What Power Category would make the best Pacifist?

[magictiger]

Hi Guys,
1. Would you make a Pacifist? If no, why not? Just curious.

2. What Power Category would make the best Pacifist character?

3. What powers would you give a Pacifist character if any?

When I mean Pacifist, I mean someone who would bring villains to justice and not kill them. The only things a Pacifist can eliminate are animals that are rabid or sent against him/her unless a non-lethal means can be used & demons/deevils since they are not human.

What do you think guys?
Thank you for your comments.

[BurningChaos]

Does the pacifist in question feel driven to bring villains to justice, by that I mean do they purposefully go out looking for villains that they can bring to justice, or would they try to avoid conflict but when it does occur they just subdue and jail?

[AlanGunhouse]

Well, there is Psionics, if you want to use something like telepathy, mind control, and telekinesis to capture a foe. There is the Stage Magician, if you want to use trickery, and then there is any category with super powers, if you take powers that can capture and not kill like Immobilizing ray and Bubble glue and ectoplasmic webbing.

[BurningChaos]

If I was to make a pacifist character I would make them an experiment with the super powers Pause Temporal Flow, Immobilization Ray, and Swallowing Limbo. He would pause time before the conflict ever started and dispose of... Well whatever needs disposing of, and avoid the conflict in general.

[Regularguy]

Well, there is Psionics, if you want to use something like telepathy, mind control, and telekinesis to capture a foe. There is the Stage Magician, if you want to use trickery, and then there is any category with super powers, if you take powers that can capture and not kill like Immobilizing ray and Bubble glue and ectoplasmic webbing.

Alternatively, you could use super powers to do pretty much the same tricks a Psionic type might go in for: not even bothering with physical stuff like glue or webbing, but just relying on mental stuff à la Control (Others) or Transfer/Possess for the win.

[Pepsi Jedi]

well there's a big difference between 'Bring um in alive" and being a pacifist. Most heroes are 'supposed' to bring um in alive, in the HU setting. Just going out and wacking supervillians actually gets you in trouble in most games.

Pacifism would make bringing in the baddies pretty hard. As they'll smack you up side the head and you wouldn't hit um back.
You can be a pacifist and be on a team as a support character, a healer or crowd control, transport, ect. But as a one on one your hero career will be pretty short if you refuse to fight.

[AlanGunhouse]

Most of you are not answering the question...that being what Category to go for. And the answer is it really does not matter, any category can be a pacifist, but some have better abilities to use than others. The best pacifist is the one that suits the player's style most.

If you want to include N&S martial arts, look for something like Cotton Fist or another strictly defensive martial art.

[NMI]

Any of the Power Categories and powers could be used to make a "Pacifist" type PC/NPC - it is all how one uses those powers.

[BurningChaos]

Any of the Power Categories and powers could be used to make a "Pacifist" type PC/NPC - it is all how one uses those powers.

Except for maybe life leech, disintegration, distruptive touch (unless you only use paralysis), pestilance, APS plasma, APS acid, APS lava, APS fire, self explosion, monsterous form, battle rage, bio ghost, and (to a lesser degree) phsyical perfection (simply for the seen stronger then they are aspect). In my opinion these powers just don't scream pacifist. Of course anyone could be a pacifist and just not use them, but the actual use of these powers (IMO) would not be the actions of a pacifist.

[AlanGunhouse]

Admittedly it is harder to play a pacifist with a primarily offensive power set, especially if it requires you to feed off others to live or if it is always an area attack. Pacifist is an attitude though, if you elect to not use your powers to harm others, you are a pacifist no matter what those powers are.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Any of the Power Categories and powers could be used to make a "Pacifist" type PC/NPC - it is all how one uses those powers.

Except for maybe life leech, disintegration, distruptive touch (unless you only use paralysis), pestilance, APS plasma, APS acid, APS lava, APS fire, self explosion, monsterous form, battle rage, bio ghost, and (to a lesser degree) phsyical perfection (simply for the seen stronger then they are aspect). In my opinion these powers just don't scream pacifist. Of course anyone could be a pacifist and just not use them, but the actual use of these powers (IMO) would not be the actions of a pacifist.

APS acid as written doesn't hurt people. It's special "Palladium acid" That only hurts unliving things. To get it right you gotta either modify it with stuff from 'Chemical Secretion" major power or... have both. Where in you get REALLLY Deadly.

[Ronin Shinobi]

I would think create force field and or weight manipulation or gravity manipulation powers would fit a pacifist well since they can contain or incapacitate a foe without physical conflict.

