Pacifists - fun to play with/against?

[Mewtwo]

(To be clear, when I say "Pacifist" I mean to talk about characters that can actively participate in combat but don't attack, though they might support/defend/talk and reason. I guess technical pacifist is the term, someone that doesn't use violence themselves but lets others do so?)

This is obviously a discussion I'm starting with Totoro on the back of my mind, but I think that some other players are just as interested in playing characters less/not focused on combat while still participating in competitions, or that situations may come up e.g. where one character doesn't want to injure the other, but the other has no such qualms or even intends to hurt/kill them.

Now while the Multerran system allows for non-combat-based resolutions of conflict, sometimes it just may be near-unavoidable to implement when battling it out makes more sense/is easier Obviously we can mold our posts as we please and cooperate OOCly to build a good story without fighting, or just stay out of and avoid battle-related situations, but this is also limiting the player's options (say of participating in site events that require battle). Or you're like me and you want to win fights like an Undertale player, never hurting your opponent but also not giving up your position.

I'm curious if you would consider this sort of playstyle fun to play with and against, or moreso tedious/difficult/one-sided? The whole issue hinges on that in most forum RP fights you'll be controlling your opponent(s) as much as your own character so you would have to play this other playstyle as well, and the offense (IMO the most important part of RP fights) falls away for a pacifist character, which strongly changes the dynamics.

Any thoughts?

 

[Orion]

I think pacifist characters can be fun. They mean you have to be more creative than just attacking and finding creative ways to do things is one of the great joys of writing.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Yeah, pacifist characters are cool, especially in fights. Nothing quite like inspiring emotional turmoil in your opponents by begging them to reconsider attacking you... unless they’re just Bad Dudes, then the emotional turmoil falls to your character on whether or not to defend themselves. I think many pacifist characters would opt to defend themselves, but that doesn’t mean they must kill or seriously harm their attacker(s). There are some pretty funny, not seriously harmful ways to incapacitate an enemy. Consider most cartoon antagonists, for instance!

 

[Mewtwo]

Have you got any examples, Gabriel, for those cartoon antagonists? I mean, there's things like wrestling someone to the ground, binding or otherwise restraining them, knocking them out or the like, but I'm not sure if that would really be a pacifistic approach either since you're still physically forcing your will on the other person. But then again I might be taking it to a logical extreme.

 

[Ridley]

Being a pacifist is not being a pushover. When someone pushes against you and tries to kill you, there comes a certain point where it's within your rights to do what you can to try to avoid hurting them, and avoid getting hurt yourself.
If we go with 'avoid forcing your will on the other person', as the idea, then the only actual option the Pacifist has is to die, since anything else would be subverting what the other person wants. Something like trapping someone in a net for an hour or two or otherwise restraining them is forcing them not to kill you or be a danger to anyone else.

For a good example of a 'pacifist', undertale's actually a good look. you may not have traditional 'offense', but you can do things like run away until someone's too exhausted, throw something to distract an opponent and get them away from you, creating some deterrent - such as terrible odor - or using good old fashioned 'talk your way out of a situation'.

If something Like Ridley's coming after you, doing something to temporarily take him down is not only making sure he doesn't hurt you, but making sure he doesn't hurt anyone else around - as if you've got someone like him coming after you, you're actively putting others in greater danger.

Of course, playing a 'true pacifist' in that first respect? is something that people (some I know) actually do. At that point, though, I think you kinda have to forfeit the fight if you don't fight back and also don't do anything to stop them from killing you at that point.

 

[Yuuka Kazami]

Do I get to have an opinion on this, even if I’m staff?

Nah dude, pacifists can be fun. Not everything in a roleplay comes down to fighting, even when it sometimes seems like it. You can have just as good of a time sitting down and plotting a murder mystery or a romance as you can going and punching rhinos in the face, and that’s the neat part.

Sure. I’m certain some people are only trying to get big number strong boy, but there’s one or two of those on every site. And in the future we're going to try to have some more freeform events that aren't just "ooh big punchman fight laser gal." I mean, the Crawl system was basically designed to have mini-events, and if you want to avoid combat in those you totally can. Personally I'm still rooting for the Kraw Crawl which is just like an enormous version of Legends of the Hidden Temple.

