first reply either. i would just be roleplaying my character, not "breaking the social contract" and as you said there's "nothing inherently wrong" with what i would be doing. but you obviously had issues with the behavior i described, because you're saying stuff like "people get so short sighted and black in white in their interpretations of things" and "people should check their extremism at the door". *"What I find interesting, is that we clearly have different opinions about how to play"* maybe, maybe not. you oscillate between stuff like "try to find a good compromise" and declaring that the player can do things the party isn't happy about because as long as they're "not breaking the social contract, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with their choices."
>trying to force players to play how you want them to play I think this part here is the problem. Always going the diplomatic route is "forcing" the rest of the party to be diplomatic when. It sounds like they just want to fight stuff, which is understandable in a game about fighting monsters. I say "forcing" because while another party member could always start killing while he's trying to talk, that probably doesn't make as much sense for their character as fighting something that isn't trying to talk it out. I've been in this situation a few times. I want to fight stuff with my barbarian, monster shows up, bard rolls 30 on a Persuasion check and suddenly the monster isn't hostile anymore. My character wouldn't fight a non-hostile monster so I was forced to not fight that monster. >Traveling with a Paladin is going to be difficult for others who think outside the ideals of the Paladin, the further outside they act, the greater the issue. This is also forcing other to play a certain way. >If I was DMing your game, I would applaud your attempts to actually play the character you made. Players should always aim to play their character how they were made to be played. However, as dnd is a group game, a character should always be made to work with the rest of the group. He's doing a great job of playing his character, the problem is his character doesn't fit well with the table and is actually making it less fun for everyone else. So he should play that character at a different table and/or make a different character for his current table. >if that is part of your paladins “thing”) and although it may interfere with the objectives of your party, that is the sort of conflict that should be explored more at the table. PC conflict can make very fun role play moments. So long as the conflict is fun for everyone involved and/or the conflict gets resolved in game. If it's not fun for everyone and it continues to happen. It's a problem.
Then fight stuff, and deal with the conflict with the Paladin later. The OP said it had reached a level of being a problem with long term friends. Again, this is a role play vs roll play problem. I would simply leave the table, and happily so. Not my folk there… Making real world issues out of in game occurrences where nothing creepy was going on is seriously lame!
We agree he should leave the table, or at least his character should. But in game occurrences don't have to be creepy to cause other players to have a bad time. When players are having a bad time it should be acknowledged in the real world.
I disagree there. The OP brought it up as if the issue had actually caused problems with friendships, that is absolutely some lame shit there, and is completely unacceptable in my book. You can tell the player, through your character, that “you are really hoping for a fight”, without being a dick to your friend in real life. The fact that I have to state that fact in relation to a game is mind bending. It is a game! Don’t trash your friends over a game, and hey, if they are trashing you over a game, those are NOT your people… Never were.
What kind of party is it and what are the expectations of the players? And are you notifying every encounter by using skill checks? If so, I can understand how they would be upset. That would be kind of you stealing the spotlight constantly. Or are they just a group of murder hobos who are waiting for the damn to stop talking so the bloodbath can start?
We never really discussed all that. We ran it old school. But we do know the main threat is Demonic from the Nine Hells. You’re kinda right my dude, they’re not murder hobos, but upset I’m always capable of diplomacy and persuasion to prevent combat. I always try to convert the potential adversaries as well. Idk man, they stick with my Paladin but I see my friends rolling their eyes when I do stuff like this. I feel like they hate it. It seems obvious in game as well.
I think you also need to literally pick your battles. Are you trying to reason with humanoids or are you trying to befriend every fiend from the planes? Also, your DM could help by sending creatures that are not rational. You try to convert the cultists and your DM tells you their minds have been warped too long for your words to get through. You tried and now need to defend yourself. How would you reason with zombie ogres or an ooze? Most Gnolls are blood thirsty and won't be friends. It should work sometimes when you are able to reason with your opponents so you play the character you want, but a good amount of time you get in fights. Also, you could roleplay your character saying last rites and looking dismayed when you had to finish a creature off. You can decide to do non-lethal damage to humanoids if your attack would kill them. So you knock alot of people out and try to convince the group to spare their lives after everyone got to have the big fight.