[Nightmask]

There wouldn't be much point creating a pacifist in a super-hero game, since they're actively avoiding combat and adventure and are focused onto pursuits generally not part of the super-hero genre (as people have this oddball notion that heroes aren't supposed to be doing anything but rescuing people from burning buildings and fighting villains). The closest you get to a pacifist is the genre savvy hero who actually takes the time to try and talk a villain out of things before going to fighting instead of instantly moving to attack.

Given pacifism is a mindset powers and abilities are irrelevant, beyond what use they have if any to their pacifist activities. Depending on the player they'd either take powers that would complement non-violence or go for the angst and have a pacifist whose powers are extremely suited to combat and violence and have him constantly bemoaning his fate as he's put into situations that force him to face the nature of pacifism and if it's truly suited to all situations (even Gandhi btw states that he finds violence as a better choice than cowardess).

[Regularguy]

There wouldn't be much point creating a pacifist in a super-hero game, since they're actively avoiding combat and adventure and are focused onto pursuits generally not part of the super-hero genre (as people have this oddball notion that heroes aren't supposed to be doing anything but rescuing people from burning buildings and fighting villains). The closest you get to a pacifist is the genre savvy hero who actually takes the time to try and talk a villain out of things before going to fighting instead of instantly moving to attack.

What if he's talking folks out of things by using Empathic Transmission or Control (Others) or whatever?

[Nightmask]

There wouldn't be much point creating a pacifist in a super-hero game, since they're actively avoiding combat and adventure and are focused onto pursuits generally not part of the super-hero genre (as people have this oddball notion that heroes aren't supposed to be doing anything but rescuing people from burning buildings and fighting villains). The closest you get to a pacifist is the genre savvy hero who actually takes the time to try and talk a villain out of things before going to fighting instead of instantly moving to attack.

What if he's talking folks out of things by using Empathic Transmission or Control (Others) or whatever?

That's not pacifism, you're still actively impeding and affecting another. Pacifists don't act like that. The pacifist doesn't stand and act in such a fashion as that's still taking means against another. An example of pacifism would be the Conscientious Objectors during WWII, Vietnam, and the Korean Conflict. They would not fight for any reason and as a result were often horribly abused by the military being used as basically disposable humans and decoys because 'oh you cowards refusing to kill when we command!'. Which is why ironically many had far more medals than the average killing soldier from being front line medics and used in similar high hazard situations. They would not take up arms and only acted in support positions, trying to mind control someone is definitely 'taking up arms' even if you aren't engaging in a fist-fight or trading energy attacks or what have you.

[Ronin Shinobi]

There wouldn't be much point creating a pacifist in a super-hero game, since they're actively avoiding combat and adventure and are focused onto pursuits generally not part of the super-hero genre (as people have this oddball notion that heroes aren't supposed to be doing anything but rescuing people from burning buildings and fighting villains). The closest you get to a pacifist is the genre savvy hero who actually takes the time to try and talk a villain out of things before going to fighting instead of instantly moving to attack.

Given pacifism is a mindset powers and abilities are irrelevant, beyond what use they have if any to their pacifist activities. Depending on the player they'd either take powers that would complement non-violence or go for the angst and have a pacifist whose powers are extremely suited to combat and violence and have him constantly bemoaning his fate as he's put into situations that force him to face the nature of pacifism and if it's truly suited to all situations (even Gandhi btw states that he finds violence as a better choice than cowardess).

Still be a interesting challenge and has been done before. Most notable character I can think of was Lifeline From the old G.I. Joe cartoons

[Nightmask]

There wouldn't be much point creating a pacifist in a super-hero game, since they're actively avoiding combat and adventure and are focused onto pursuits generally not part of the super-hero genre (as people have this oddball notion that heroes aren't supposed to be doing anything but rescuing people from burning buildings and fighting villains). The closest you get to a pacifist is the genre savvy hero who actually takes the time to try and talk a villain out of things before going to fighting instead of instantly moving to attack.

Given pacifism is a mindset powers and abilities are irrelevant, beyond what use they have if any to their pacifist activities. Depending on the player they'd either take powers that would complement non-violence or go for the angst and have a pacifist whose powers are extremely suited to combat and violence and have him constantly bemoaning his fate as he's put into situations that force him to face the nature of pacifism and if it's truly suited to all situations (even Gandhi btw states that he finds violence as a better choice than cowardess).

