Nonlethal Knight

I know this isn't 100% serious but I don't think it would lead to my party dying every sessions

>Plead party to use nonlethal damage
>Use a turn to tend to downed enemies that were inevitably hit with lethal damage
>First priority is assisting the party and then the downed enemies

Only real problem I see is if someone is intent on being full murderhobo

>PC going out of his way not to wreck your reoccurring characters

Dafuq sort of scrub GM are you?

Well I'm not completely dissuaded yet. Just motivated to really think about things and come up with good solutions for the problems you posed.

>After the battle ends, what do you do with your enemies? Just leave them there, for wolves to eat?
He tends to their wounds, gets them conscious and leaves after showing them the kindness of his god.

>What if they just continue what they're doing and cause trouble later, for you or someone else? Or what if they swear revenge?
It's his job to show people a better way, not to preemptively punish them for not seeing it.

>Most likely those kind of people will be either hanged or sent to the mines.
If someone is sentenced to death for the decisions they made, it'll be a tragedy but death is ultimately an unavoidable thing. He isn't trying to wipe it out completely. Just do what he can to stop the unnecessary ones.

What if letting bandits go only causes more suffering by the hands you just spared to inflate your own merciful gods ego?

>"It's not my place to sentence people to death for what they might do. If showing kindness spreads destruction, all I can do is try to fix it. Eventually the world will be better for it"

>He tends to their wounds, gets them conscious and leaves after showing them the kindness of his god.
Good thinking right there. So, let me return to this bandit business. Suppose, on your way from the Brightvale Village to the Caves of Terror you meet a large gang of bandits led by an infamous and notoriously cruel man called Rapesword, who's called that way because... Well.
So you unsheathe your righteous sword, disarm them all, beat them up half to death and tell them not to do that again. They nod and praise you for your mercy, to you leave, satisfied.

After you deal with the cultists in the cave, you come back to Brightvale to see it burned down. It takes you some time to find survivors, but eventually a mortally wounded man tells you that a vicious gang did that. They didn't spare anyone - neither women, nor children, they stole everything there's to steal and left.

You already know where to find them, so you rush back - and yes, you do find Rapesword and his men, their lair glittering with newfound riches. Before the fight begins, you ask:
> "But why? I've shown you kindness."
The bandit just shrugs.
> "So what?"

Although your point is 100% valid. I'll have to come up with a way to transfer criminals as easy as possible to the right authorities.

Sounds like a really solid character concept to me. Especially if his God is the good of Mercy or something.

I think I'd try to make it more about him having a strict code vs killing, and his trying his best to encourage the group to do likewise.

Also you can use quite a bit of violent force without killing. Especially if you're a trained healer.

Maybe talk to the DM about a custom feat to let you make a skill check to drop an opponent to 0 instead of killing them.

Sounds like you should be playing a Paladin, so you can actually keep guys from dying without having to spend several hours performing intensive medical care. Plus you get a bit more utility than a Fighter would, so the group might let your antics slide when you can still smite undead into dust and cast a few support spells.

If I was a player in your group, I'd be finishing off opponents just to spite your guy. And there is literally nothing you could do to stop me.

Hire cheap guards. Iirc, guards are cheap to hire on adventure money. They don't have to do anything but escort already subdued prisoners to the authorities. You might even get them for free with some negotiation if you give them a cut off bounties.

If you ingratiate the right people, they might send some with you for free, if you keep a steady stream of criminals coming.

Talk to you GM about it. If he's any good, you'll work something out. It also gives him a chance to reuse those characters again I'd they escape or reform.

The fight is harder this time - the brigands numbers have somehow grown, and after raiding the village for supplies they're well-fed and well-armed. Neverthless, you manage to defeat them without shedding a drop of their blood - but not before they manage to surround your wizard and put a blade through his stomach. You couldn't save him - not while trying to fight off four brigands at once, but at least you've managed to save lives.
"The animals killed old Greybeard." - says your barbarian, still shocked they've murdered your comrade. - "They have to pay."
"No." - you shake your head and squint. - "We have no right to judge them."
The barbarian stands for a moment, not believing what he's just heard. His face turns red with anger, as he shouts:
"You've already shown them mercy, and how did they repay you? They slaughtered our friends! Killed our comrade! It ends now!"
He pulls out his greatsword and steps towards the bandit captain, but you will not have it. Standing in his way, you place your hand on the hilt of your sword.
"No. I will not let you do this."
The barbarian, seething with rage, steps forward.
"You'll fight your friends to defend those murderers?!"
The tensions are rising. In a second, it seems, he'll attack - and quite possibly win. The conflict seems unavoidable, but at the last second, Theresa, your cleric, raises her hands.
"We can't fight over this. This is not what Greybeard would have wanted. This can't carry on like this, but we can at least settle down for a compromise for this one time".