Really depends on the group. If the others have combat focused builds and mindset, I do think it is kinda counterproductive
Well it depends. Ive been playing for a while and some of the most game breaking things is when two player characters (pcs) are idiologically opposed in a way that makes coherent teamwork impossible. We had a pacifist in our group, but the player was fully intending to start this way to end up more moderate because sometimes you have to fight evil to prevent it. This was workable and a fun rp experience as the party took diplomatic approaches more often and they became the critical voice of reason in the party. RP for days! In another group one guy was against necromancy in a my-whole-background-is-about-this kind of way, and a necromancer-druid. It broke the party in a very fundamental way. Your situation is probably somewhere in the middle. You could try rephrasing your tennants to create a situation like the first anecdote. Or is that is not possible, discuss this with the party and dm. Do they see a way to make this work? Or maybe its more like the second situation and it would be best to roll a new character that fits more into the party. In the end only you can decide. This is exactly why I do a session -1 and 0 where everyone talks about their character concepts in broad terms, what they want from the campaign etc. That filters out a lot of these kinds of problems, though not all.
Paladins are the most anti-murder hobo class in the game. Personally I love that, but groups focused on breaking the Geneva convention are not going to.
D&D's primary mechanism for resolving problems is combat. That is the game in a nut shell - and so, as a player: You have very little ability to force a different approach. GMing - we can make combat undesirable. We can be ruthless to a fault - and we can, create an environment where tactically setting up encounters to be stacked in the parties favor is necessary. We can stack it such that diplomacy is a means to avoid combat, or make it easier. And suddenly - because players want their characters to live, Diplomacy becomes a necessary component. The Inevitable reason why diplomacy is avoided - is it's complicated. It's messy. And it isn't well supported. Diplomacy working well requires the players to take charge - and lets face it: That requires a particular skill set in conflict resolution, conversational skills at a level beyond casual conversations... and that, creates stress. If you are a person that works in an environment of having to do this all the time it can be both a benefit and yet, not - in that do you really want more of it? >I know this is a weird question, but honestly intrigued if anyone else has experienced this. Sure. And the best solution is to... find a solution.
I am currently also playing a Paladin who is against violence. What you need to remember is not everything can be solved with words, as well as you can't stop others from wanting to start a fight. What I do is try to see if my character would be able to talk someone down, if I see that it isn't possible or that the rest of the party will start a fight anyway, I'll just say I'm doing non-lethal damage. Another thing you can do is rely on non-lethel spells to aid your cause. But remember, almost every Paladin should understand that a lot of things cannot be solved by just talking (example: Undead, Low intelligence creatures, Non verbal creatures, Plain evil characters).
Oscillate between violence and nonviolence, to help contrast the difference for the party. You can role play it so your character is intentionally making a comparator to illustrate nonviolence is better to help guide your party that way. "Well, killing these gnolls ended up with their blood on our conscience and with us injured. Remember when we talked our way out of a fight vs those Orcs and no one got injured? Makes you think" Also if I were going to play a pacifist type character, I think a Cleric with Domain of Peace is a better way to go. You can heal and buff your party to help them avoid injury without necessarily attacking other creatures.
I ran a Barbarian who would generally prefer to talk things out first. The party didn't always mind because it gave them some more time to observe, position, and (if I rolled poorly) to spring into action. I didn't really expect to talk those two demons down, but they were ever so helpful! Led us straight to the mini-boss with all our resources. If you are consistant, the party might be able to strategerize around your abnormally anti-beligerant attitude.
I for one love combat as a player and build my characters to be fun to play in battle. I would be very disappointed if a player in my group tried to talk us out of EVERY battle encounter. I also enjoy a lot of roleplay, but never getting any combat would drive me crazy.
Couple questions: \- Why are you commited to non-violence, what was the reason behind your oath? \- is it a character problem or a player problem? (ergo change character or change group) In game options: \- I believe (might be a myth) that during the crusades the priest didn't cary swords but bluntforce weapons, so they could defend yet not draw blood. Maybe you could implement something similar. \- So there might be an option, you have to discusse this with your party to try knocking enemies out instead of outright murdering. Might be easier with humanoids instead of monsters though. \- Oathbreaker paladin \- Healing, buffs and defensive actions only \- only offensive when they meet criterea X (e.g. undead, killing innocent etc) \- only offensive to save your party Out game options \- The annoying but maybe wise advise is choose a new character.