Still be a interesting challenge and has been done before. Most notable character I can think of was Lifeline From the old G.I. Joe cartoons

Really depends on the group, some players are about as contemptuous as those RL soldiers of pacifists and will ride the player of a character that's taking care of support situations and filling the big holes left by the gung-ho combat sorts.

[Regularguy]

That's not pacifism, you're still actively impeding and affecting another. Pacifists don't act like that.

To a point, yeah. But imagine a crook is holding folks hostage, and our hero patiently explains what he honestly believes: it's not too late, nobody has died yet, you can still put down the gun and come along quietly, you're not facing murder charges or anything -- but the longer this goes on the greater the chance you'll make a mistake, and the cops are ready to open fire, and I don't want that to happen, and you don't want that to happen, so why choose an option where everybody loses?

A pacifist could act like that, right? If this were an invulnerable superhero who refuses to throw a punch, it'd be fine for him to thusly talk the guy into a peaceful solution? So can we build a superhero who doesn't realize he has any mind-control powers? (Possibly a hero who doesn't realize he could make people do something other than "apparently see the error of your ways while being reasoned with" precisely because he's a pacifist and so has never even tried anything obvious and confrontational?)

[Nightmask]

That's not pacifism, you're still actively impeding and affecting another. Pacifists don't act like that.

To a point, yeah. But imagine a crook is holding folks hostage, and our hero patiently explains what he honestly believes: it's not too late, nobody has died yet, you can still put down the gun and come along quietly, you're not facing murder charges or anything -- but the longer this goes on the greater the chance you'll make a mistake, and the cops are ready to open fire, and I don't want that to happen, and you don't want that to happen, so why choose an option where everybody loses?

A pacifist could act like that, right? If this were an invulnerable superhero who refuses to throw a punch, it'd be fine for him to thusly talk the guy into a peaceful solution? So can we build a superhero who doesn't realize he has any mind-control powers? (Possibly a hero who doesn't realize he could make people do something other than "apparently see the error of your ways while being reasoned with" precisely because he's a pacifist and so has never even tried anything obvious and confrontational?)

I haven't seen anything in Palladium where characters can unintentionally use powers like that, they have to actively make use of them. Just as characters generally know what powers they have (particularly when you're a psionic with various powers). Now admittedly someone could have certain passive powers like Invulnerability (as seen in the excellent movie Unbreakable) and not even realize that they were super, but something like Empathic Transmission where you have to focus on instilling a particular emotion it strains believability that someone could fail to realize he's using a power on someone.

[Regularguy]

Now admittedly someone could have certain passive powers like Invulnerability (as seen in the excellent movie Unbreakable) and not even realize that they were super, but something like Empathic Transmission where you have to focus on instilling a particular emotion it strains believability that someone could fail to realize he's using a power on someone.

Well, he'd be trying to instill trust, right? Don't hostage negotiators in the real world try to instill trust?

[Ronin Shinobi]

There wouldn't be much point creating a pacifist in a super-hero game, since they're actively avoiding combat and adventure and are focused onto pursuits generally not part of the super-hero genre (as people have this oddball notion that heroes aren't supposed to be doing anything but rescuing people from burning buildings and fighting villains). The closest you get to a pacifist is the genre savvy hero who actually takes the time to try and talk a villain out of things before going to fighting instead of instantly moving to attack.

Given pacifism is a mindset powers and abilities are irrelevant, beyond what use they have if any to their pacifist activities. Depending on the player they'd either take powers that would complement non-violence or go for the angst and have a pacifist whose powers are extremely suited to combat and violence and have him constantly bemoaning his fate as he's put into situations that force him to face the nature of pacifism and if it's truly suited to all situations (even Gandhi btw states that he finds violence as a better choice than cowardess).

Still be a interesting challenge and has been done before. Most notable character I can think of was Lifeline From the old G.I. Joe cartoons

Really depends on the group, some players are about as contemptuous as those RL soldiers of pacifists and will ride the player of a character that's taking care of support situations and filling the big holes left by the gung-ho combat sorts.

If they are doing it in character that's acceptable and expected. Lifeline faced similar contempt from his team mates, as well as Antman in the new avengers cartoon, however don't consider ant man a true pacifist since he has taken to violence often, but does try the peaceful methods first. However, if players are actually taking it RL and heckling the player or making a scene, then as GM I would step in even to the point of banning them from my games. If they can't accept a player taking the role of a non combative as their character then they have no business playing in my games. I see no reason why someone should take a "gung-oh" stereotype just because it fits the zone of comfort of everyone else in that group. Especially if the player takes steps in making their character more useful in other areas.