You nod grimly. You know what exactly this compromise means.

In 5e this really isn't a problematic character. You can literally choose to deal nonlethal damage with ANY melee attack RAW and RAI. Which is neat because you don't need 40 feats to learn how to effectively hit someone in a place that won't kill them instantly.

I once made a pacifist druid for 3E or maybe it was 3.5. Anyway, I made it a point to design her personality as not to pass off the other players or DM.

>Due to her particular faith, she saw herself as a guardian of the gateway between life and death. She could use deadly force to keep the dead out of the world of the living. I don't recall the PrC she ended up taking, but she was a monster vs. undead.
>Her faith didn't mean she had to stop others from killing or whine about how killing was wrong. She was simply forbidden from taking a life herself. Her spells focused on healing/buffing her allies and utility spells.
>was a vegetarian on account that she felt that she was morally barred from eating the meat of an animal she didn't kill herself, and as she wouldn't kill an animal, she wouldn't eat meat. She didn't stop the rest of the party from hunting or eating meat, and in fact, as the party chaplain, would bless their meals for them.
>After much internal debate decided the death/necromancy cult that served as the antagonist for much of the campaign was deserving of lethal damage as they so blatantly disregarded the laws of life and death. If any where knocked unconscious rather than being killed outright, she would revive them and offer them the chance to repent for their crimes rather than die.

>literally nothing
There's a lot of things he could do. If you're even halfway creative.

>Tfw you hire a rogue to replace the edgelord's sword with a replica sword of Mercy.
>When he finds out, you tell him he can have the original back when he learns to be civil.

Or get the rest of the party on your side and have everyone decide to take the resurrection costs out of the edgelord's share of loot.

I'm sure there's dozens of other ways to fuck with an edgelord.

>dis gun b gud
Moar?

>Implying the party will be siding against the "edgelord"
Sign me up as the second party member, who'll lend the rogue my own sword. He's not the one acting disruptive.

Sounds like a great game. To me.
Always do right.

Wouldn't back down though. If the Barbarian has to kill me to stop me from doing the right thing, than so be it.

I might not even raise my sword.

>work something out

Telling OP to roll something other than Opposite Day Murder Hobo seems like a fair compromise.

>Intentionally antagonizing other characters for lulz
>Not being disruptive

If you wanted to play a chaotic evil party, you should have said that from the beginning.

>Implying I need more than a dagger I carry in my fucking boot to finish off people on 0 hp after they've been incapacitated by Lawful Stupid
>Implying the rest of the party isn't full
on murderhobo and they aren't on my side

I'm not giving you my shit, by the way. If you want to fight me for it, go ahead. But no matter how many times you beat me, I can just go again because of your own retarded rule. I, on the other hand, only need to win once.

Always an option. The GM is free to veto any character, just like the player is free to not play.

I personally like the concept. But none of my players are the murder hobo type.

>get a new sword
>murder dumbass party member

???

Also
>Resurrection magic

Also
>Spending precious resurrection magic on people who are, presumably, evil instead of, you know, their victims

I'd personally be totally alright with that dynamic. Spending significant resources and time to heal and protect, just to have another character waste it.

Being good didn't mean always winning, it means always trying.

It's probaly sell you and any other murder hobos down the river is given a chance.
>Why yes magistrate. That man did kill him. The others disposed of the body, despite my protests.

>Be a dick
>Character is a dick back
>Try to kill him
Lol

>presumably, evil
Exactly. Everyone deserves a fair shake.

>You killed the Terrible Evil McWizzard face, the rapist sorcerer who wanted to usher the world in a new age of rape and sorcery?
>Man, am I glad you guys found him, and not That Other group of adventurers. You know the one I'm talking about, the self-righteous retards that let irredeemable villains get away.
>Man, if they were the ones to stop him, he'd just escape using his rape-sorcery and go on raping and sorcering.
>I should give you guys a medal or something

Unless the entire group is okay with it you're being that guy, because the concept of your character is forcing them to either abandon your character which is a pretty awkward thing to do at a table, or have everything revolve around the way you want to play.