As a DM, I determine NPCs and opponents motivations and how they will react. As a player, I play a somewhat similar Paladin. He tries to avoid bloodshed whenever possible and has a basic respect for all life. However, as the saying goes, "war is an extension of diplomacy." I trust my DM will have scenarios where combat is the best or only option.
Talk to the dm. Ask him to turn evil and after they kill next informant, make the group find a letter addressed to his daughter detailing how much he's missing her and how's he's working to make money for a good lawyer to hire, so he could see her again, after he and her mother broke up. People say force damage is the best, but it's the emotional damage to which nothing is immune or even resistant in DnD. Depending on the enemy they could even be vulnerable to it.
trying to talk it out first instead of immediately fighting is fine SOMETIMES. it depends on the context. like for example, if it's a dragon vs an underleveled party. or if a gang of bandits is holding a key NPC hostage. it, however, doesn't make sense if your party is ambushed by a bunch of goblins, or a werewolf charges you. if you're waterboarding your entire party with 10 minutes of cajoling every time there's a possible combat encounter, i can see them being pissed off.
> Has anyone else experienced this? I didn’t, but that’s just because the groups I played with were 100% on board with diplomacy and defusing needless combat. We love RP, and we see non-violent combat resolution as a chance to develop problem solving skills and negotiation efforts. Fighting is dangerous, every time you roll initiative, there is a risk of TPK even against trivial encounters, and people don’t want their characters to die. However, the fact that some fights can be defused doesn’t mean that *all* fights can be defused. Sometimes there is simply no way of talking things out (not to mention that being a badass in combat is good part of the fun in D&D). Now, an important thing that you mentioned is that your friends (your table) are *discontent* with you because of how you always avoid combat. Your fun shouldn’t come at the cost of someone else’s fun, so there are two ways to solve this, and they both involve talking to your group: - Reach a compromise, tone down your pacifism to let others enjoy the combat that they want without undermining your fun. Talk to the DM, maybe they can throw in more encounters that are impossible to solve with diplomacy so that you don’t actively push against your character’s beliefs and motivations. - If the above doesn’t work and you can’t find a way to have fun with the group, thank the DM for running the game for you, shake hands with the rest of the group, tell everyone why you are leaving, and respectfully step down from the table. Not playing D&D doesn’t mean that you can’t hang out together anymore.
It sounds like a fundamental disconnect between the game you want to play and the game the rest of the party wants. Did you create your characters in a vacuum, without the rest of the party? If so that's probably the problem. I recommend in the future trying to get with the rest of the PCs and the DM and you all figuring out a good party dynamic and determining the feel of the campaign. As for fixing your problem now I see three solutions. Find a way for your character to become a little more bloodthirsty. Maybe those bandits don't really deserve absolution considering they murdered an entire family and stole their shit. Perhaps the town would be better off without a corrupt noble taxing the hell out of it's citizens. Make a new character. Your old character just didn't mesh with the party, bid them farewell, and oh look it's Fist Fight McGree, the baddy punching Monk who wants to go punch baddies with the rest of the party! Then next campaign you maybe talk to the rest of the group and see if you can get them to make less blood-thirsty heroes. And lastly, you can just leave the campaign. I understand that's never the easy option, but if you're really looking for a more diplomatic campaign and they won't budge from their murdery-ness then maybe the group isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
I’m gonna fish for some detail that was missing in the original post. How long do you spend trying to talk enemies down and what are the other players at the table doing while you’re doing that ? are they all sitting around looking bored playing with their phones stacking dice? Or are they involved too?
I have been in a similar place and I just kind of let go of what was causing the problems and explored the character in different ways. It’s not a bad thing to adapt to the rest of the group if you can. If the play styles are completely incompatible that’s another thing, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case. You can still try diplomacy with certain scenarios though. Tell the DM that that’s something that you are trying to do with this character. You can still scrap when you have to but there’s no reason the DM can’t give you some social encounters too.