How beneficial would it be to to a group of vigilantes to have someone trained in the medical field, especially if they've taken the doctor/surgical skill, or have specialized their psionics in healing? Skills in forensics would really come in handy too if taken as well as research. Money may not be a issue if they took business and play the stock market or actually invested in a small business or even get it to go cooperate providing a better front for the group. Hare ware specialist automotive would make them the next Gerald Ford while supporting the groups financial needs. Also, while the group is handling a bank robbery on the spot they can do some detective work and find out their a rash of similar robbery and uncover a ring of artifact thieves or a cult looking for a demonic relic. Also as Reg pointed out they can use their powers and or skills in a negotiation with hostiles and may even get them to lay down and surrender. Of course its not going to work every time but can still provide a lot of good RP scenarios.

Over all, if the player can play a pacifist well enough to still be useful then let them. Whether or not it will hurt the group actually will depend on how the group and player handles them selves in game anyway.

[Nightmask]

If they are doing it in character that's acceptable and expected. Lifeline faced similar contempt from his team mates. However, if players are actually taking it RL as GM I would step in even to the point of banning them from my games. If they can't accept a player taking the role of a non combative as their character then they have no business playing in my games. I see no reason why they should take a "gung-oh" stereotype just because it fits their zone of comfort of everyone else in that group. Especially if the player takes steps in making their character more useful in other areas.

How beneficial would it be to to a group of vigilantes to have someone trained in the medical field, especially if they've taken the doctor/surgical skill, or have specialized their psionics in healing? Skills in forensics would really come in handy too if taken as well as research. Money may not be a issue if they took business and play the stock market or actually invested in a small business or even get it to go cooperate providing a better front for the group. Hare ware specialist automotive would make them the next Gerald Ford while supporting the groups financial needs. Also, while the group is handling a bank robbery on the spot they can do some detective work and find out their a rash of similar robbery and uncover a ring of artifact thieves or a cult looking for a demonic relic. Also as Reg pointed out they can use their powers and or skills in a negotiation with hostiles and may even get them to lay down and surrender. Of course its not going to work every time but can still provide a lot of good RP scenarios.

Over all, if the player can play a pacifist well enough to still be useful then let them. Whether or not it will hurt the group actually will depend on how the group and player handles them selves in game anyway.

True, which was my point. A less combat-oriented character with useful powers/skills that cover the non-combat areas the rest have ignored or slacked off on is a good thing. It helps ensure the group's success, as you can't be fighting all the time although some players seem to only be interested in that aspect of things. Nothing wrong with it but games cover more than that generally and someone has to be prepared for when they're in the downtime whether it be helping heal everyone, helping deal with the consequences of a fight, or what have you.

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to focus on that end of non-combat activity either, plenty of characters who like focusing on medicine or other things and end up alongside a more combat active group or appearing to be non-combat sorts only to break out the pain for someone because while they were sorts to avoid combat they weren't the sorts to avoid it completely. Hank Pym in Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes is pretty close though to that total pacifist, to the point of blinding himself to the reality that not everyone can be talked to and some people can only be stopped by violence and refusing to stop them only ensures far more suffering.

[Ronin Shinobi]

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to focus on that end of non-combat activity either, plenty of characters who like focusing on medicine or other things and end up alongside a more combat active group or appearing to be non-combat sorts only to break out the pain for someone because while they were sorts to avoid combat they weren't the sorts to avoid it completely. Hank Pym in Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes is pretty close though to that total pacifist, to the point of blinding himself to the reality that not everyone can be talked to and some people can only be stopped by violence and refusing to stop them only ensures far more suffering.

Very true, overall as a player or GM would welcome someone playing the role. Whether they play a true pacifistic like Lifeline who will not resort to violence to even save his life but does find other means to "combat" the enemy, or be what I call a "pseudo pacifist" like Hank Prym. Who tries his best to take a non violent approach but when needed will not shy away from getting physical and throwing a punch or two. Either way I think would make for a very colorful group.

[Nightmask]

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to focus on that end of non-combat activity either, plenty of characters who like focusing on medicine or other things and end up alongside a more combat active group or appearing to be non-combat sorts only to break out the pain for someone because while they were sorts to avoid combat they weren't the sorts to avoid it completely. Hank Pym in Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes is pretty close though to that total pacifist, to the point of blinding himself to the reality that not everyone can be talked to and some people can only be stopped by violence and refusing to stop them only ensures far more suffering.