And if someone wants to Rapesword from the earlier example, that's not being chaotic or an edgelord, that's doing a good thing. That's how you stop villages from getting fucked up by banding, kill the bandits. Your character's not a reasonably good guy, his ideals are outright harmful compared to executions in many cases, and no one would have a reason to go along with it other than "because I said so".

No amount of reasoning on how things could be handled matters, all that matters is whether or not the group/dm is willing to roll with it. You can come up with as many things to deal with it as possible but if it's not fun for the group then it doesn't matter what they could do. If he doesn't want to kill anyone himself that's one thing, but you're basically saying you want your character to have control of the party.

If it was your choice, you wouldn't have gone to the duke. Lord Beckett might be the lawful ruler of this land, he may be hailed as a just man - but you know better. His brand of justice is ruthless.
Mayor Lester was kinder, softer. He would have listened to you after all the things you and your party did to him - but alas, he was dead, along with other villagers. You could have gone further - to the castle of countess Abigail. The crime might not have happened on her lands, but she would judge them neverthless - her mines could use workers. But this is in several days of travel - and Theresa begged you not to bring up the matter. She only barely convinced that wild man, Siegfried, to go along with her plan - and who knows what the man could do in his grief.

So, you stand before lord Beckett. He smiles the moment he sees the infamous brigands - he has already heard about their crimes, and it only takes minutes to summon witnesses, who confirm your words - those are the people who pillaged Brightvale.
"Very well, this does it." - he clears his throat, as he declares. - "They will all be hanged tomorrow for their crimes."
You step forward, shocked:
"Hanged? You have no right to do this. They are people."
"They're murderers. Thieves. Rapists." - objects the duke. - "Many in my duchy had families in Brightvale. Friends. Grooms, even. They hunger for justice - who am I to deny it to them?"
"This isn't justice!" - you widen your eyes. - "That's murder. How are you better than them?"
"You've brought those people into my court, to be judged by me. And now you are trying to overrule my own lawful sentence? I think not. My decision stands - they will be hanged."
Your gaze wanders the room. There really are many faces - people seem to be happy with the sentence. Poor men - their thirst for vengeance has corrupted them. And Siegried... He must be satisfied now - with all this blood that's about to spill...
Yet he was not. You could feel it by looking in his eyes.

*wants to kill rapesword
*fucked up by bandits

Fuck I can't type.

I see a guy commit a terrible, unspeakable evil, that would surely warrant him the death penalty, before my very eyes, but there is no way I can prove that to the authorities. What do, mr. Lawful Stupid?

>Impling even death can hold back rape sorcerers
Got to find the macguffin to seal him away forever.

>kill the bandits
Banditry, like any crime is usually the symptom of some other problem.

People don't generally turn to text and crime unless they don't see an alternative.

If you went for "always evil" orcs or something I could understand.

If they commit a
>terrible, unspeakable evil, that would surely warrant him the death penalty, before my very eyes

They are no longer "presumably" evil. They are demonstrably evil.

Unlike say a poor starving bandit.

When I say "presumably", I don't mean to say that my theoretical character would just assume they deserve it and murder them. What I meant by that is most people main characters in games or stories fight are actually evil.

>be a cuck
>get treated like a cuck
>die like a cuck
lol

Playing with a similar idea for a Conqueror Paladin from UA, using the fear-disadvantage aura to drive away mooks and low tier threats. Definitely start with the Noble retainers, but if you're going to follow through without compromise you'll want a guard/deputy to be responsible for transporting prisoners.

> Eyes to "cuck" people in RPGs
Lol

>HE WAS A GOO BOY HE DINDU NUFFIN

>is a cuck
lol

Theresa was not with you - she's in the chapel, praying, so you have to meet up with her. She had a serious look on her face before leaving - she wanted to talk about something after the trial. As the two of you are alone, you decide to use this opportunity to talk.
"You're don't seem happy." - you comment, as you walk away from the keep. - "Did the blood of those men not satisfy you?"
"It did not." - Siegfried growled quietly, without even looking at you.
"You saw it for yourself, but you still don't understand. Vengeance can't give you satisfaction. You need to learn to forgive."
"Bugger off."

You shake your head - the man is too consumed with grief. He doesn't even seem to be angry anymore - just... Silent, contemplative, almost at all times. You wonder what he's thinking about sometimes - and also wonder if he's on the road to understanding.

The chapel is curiously empty - there's just three of you now. Theresa is inside - she waits until you come further and sit down.
"We should have talked about this a long time ago. Before Greybeard, before Brightvale, but I didn't... I thought... Look, we can't continue like this. There will have to be changes."