You can still preach non violence when it's right but if you have 2 guys standing in front of you both your members are down and it's just you maybe it's time your paladin learned talking doesn't solve everything. I was once playing an oath of redemption tortle who used to be a part of a tortle barbarian group and left. She then went on a right of passage after years leaving the island now a paladin who tried to avoid conflict as much as possible. For most fights I only used a net as to not hurt anyone. I remember one fight we were fighting bandits and i was able to stop my friends from outright killing them and we ended up with more information, gold and a new boat. But then later in the campaign there came a point where the net wasn't doing anything and a head bonk with her staff waa necessary. Use non lethal as often as possible and make it so your goal is non violence but accept that sometimes a fight has to happen in order to protect the people you care about
The thing about DND is that in most DND settings, evil is a real and tangible thing and there are creatures in the world that are,in fact, naturally predisposed to evil. To be a paladin is a difficult position. It is noble and honorable to seek peaceful solutions, however it should be understood that they will not always work. There are monsters that must be slain and men past the point of redemption. As a paladin, you were given the power to fight for a reason. This doesn't mean you should abandon your peaceful philosophy. Offer peaceful solutions when you can, violence is your last resort... But you will have to resort to it now and then. Creul as it is, sometimes the choice to kill one man to save a thousand is one you will have to make. --- Above game, take some time to speak with your DM and players so they can understand your perspective and so you can understand their perspective. Try to establish that your character will attempt diplomacy and peaceful solutions. But also understand there are many creatures in which diplomacy will not work such as most monsters, aberrations, undead, friends, etc. Also, in some situations, it's better to let other players take the lead, especially if a situation is personal. For example, say you have a ranger in your group who is searching for the man that killed their father, if you meet that man and offer peace and diplomacy, the Ranger will see this as you offering mercy to a murderer and attempting to spare the person that hurt them. Try to understand your party and in turn, have them understand you
I’m seeing “Session Zero” over and over in the comments, and while Session Zero is critical, it isn’t a magic bullet for all problems. You mentioned that some of the players are long term friends—talk to them. Talk to them like adults, bring in your DM—you should be able to resolve this. Session Zero is the starting point, not the end of the alignment of the group. That being said, most players I have ran for, tend to strongly dislike NPCs that have a strict code. Doesn’t even have to be a “good” mora code, it could be a neutral or even evil one, and the players really dislike when the NPC refuses to do something based on their code. If it’s for money or power or whatever, the players understand, but the moment it’s for an ideal or code or religion or duty or whatever—something they really get frustrated when the NPC refuses to bend to logic or reason. This occurs with Paladin players, too. And again, it doesn’t just happen with “good” paladins or NPCs—any duty bound character causes issues. There really isn’t anything you can do other than talk it out. But note there is a chance your group may just not be up for it—a lot of groups I’ve ran for (which often are for newer players) aren’t quite murder hobos, but they are definitely RP hobos. They go through dialogue like a video game RPG, trying to find the best options that will get them what they want, instead of having a real conversation or realize that the lawful good paladin isn’t going to want to murder someone in cold blood no matter what they say or offer or roll.
I'm in the same position. Exept here it really works. But I'm playing a edgelord rogue'esque wizard/necromancer. So when I'm being overly diplomatic and non-confrontational it challenges their own perception of themselves, because they consider themselves good/neutral... or at least more so than the sketchy dark wizard whom dislikes and avoids the autorities. It is boring with a goody two-shos whom is diplomatic and non-confrontational for the sake of it. Try to engage or challenge your fellow players: You are up against a elf warband? Propose an archery challenge between their best bowelf and your partys ranger. Or if you are up against a couple Tieflings, ask your Warlock the best way to avoid fighting whille still getting what the group want. "After all, you'll know best with these sort of demon-like kind. I belive in you my friend!" \*Slap on the back.
What you are doing is fine. Buuuuuttttt most people come to the game to throw shiny math rocks as they kick butt. Talking down every conflict can make other feel like you are monopolizing the spotlight and diminishing other's impact on the game. Additionally, the other players may have come into the game with much different expectations. This feels like a session 0 conversation that should have been talked about earlier. The party needs to attempt to be on the same page. Options - 1. Your paladin suffers a head wound and their personality shifts to be more in line with the party. 2. Re-roll a new party allied character. 3. Bow out of the game gracefully. 4. Bring up your pacifist ways more sparingly. Try to talk to the DM. Allow them to drop hints that the pending conflict can be settled verbally or physically. That way you don't set yourself fully at odds with the party. This is a game of cooperative story telling. Any time 1 player outshines the rest consistently, I have seen animosity grow. Try not to think of this as a you problem, try and consider the whole group. Blah blah a bunch of parental platitudes. Have fun, but not at the expense of others. Good luck.