Very true, overall as a player or GM would welcome someone playing the role. Whether they play a true pacifistic like Lifeline who will not resort to violence to even save his life but does find other means to "combat" the enemy, or be what I call a "pseudo pacifist" like Hank Prym. Who tries his best to take a non violent approach but when needed will not shy away from getting physical and throwing a punch or two. Either way I think would make for a very colorful group.

The definition of pacifist is somewhat flexible mind you, one can be a pacifist but still be able to resort to violence to defend themselves and others. Indeed Gandhi himself held that position, and many philosophies hold that one should use the minimum required to succeed, and sometimes that means violence. The only question is how much violence is necessary, do you just need to gently deflect someone or will only injuring or killing someone be necessary to stop their violence. The animated Pym was something of a strawman pacifist, since he was a brilliant scientist and yet for some reason refused to accept that sometimes violence is necessary and even got a teammate injured because he was trying to force a dialogue with villains who weren't going to go along with it but he was deluding himself into believing he could just talk things out. Only at the end of the season when Janet was in danger and they ended up in the magical realms did he finally realize that sometimes violence is the answer.

Myself I like all sorts of types including the sort to more sit back and support, like say Lunk from Robotech. He was vital in helping everyone out and keeping things going even with his fear of combat that he eventually overcame. Being a Hardware: Analytical building things and keeping things up for a group would be quite nice, and can still throw down with the best if he has to courtesy of his combat vehicles and devices. Can't really do the Reed Richards in Heroes Unlimited though, the super-genius inventor who also has powers given how they've got things segregated. Not unless you're using an alien who comes with super-powers of some sort and is the Hardware power category.

[AlanGunhouse]

Pacifist heroes do exist in comics, I can think of at least 2 or 3. One was a Healer, one a precognitive, and one was gifted with something not unlike Karmic power.

[Regularguy]

Being a Hardware: Analytical building things and keeping things up for a group would be quite nice, and can still throw down with the best if he has to courtesy of his combat vehicles and devices. Can't really do the Reed Richards in Heroes Unlimited though, the super-genius inventor who also has powers given how they've got things segregated. Not unless you're using an alien who comes with super-powers of some sort and is the Hardware power category.

Leaving aside the conversion issue, don't we have the option of using N&SS with HU -- given (a) how often HU refers to N&SS and (b) the explicit skills-for-martial-arts swaps N&SS prescribes for HU characters? So you could at least play a Hardware superhero with chi powers (shielding himself from gunfire with an MDC forcefield, running fast enough to break the sound barrier, launching a telekinetic attack that can't be parried or dodged, and so on), or an Experiment superhero who goes the Wired Agent route to gain a Gizmoteer skill program (which could get especially weird if the powers include Telemechanics or Mechano-Link or whatever).

[Nightmask]

Being a Hardware: Analytical building things and keeping things up for a group would be quite nice, and can still throw down with the best if he has to courtesy of his combat vehicles and devices. Can't really do the Reed Richards in Heroes Unlimited though, the super-genius inventor who also has powers given how they've got things segregated. Not unless you're using an alien who comes with super-powers of some sort and is the Hardware power category.

Leaving aside the conversion issue, don't we have the option of using N&SS with HU -- given (a) how often HU refers to N&SS and (b) the explicit skills-for-martial-arts swaps N&SS prescribes for HU characters? So you could at least play a Hardware superhero with chi powers (shielding himself from gunfire with an MDC forcefield, running fast enough to break the sound barrier, launching a telekinetic attack that can't be parried or dodged, and so on), or an Experiment superhero who goes the Wired Agent route to gain a Gizmoteer skill program (which could get especially weird if the powers include Telemechanics or Mechano-Link or whatever).

I think that'd get the character treated like a variant of the mega-hero, combining all of that together. Not that I've problems with that, if it lets you properly reproduce the character you're interested in playing. Combining a mutant or experiment with a N&SS OCC would be pretty amazing, particularly with the help some of those powers could add to a Gizmoteer sort.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I think in general this might be an interesting idea for exploration in a comic or a novel, especially if part of a group in which the pacifist doesn't 'have' to fight.

In a round table gaming group, it's annoying and forcing the game to conform to a 'gimmick' type character. In very.... gentle groups.. it might fly... but in most groups you're going to annoy the peer living crap out of your group in about 10 minutes. OR.. they'll just ignore you and your char who will by and large be standing around refusing to contribute. Either way it's not going to be fun for people.