If the villian is that far gone. I doubt that even a pacifist would put up more than a token complaint.

I generally assume that most mooks are doing it because they don't have a choice, are following orders, or are closer to redeemable.

Yes. I to want to kill all the black people.

The opposite actually. I'd be glad to show your gf/bf a good time, if she's not a troglodyte.

Quiet, you. Writefag is delivering content.

I don't understand why you're such a cuck and why you're so desperate to pretend otherwise.

This isn't any group of bandits, though, other wise that might hold some merit, we're talking about "Rapesword and his merry band of Rape bandits".

And anyway, outside of the fact that racial alignment is kind of stupid, wouldn't it be even more objectionable to kill something that has no control over his actions?

"You can't carry on like this. We can't just let everyone go, no matter what they will do in the future."
"You can't know." - you remain unmoved. - "They could turn their lives around. I am not a warrior - I'm a symbol, a symbol of mercy. We've been through a lot, two of us. You should know this."
Theresa just looks at you for a few moments, but then she sighs.
"I've always wondered what happened to those people, to the dragon cult, to the eastern raiders, to those deserters. I suppose I don't have to wonder anymore. I've seen it with my own eyes."
You nod, slowly. You can tell her about how it's just one village - there's no telling what happened to other places, but that won't persuade her.
"You want me to change. To bring people to justice? To that bucher Beckett?"
She is silent for a few moments, until she shakes her head.
"No. I want you to stay out of our way. You don't have to kill anyone, just... Let us use our judgement."
You freeze. There's a moment of silence, before you ask:
"You want me to stand aside, when you kill innocents? You know I can't abide this."

You've wondered when he would speak up - but you didn't expect him to speak in such a tone. There's no anger in his voice - it was cold, it was vicious, and it was coated in poison.
"Why not? We did nothing as you killed Greybeard."

...

This is good

You seem needlessly upset about the hypothetical actions of a theoretical fictional character.

I assumed the rape bandits was hyperbole, and but meant to be taken as an actual taking point. If my GM introduced Rapinghood and his Merry men, is be way more concerned about magical realm bullshit than morality.

I think it'd be less objectionable to kill them. If they really don't have moral agency, they're really just robots.

For a moment, you're shocked. It takes a couple of seconds for you to understand what's just been said.
"You can't blame me for not saving him. That's your fault just as much as mine." - you protest calmly.
In a single motion, Siegfried stands up. All the rage that's been silently boiling in him is finally showing - and it looks disgusting. His face is disrorted in anger, and he's shrieking at you:
"I've said you murdered him! No wonder you got it wrong - you never listen to anything we've got to say!"
"Both of you..." - Theresa pleads quietly, not even hoping that the man will listen. - "Please..."
You stand up - like a mountain not bowing to the storm, you look the barbarian in his eyes.
"Your bloodthirst and grief have finally driven you mad. I did not lay a finger on Greybeard."
"You did not kill him with your sword." - Siegfried hisses in response. - "You're too noble for that, too holy. You've killed him with your words!"
"Madness." - you shake your head. For a moment you look at Theresa, expecting agreement - but you do not find it in her eyes.
"You've been holding him back! All of us! A single fireball could have turned those animals to ash - but that would be murder in your eyes, so he held back. A shield spell, a curse - that was the extent of what you allowed. Gods only know who decided that it's you who should decide what's right and what's wrong!"
That's enough. You step forward and strictly, as if disciplining a child, demand:
"Enough. As the senior member of the group, I order you to stop. You dishonor Greybeard's sacrifice with your lies, and I will not have you continue."
"He was a sacrifice, yes." - Siegried nods. - "A sacrifice to your self-righteousness. He died, so you could take the high road and play hero. And he was not the first one, was he?"
He did not just dare to say it.

"James..." - quietly says Theresa. Her face is pale.
"James." - remembers the barbarian. - "I would love to meet the man - but I only joined recently, after his death. His replacement."
He expects you to say something, but you are not going to indulge him. You just look at him and wait.
"And then you'll replace Greybeard with another wizard. Tell him tall tales about your heroics, about how together you'll be bringing the better world. But you won't say a word about Brightvale. You won't tell him about innocents you'll kill together, just so the guilty may live."
He expects you to interrupt his tantrum, but you stay silent. Just look at him with pity. He spits on the floor, as he turns.
"I won't have a part in this. I'm leaving."
As he steps towards the doors, you see something you did not expect. You break your silence:
"Theresa?"
She whispers something - so quietly, you can't hear it. Then she quickens her pace.
"Theresa. You're making a mistake."
She turns - and they both glare at you. There's quiet contempt in Siegried's eyes, but Theresa just looks at you with sadness in her eyes.
"You're abandoning mercy for bloodthirst." - you continue as you take a step forward. - "Many will die, if you leave those doors right now. I can not let this happen."
Traitor draws his weapon.
"What will you do? Kill us?"
"No." - you draw yours.