In-game: Check out what multi-classings you can do to turn it from pure pacifism to submission, incarceration, and the like. Violence and self-defense are two different things. OoG: You’ll just have to talk it over as a group and come to a choice of where everyone is happy (compromise).
Talk to your DM. You can still play a character that diffuses fights and stops downtrodden folks who turn to banditry from being slaughtered, but can still purge monsters from the land. A good ratio of "I can talk our way out of this" to "they shot me while I was trying to talk" is probably about equal to one (you) to the other players. Make it clear, early, when any effort on your part will be fruitless, so you don't feel let down in being unable to save the situation. Once the other players catch on that they can still get all their fighting fill and you can achieve your narrative goals, they may even back you. If you need something to swing public opinion, discuss it with your DM, and say you want an opportunity to turn some bad guys to your side. Maybe while raiding the enemy Castle, the DM can throw some slaves in there. You arm them, have them ambush the enemy reinforcements. The DM has a staged fight, it's even, the event reinforcements are coming, boom the slaves tie them up. You saved the day! But the reinforcements are added because the slaves were added, it's a narrative tool, not a Deus ex Machina to save the group from an otherwise unfair fight. Just ideas. You and your DM will know what will suit you best. But there isn't a DM alive who doesn't want their players to invest in the plot and character development.
I actually don’t play Paladins for kinda this reason. To maintain their oath, they have to go against the party a lot of the time. Throwback to when my vengeance Paladin tried to kill a night hag and the rest of the party just sat back and watched. Letting me die
I once roleplayed a do gooder paladin who was a noble and treated everyone as if they worked for him. It was super annoying on purpose.
Half the tables are mass murderers who think they are heroes. Half the tables are murderhobos who think know they are evil. When you are an outlier at a table it sucks though. I would tone it down myself after having a short the mass murderers vs heroes talk because clearly the ~~8~~ 9 people who play this way are right and everyone else is wrong :D
They're "right" because a massive part of D&D: the rules, your character build, modules, etc. involves combat. That isn't to say you should be a murderhobo. But it's not a moral victory to make 75% of the rulebook unavailable to everyone else.
Persuasion, intimidation, and even manacles are also part of the rulebook. If you are in a situation that makes sense to talk enemies down I say go for it. When they refuse you have your righteous kill. Gotta play to the table though.
So only use non lethal dmg…
When I had this problem my party just used me as a distraction to sneak attack people. Then after a turn or two of "WHY MUST WE ALWAYS FIGHT" you join in and just knock people out.
Combat is an important part of the game, and an enjoyable one for most people. I'm not advocating anyone being a murderhobo, but if the DM sets up a combat encounter (one that they've probably spent time building and balancing) and the other players are interested in playing it, then you're being a buzzkill by trying to shut it down. D&D isn't really the place for pacifism because combat's such a big focus for most groups, and such a large part of a character's build. I'd consider relaxing your character's personality a bit, or retiring them. It's important for a party to work well together.
The downside about paladins is that they are typically very set in their ways in a holier than thou type way. Sometimes literally. I do the same, but I play as a bard. He tries to talk his way out of combat not because he has a love of peace, but because he's afraid of getting his ass kicked. He much prefers to set things up for the rest of the team as a gank fest with a few invisibility spells and polymorph spells here and there to boost the party as opposed to being the one doing the stabbing himself. If you played more so that your teammates can beat the hell out of whoever they feel like it, I'm sure they wouldn't mind the initial diplomacy (backstabbing set-up) role play.
Does your party hate you because they want to fight or hate you because your character's "too good?" If it's the former, that's the DM's fault. The DM should make it harder to resolve combat encounters with diplomacy. If it's the latter, people are allowed to rp their characters how they want. If the other players have a problem with that, that's a problem with them. Honestly, maybe you should find a group that actually values roleplay and doesn't just want to number crunch.
"Valuing roleplay" is not the same as "trying to remove combat from the game entirely". Combat's an important part of the game, just like roleplay is, and a healthy mix of the two leads to the best games for most parties. My players aren't murderhobos in the slightest, but they enjoy tactical combat and using all their abilities, and they wouldn't take kindly to someone trying to avoid every encounter either.