"Can" it be done? Maybe. Probably. In a very open minded group that likes to explore such things.. but most groups you're gong to tweek off your buddies or they're just going to ignore you and let you tail along behind them as they do stuff.

[Ronin Shinobi]

In a round table gaming group, it's annoying and forcing the game to conform to a 'gimmick' type character. In very.... gentle groups.. it might fly... but in most groups you're going to annoy the peer living crap out of your group in about 10 minutes. OR.. they'll just ignore you and your char who will by and large be standing around refusing to contribute. Either way it's not going to be fun for people.

Can only see that is the group is all action and little to no Role play. However if the group is well rounds with a fair amount of combat and RP I can easily see a pacifist character being a viable member of the group. Also they don't have to sit out every combat, like they would if they new innocent lives were at stake anyway. Regardless, I can still see them doing plenty to help out in a non violent manner. Like Baron said, running into a firefight to save anyone hurt or injured. Maybe if they have create forceful they can raise it to stop a barrage of bullets or laser fire from hurting a group of school kids or even their own team mates. Turn invisible and sneak to a armed terrorist holding a hostage and taking the gun or creating a distraction so others can act.

Over all game it self does not have to conform to the player, the player has to conform to the game. Its nice for the GM to put in things that is tailored to them specifically but more than likely will or everyone regardless. The player though has to find ways to make them selves useful. If not then character was not meant for them and should make one they can play and be active in the game with.

[AlanGunhouse]

Especially if your pacifist is the person in the group who has super senses or detective skills, they would be vital to finding the bad guys even if they did not fight directly.

[Ronin Shinobi]

On a added note, looking through my Ironclaw 2nd edition book, they have Pacifist as a combat gift. As long as they don't hurt anyone, or attack they get a bonus in sensing danger. In the first addition book it was a character flaw that, depending on the severity, can inhibit certain skills or actions that are combat oriented, but will give you additional points to buy better or additional gift traits. So the ideal of a pacifist is not new to RPG either and can be oriented into a game easily.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Eh.. but that's still changing the game to be based around the one guy with the gimmick that he wants to be a pacifist.. and if he's a pacifist right up till he has to get in a fight, he's not a pacifist. he's someone that wants to be a pacifist. I'm aware there's different flavors of it, but in general, pacifists don't fight. Even to defend others or themselves. But doing so they're not longer pacifistic. By that logic many super heroes are pacifists. "Oh I only fight when I have to to save lives or the city" well.. yeah. Most SUPER HEROES are like that. They don't just fight for fun. (( not all. I'm well aware of the upswing in anti heroes.))

But yeah, true pacifism, means 'Man, Dr Evil is going to shoot that pregnant mother with the death ray.... I could punch him and stop him.. but I won't.

Not 'Man I'd rather not get in a fight, but if Dr Evil is going to be Evil. I'll kick his ass"

Some people would consider Batman a pacifist by that logic as he doesn't (Tend) to kill people much any more. (( Boy he used to!)) and doesn't use 'guns'. But.. bats is no pacifist.


Can the game have lots of detective rolls and what not? Sure. Hopefully a game is not 100% combat. That being said, when the chips are down, unless you have a group of people around to do the heavy lifting, your pacifists it going to be 'un-fun', especially if the group needs the help.

Impossible? no. Never would say it's impossible. Will the game very rapidly either revolve around the gimmick and other people sighig and waiting to use THEIR heroes.... OR will the game very rapidly be about the other 3 or 4 people at the table and the Pacifist is running around..... saving people from the fire while the heroes are fighting Dr Evil and the Evil Explorers? yeah.

Your milage may very, but I'd get annoyed, either way.

[Nightmask]

Eh.. but that's still changing the game to be based around the one guy with the gimmick that he wants to be a pacifist.. and if he's a pacifist right up till he has to get in a fight, he's not a pacifist. he's someone that wants to be a pacifist. I'm aware there's different flavors of it, but in general, pacifists don't fight. Even to defend others or themselves. But doing so they're not longer pacifistic. By that logic many super heroes are pacifists. "Oh I only fight when I have to to save lives or the city" well.. yeah. Most SUPER HEROES are like that. They don't just fight for fun. (( not all. I'm well aware of the upswing in anti heroes.))