(side note, do you guys remember legends of the hidden temple? i loved that show as a kid)

 

[Broly]

Honestly one the most exciting examples that comes to mind, if we were to consider cartoons, would be Vash the Stampede's narrative from Trigun. He always stumbles into impossible situations that are never his fault, if you're looking at it from the viewers standpoint. He's not pacifist per say, but that would be how I'd write a character who has an aversion to combat.

All of my characters tend to be smarter than I am though.

 

[Mewtwo]

@Okina It's not like this is a debate for gaming the system we have in place. I'd say your opinion is allowed and appreciated!

You make a really good point Ridley. But yes, Undertale is a good example but at the same time not copyable to other worlds since most of the monsters don't actively try to kill you, they just "express themselves" in ways that happen to be harmful to you. The game system is very much based around a pacifism approach not just being 'the right thing to do' but a viable one. I'll probably figure out ways to make it work (possibly bringing in some form of character development where Totoro comes to terms with that there's a big grey area between 'Not injuring someone in combat' and 'Not laying a finger on someone'). But given that I don't want to forfeit victory every time, I would probably need some form of non-lethal offense.

Perhaps then I'll consider a few 'offensive' but not damaging moves like what you suggested, distracting an opponent and stealthing away or deterring them from attacking in some other manner, plus some form of temporary restraint (a lasso, maybe?) for 'extreme' situations. My original issue was after all wondering if people would enjoy playing against someone that only defends and tries to talk them down in every single instance.

 

[Ridley]

It depends. To be fair, it is stated all monster want to capture/kill a human on sight, so I'd say looking at it as 'expressing yourself' might actually be open to interpretation. Someone like Undyne, though? Absolutely wanted you dead.

in all seriousness, stuff even as simple as invisibility, net traps, spells of blindness/deafness, 'sleep' spells (As deltarune used later in a more vicious world), and the like would be interesting.

Now, is it enjoyable to play against?
Absolutely. I've done that sort of roleplay on other sites, for what it's worth, and it's always been an interesting time for the characters involved. Some of the greatest moments in writing history have been done by one person refusing to fight another. Luke vs. vader started that way, and it's an amazing moment in cinematic history (even if he later fails to keep it up, he later comes back to where he'd started, and refuses to finish off his father, or to seek violent means to end the conflict). There's absolutely something great to obtain from a fight like that.

Just understand that repeatedly telling the dragon he doesn't need to eat you will be only answered with howling laughter and a lick of the lips, IC.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Scooby Doo has many great examples of subduing a violent/pursuer antagonist using pretty pacifistic methods, or at least methods that don’t draw blood. Hiccup in How to Train Your Dragon. Numerous examples from Pokémon.

Personally I’d be delighted as a writer of a violent character to be facing down a pacifist opponent, and in a reversed situation, I’d be happy to write a pacifist character. I did this with Jade Harley a few times. But I think it’d be really necessary for both writers to work closely together to ensure characterization is honored.

 

[Ridley]

Also have you considered just concentrated tickles? That'd put most down pretty fast

 

[Victor Wolfe]

Depends on the character, my last fight on the omniverse only involved one attack because the two characters involved refused to fight so it turned into a war of words and ideas. But for me personally fighting someone who can't talk, and won't fight back would get pretty tedious because Vic is such a dialogue-heavy character that kinda needs someone to bounce off of. I think its cool that there are people writing pacifist characters but I personally would probably avoid pvp with them because I feel it would really lack any sort of chemistry.

 

[Mewtwo]

Pokémon is pretty damn violent to be honest. I'll have to look at Hiccup though (only read the book, which I believe is a very different story from the movies). I just think that those attacks that don't damage but still incapacitate are grey-area pacifism - to put it in Pokémon terms, stuff like paralyzing/freezing/putting someone to sleep, or otherwise incapacitating them without injuring them. But I'll get a few of those for where it makes sense, e.g. a battle tournament. You don't really talk an opponent into forfeiting a match there. Kinda what Vic says - some situations lack the chemistry.

Totoro is probably just gonna hug someone against his floof-covered tum and drain all their will to fight with Debuff 5 tbh.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

HTTYD films vs books is incredibly different. Also I’m not saying Pokémon isn’t violent as a series, it is, but there are numerous instances where things are solved peacefully. Like that one episode where two giant, ancient Pokémon, I think Alakazam and Gengar, were fighting and basically destroying an entire archaeological dig site. I seem to remember Pikachu or some other Pokémon trying to fight them and getting KOed in response. It was only Jigglypuff who was able to eventually lull them to sleep with her song, a pacifist ending I’d say.