The battle is short - you are proficient at fighting. First, you disable the cleric, then - you sunder barbarian's weapon. Starved from healing magic and without his axe, your enemy is not much of a challenge for you.
Soon, they both lie at your feet. A couple of minutes later, the city guard is at the chapel.
"Take them." - you command, but they just stare at you, weapons in their hands. - "They were plotting countless murders. Take them to your lord Beckett."
They take the unconscious bodies - but you can tell that they are not carrying them to the keep. So you've thought. Hypocrites. They judge some, but refuse to touch others at their convenience. Who bestowed them with the right to choose which killers are guilty?

It does not matter, in the end - your work here is done. It's time to look for other, more loyal comrades. You can't look for heroes here - not with those traitors pouring poison into people's ears, but there are still lands where people will listen to your promise of glorious future, bereft of violence.
The next day you leave town and ride north, to the cold, frozen tundra, where you will find new heroes - and those will carry the warmth of mercy in their hearts, not cruel vengeance.
Once again, the people will gather under the red banner of sir Justin.

Jesus fucking Christ, I knew it.

If the DM gets sick of this, the competent solution would be to give the guy a magically imbued weapon that simply cannot kill. Like some giant non-lethal club or something.

Also, a knight who doesn't kill isn't any less dangerous or intimidating for it. He may even have a "the Bible forbids killing, but is very vague on the subject of kneecaps" attitude.

I like this haha.
>Holier than thou knight can't kill anyone.
>No qualms about leaving a cave full of maimed bandits, gouged out eyes, stumps on arms and legs, big brand on face indicating this person is a shit head and doesn't deserve alms.

>didn't kill nobody

I think this is the way to go. But personally i think you shouldn't even bother with trying to go non-lethal on the truly evil bandit leaders/cult masters that you know will get the death sentence or will escape and begin their reign of terror again.
Just try to save the neutral mooks that they converted/hired since they can probably turn their lives around

...

4e had it be "any damage" for knocking enemies out.

Why is it only melee attacks in 5e?

This is horrible.

Probably because its pretty hard to pull the blow of a ranged attack without making it a harder shot to pull off. With melee I believe it's to represent using the flat of the blade rather than hitting them in the leg or whatever which is the only way you could reduce lethality of ranged weapons.

Using the flat of the blade is dogshit in a fight.

It's a lump of metal that can easily be said to knock someone out if you hit them hard enough, and considering 5e doesn't seperate nonlethal and lethal damage it can be fluffed as just the finishing blow rather than the attacks the whole time.

So why not "I use a blunt arrow to the leg" or something?

No dumber than using the flat of the blade.

That would make sense if you carried blunt arrows and I'm sure most good GMs would have no issue with that. But with melee it specifies it as always being an option, whereas chucking a sharp javelin at a dude is probably always going to do lethal damage unless you do something difficult and creative with it.

Oh I don't know. The others are worse.

Do I need to know about canadian politics to find it funny

this is some good shit

Here's a very well earned (you)

>Intentionally antagonizing other characters for lulz

Considering that other character gets antagonized whenever an enemy NPC dies, I don't think the others are the disruptive ones.

The problem here isn't OP is refusing to kill. It's he's refusing to let /anyone/ kill. This can only lead to problems and forcing other players to follow such a narrow path isn't "good roleplaying". It's disruptive busybody behavior.

This, if OP had said "by my hand"instead of "in my presence" it would be fine

Yes. You also need to be bilingual.

If the character let other people kill (possibly with a tiny bit of criticism, particularly if it was out of combat), it wouldn't be too bad.

Would be even more acceptable if he was okay with cutting off hands.

You can only choose to do non lethal damage with Melee attacks in 5e. So most spells and anyone who likes bows will be constantly at odds with you.

Swift death to evil.

You're a faggot.

And you're a faggot.

This is a cool concept, OP. Keep fighting the good fight.

>This is a cool concept, OP. Keep fighting the good fight
>Demanding every other party member play exactly the way you do is cool
>Turning every combat into a giant argument is "the good fight".

>Promoting roleplay is bad
It's like your only desire is to roll dice.

1/10 here's your (You) and reaction face