Not seeing how you're getting the idea that the game becomes based around the pacifist, and no that logic doesn't mean most super-heroes are pacifists. The swing/fly/run/drive/walk/teleport/etc into a situation and generally come out swinging. It might be a non-harmful attack like Spider-man's webbing but it's still very proactive in that regard. The pacifist is a step further than that, avoiding the situations as completely as he can and taking the hit rather than fighting back.

Now note that the complete pacifist of the 'won't fight even to save my life or anyone else's' stripe simply can't long exist without those willing to fight and defend others even if they wait until they simply have no other choice but fighting. They tend (although not always) have an attitude of how 'superior' they are refusing to fight or be violent but in truth they are if anything inferior, having others fight for them and looking down upon them at the same time.

Alan Dean Foster had a sci-fi trilogy much like that, where 'civilized' space races effectively evolved out of fighting to the point that some could actually go into catatonic shock witnessing the slightest violence, and were fighting a losing war against a group of races brainwashed by a central race to be just a bit better at handling violence than the others. Then they discover humanity and can't begin to comprehend a race at our level of technology that's still so warlike and 'unevolved'. They don't have any problems sending humanity out to fight and die on the front lines to protect them of course, even as they look down on them for being so beastly as to still be able to fight for survival (seems the aliens have REALLY bad comprehension of evolution and what's necessary for species survival, thinking that evolving out of the ability to defend themselves was somehow positive rather than negative).

But yeah, true pacifism, means 'Man, Dr Evil is going to shoot that pregnant mother with the death ray.... I could punch him and stop him.. but I won't.

Not 'Man I'd rather not get in a fight, but if Dr Evil is going to be Evil. I'll kick his ass"

Some people would consider Batman a pacifist by that logic as he doesn't (Tend) to kill people much any more. (( Boy he used to!)) and doesn't use 'guns'. But.. bats is no pacifist.


Can the game have lots of detective rolls and what not? Sure. Hopefully a game is not 100% combat. That being said, when the chips are down, unless you have a group of people around to do the heavy lifting, your pacifists it going to be 'un-fun', especially if the group needs the help.

Impossible? no. Never would say it's impossible. Will the game very rapidly either revolve around the gimmick and other people sighig and waiting to use THEIR heroes.... OR will the game very rapidly be about the other 3 or 4 people at the table and the Pacifist is running around..... saving people from the fire while the heroes are fighting Dr Evil and the Evil Explorers? yeah.

Your milage may very, but I'd get annoyed, either way.

Never going to understand that mentality that everyone's just got to be a combat machine and if they're focused in some other area that they're useless or a drain on the party. Oh and there's nothing wrong with a member of a group looking after the civilians and trying to help the innocent bystanders especially when emergency teams likely aren't going to be on the scene while his buddies help stop the villains threatening the civilians. See that's why it's a game where everyone's working together to save the day, and that includes ensuring when the battle's over the public isn't going 'Hey heroes why didn't any of you try to save anyone when you could have?' and thinking they'd have preferred the villains.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Eh.. but that's still changing the game to be based around the one guy with the gimmick that he wants to be a pacifist.. and if he's a pacifist right up till he has to get in a fight, he's not a pacifist. he's someone that wants to be a pacifist. I'm aware there's different flavors of it, but in general, pacifists don't fight. Even to defend others or themselves. But doing so they're not longer pacifistic. By that logic many super heroes are pacifists. "Oh I only fight when I have to to save lives or the city" well.. yeah. Most SUPER HEROES are like that. They don't just fight for fun. (( not all. I'm well aware of the upswing in anti heroes.))

Not seeing how you're getting the idea that the game becomes based around the pacifist, and no that logic doesn't mean most super-heroes are pacifists. The swing/fly/run/drive/walk/teleport/etc into a situation and generally come out swinging. It might be a non-harmful attack like Spider-man's webbing but it's still very proactive in that regard. The pacifist is a step further than that, avoiding the situations as completely as he can and taking the hit rather than fighting back.

Because you didn't read the previous post where they said that their char would avoid fighting unless it was important. I was saying MOST superheroes avoid fighting unless they have to, that doesn't make um pacifistic...

Now note that the complete pacifist of the 'won't fight even to save my life or anyone else's' stripe simply can't long exist without those willing to fight and defend others even if they wait until they simply have no other choice but fighting. They tend (although not always) have an attitude of how 'superior' they are refusing to fight or be violent but in truth they are if anything inferior, having others fight for them and looking down upon them at the same time.