The trick is writing pacifist characters in a way that is consistently interesting tbh, and remembering that there is absolutely a spectrum of pacifism. I think you’re struggling to identify where Totoro falls on that spectrum, and if you believe this would interfere with your ability to portray him consistently in combat, maybe just try to avoid it for now; there’s plenty of other writing to do. Do some soul searching. Think about how Totoro would really react if he saw something totally unacceptable to him taking place– if those he loved were in danger, how would he try to return things to normalcy?

I wouldn’t go so far as to say pacifists are boring or anything, and they shouldn’t lose by default when a fair judge is examining the fight, though they still might be subjectively boring depending on the writer. It’d be a challenge for your opponents to find something interesting to do in response, maybe, but that’s the fun of back-and-forth writing competition. But, if a writer repeatedly had their character just say “I refuse to fight you!!!!” and take numerous hits.... well, in a book, that’s supposed to last a paragraph or two at most before there’s some form of interference. It’d be boring otherwise. You gotta find something entertaining to bring into it.

A lot of writing isn’t about combat, after all. It’s about struggles, the efforts by a character to make things right again (in their mind), and making those struggles entertaining. I’d say it all comes down to the writer.

 

[Beatrix III]

I'm going to second Jade's suggestion at avoiding combat. Slice of life writing can be extremely fun. There's aspects that you never see from people like personal hygiene or cleaning their living space. Fuck, even a desk job. When I wrote Vad, who was constantly in the middle of conflict and in combat, the slice of life writing was amazing. Vad and Trixie would love the fact that they could wear shitty clothing and just lounge around their apartment for once.

 

[Ahana Varma]

Ew, slice of life.

I don't think violence always has to be the answer, and I do think non-violent stories can still be interesting. For example, in No Game No Life, the characters live in a world in which it is literally impossible to attack other people, and everything is decided via games, and that's a great anime.

Pacifism is fine... but slice of life? Blegh.

 

[Beatrix III]

Ew, slice of life.

I don't think violence always has to be the answer, and I do think non-violent stories can still be interesting. For example, in No Game No Life, the characters live in a world in which it is literally impossible to attack other people, and everything is decided via games, and that's a great anime.

Pacifism is fine... but slice of life? Blegh.

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.

 

[Omelette Robotnik]

As others have alluded to, your level of difficulty will depend on how pacifistic you wanna be. If you wanna just not hurt people, that can be easy, but if you're looking to avoid conflict altogether, you're gonna have a more difficult time in competitive environments.

That said, it isn't impossible to bring a pacifist to, say, DA and manage to win it all. No fight starts with immediate aggression. Well, usually. This might be difficult with Totoro, since he don't speak, but you can negotiate as a "fight". Deescalate and come to a nonviolent resolution.

And really, if you're running a pacifist, the best thing for ya is to find a violent writing partner. There'll be some interpersonal conflict, which is always fun. Character growth for ya both. And you'll shore up each other's weaknesses. Violent people tend to do poorly in social situations, and pacifists are ill-suited for conflict. Having a pal ready to throw down when negotiations turn south is always a good thing.

Reminds me of a D&D party consisting of a Bard and a Barbarian. They'll butt heads a lot of how to handle situations, but if they can come to an agreement, they'll both be "stronger" for it.

 

[Gildarts]

Many kind of mentioned what I had to say, but if you take a straight line of what you want to do, it tends to be for me, more fun to bend it. Philosophy in theory is so sure, but in practice, it molds to situations. Such are stories and confrontation. In reality, sometimes a pacifist might die instead of fight, but that wouldn't be a long story.

 

[Vincent Seoracis]

Pacifists varies, there are total Pacifists, who will not engage in any violence what so ever, and those that will only engage in violence as a last result. I have a friend that would never shoot someone with a gun, but pepper spray and stun guns are still on the table. Let me tell you pepper spray will change your outlook on life, even if you can’t look at anything. I went through a survival course where everyone got pepper sprayed. In an interactive story system like this, being de buffed could conceivably get your player in a lot of trouble, I mean, having your body suddenly go into convulsions, and you have to write doing the drop and flop like a fish on land isn’t exactly happy fun time.

Vincent Seoracis is one of those that will avoid violence if he thinks he can, but will kill if he doesn’t think he has a choice… which will bother him profoundly later. I'll have a lot of fun doing it, too.