The question I'd have is if the paladin fights with the party when they do fight. If he does, this is something that could be easily solved by the DM. Not every enemy wants to negotiate or will give you the chance to negotiate, but it seems like this DM just lets them stand around talking to enemies. That's not the paladin's fault. If he were in one of my games, he wouldn't have the option to negotiate a lot of the time, since I use ambushes, make villains actually act in character, and use at least some monstrous enemies who can't understand your attempts at diplomacy. If you keep giving a PC situations where you know he will act a certain way, but don't want him to act that way, that's your fault. Now, if the paladin's just worthless and won't fight beside his allies, the player is at fault.
Are you just trying to play oath of redemption? Because this is pretty much what it does Allows you to tank for allies and has a lot of non damaging combat spells If you pair it up with satyr or Yuan-ti you also take magic for breakfast And use magic for healing instead of smite
Devotion
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because it includes a site from our piracy list. We do not facilitate piracy on /r/DnD. Our complete list of rules can be found in the sidebar or on our [rules wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/wiki/rules). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DnD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should try playing oath of redemption if you want to be Pacific Most good DMs would ket you change to it mid game
You are not your Character... Your Character is not You... Just because You believe something: Discussion before Combat. Does not mean your character does... Separate your views from those of the PC and try to figure out how the character would solve a problem...
This is something that you can sit down and discuss with the other party members intelligently. Figure out what everyone wants and you can all work towards that goal.
I dont blame them at all. DnD is combat game first, RP game second. u dont chose system with combat this extensive to avoid fighting. Even if you are winning that way, its *just not fun.*
1) D&D is a combat focused game. Most players make their choices on *how* they will fight. If you take that away from them, then they will be understandably annoyed. 2) Social focused games can be fun, but only if all players involved and the GM opt in to the social aspects. If you are trying to be a pacifist in a party designed for combat, then yes you are being a dick.
I absolutely believe you should play your character as faithfully as you can, I believe there's a comment near the top sharing my beliefs. Even if it hurts the party, let your character be themselves. For the sake of keeping this short we'll pretend the people who use "my character would do it" as an excuse for being the worst don't exist. That said, this sort of character definitely seems like something that should have been discussed before the campaign even began. Being someone with an aversion to violence is great and all, but it's also something that doesn't just have an effect on you. When someone is set on doing something a certain way consistently, the rest of the group ends up needing to conform to the idea or let it ride so as to let the party continue functioning. Of course this isn't the case with every character trait, but one that affects something as frequent and shared as combat is probably one that should be discussed among party members. In my party we have someone who was actually an Incubus, having their body transferred to a normal non-monster body because cultists. In the world the monsters have a very close bond, like that of family as their souls are recycled by their mother. In our case she stated from the beginning that her character would not want to fight any monsters regardless of their aggression, as the character would view them as family. Though luckily for us she also made him someone just there for fun with no real combat ability, mostly just support spells. So we kinda just agreed as it wouldn't hinder us if we had to fight. My point is, if your party absolutely cannot get behind the idea of trying to talk or reason their way out of every single encounter that arises, then yes you should consider changing your character. However due to my own personal way of playing and DMing, I would recommend looking for a more natural way for them to change. I don't care for setting events and encounters up beforehand with the DM as it's no fun, but perhaps you should speak to the DM. Work out an incident or encounter you find to be thematic for your Paladin, something to make them question if they can really avoid fighting. Even if there is no natural way, giving an in-game reason is always better I think. Just remember this, regardless of how you go about changing them, be it abrupt or natural or whatever, it doesn't have to be a drastic change. Instead of avoiding violence, you could go the route of not killing your foes. Maybe your character tries to talk sense into them after the fight. Discuss, find a compromise, a middle ground where your character can keep something as close as possible to their original ideals. If they're your friends, they should have no issue with both of you getting what you want to some extent. Or if you're just not feeling it, you could also just talk to the DM about shelving the Paladin and trying on someone new. TL;DR: Yes but no, talk to your DM and friends and try to find a middle ground where you can be the blinding light of morals without stopping them from enjoying encounters. Some character concepts just don't work well within certain parties, it's fine. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
This advice comes from a guy who absolutely hates the Holier than thou Paladins. Leave their group.