Yeah. that's my point. They're annoying in a 'Super hero game'. lol

Alan Dean Foster had a sci-fi trilogy much like that, where 'civilized' space races effectively evolved out of fighting to the point that some could actually go into catatonic shock witnessing the slightest violence, and were fighting a losing war against a group of races brainwashed by a central race to be just a bit better at handling violence than the others. Then they discover humanity and can't begin to comprehend a race at our level of technology that's still so warlike and 'unevolved'. They don't have any problems sending humanity out to fight and die on the front lines to protect them of course, even as they look down on them for being so beastly as to still be able to fight for survival (seems the aliens have REALLY bad comprehension of evolution and what's necessary for species survival, thinking that evolving out of the ability to defend themselves was somehow positive rather than negative).

Kaaay... so... in this situation it'd be 'The group going around doing things, while the Pacifist followed them around, NOT doing anything" one of the two options I put forth to start.

But yeah, true pacifism, means 'Man, Dr Evil is going to shoot that pregnant mother with the death ray.... I could punch him and stop him.. but I won't.

Not 'Man I'd rather not get in a fight, but if Dr Evil is going to be Evil. I'll kick his ass"

Some people would consider Batman a pacifist by that logic as he doesn't (Tend) to kill people much any more. (( Boy he used to!)) and doesn't use 'guns'. But.. bats is no pacifist.


Can the game have lots of detective rolls and what not? Sure. Hopefully a game is not 100% combat. That being said, when the chips are down, unless you have a group of people around to do the heavy lifting, your pacifists it going to be 'un-fun', especially if the group needs the help.

Impossible? no. Never would say it's impossible. Will the game very rapidly either revolve around the gimmick and other people sighig and waiting to use THEIR heroes.... OR will the game very rapidly be about the other 3 or 4 people at the table and the Pacifist is running around..... saving people from the fire while the heroes are fighting Dr Evil and the Evil Explorers? yeah.

Your milage may very, but I'd get annoyed, either way.

Never going to understand that mentality that everyone's just got to be a combat machine and if they're focused in some other area that they're useless or a drain on the party.

Then it's good that..... I didn't say anything like that. I said 'Can the game have lots of detective rolls and what not? Sure. Hopefully a game is not 100% combat"

Didn't I? Look up now.. you quoted it.

I said but when the chips are down, you better have a group to do the heavy lifting or you're fraked. Super villains very rarely give up just because pacifists ask nicely. And being... super villains, they're.. You know. Not above killing you while you're trying to talk them out of supervillainy. Does that mean everyone's 'just got to be a combat machine"? No.. but with out some of them, it's really hard to stop the SUPER VILLAIN from.... doing Villinay things. Most of the make you stop them by force. Thus. Pacifists are pretty severely limited here. Villain's looove pacifists. They call um target practice.

Oh and there's nothing wrong with a member of a group looking after the civilians and trying to help the innocent bystanders especially when emergency teams likely aren't going to be on the scene while his buddies help stop the villains threatening the civilians.

Anything 'Wrong" with it? No. But who do you want to be? The guy that brings Dr Evil to justice and stops his murderous rampage.... or Mr White, the guy who got the kitten out of the tree while your group was doing so? Or 'Heroicly got people to safty while the rest of the team fought Dr Evil's Evil Henchmen?"

Are support roles needed? Sure. Are they as fun as being the super hero? no.

See that's why it's a game where everyone's working together to save the day, and that includes ensuring when the battle's over the public isn't going 'Hey heroes why didn't any of you try to save anyone when you could have?' and thinking they'd have preferred the villains.

But any hero CAN do that. Mr Metal, the APS metal hero with Matter Expulsion Metal, can get people to safety as well, and when needed he can can punch a henchman in the face.

That's cool and all.

But if he couldn't do violence at all, his usefulness and level of contribution drops. It gets annoying having to build games with enough stuff for Mr "I refuse to hurt anything" to do, while keeping them fun for the rest of the super heroes that wanna be super heroes.

I've said, not impossible, but annoying and hassle, yes.

[bathawk]

If you wanta TRUE pacifist you can adapt the Monk scholar from the Old Ones for the Palladium fantasy RPG

they must be vegetarians, and cann't take offensive actions...they even have a "martial art" which allows them to gain parry and doge bonuses...but no attacks.....the plus side of the character si that thy have massive ammounts of knowledge skills

[Regularguy]

Especially if your pacifist is the person in the group who has super senses or detective skills, they would be vital to finding the bad guys even if they did not fight directly.

Can I just point out how hilarious this would be in practice? I mean, imagine I'm playing the pacifist superhero in the group, and I solve jewel heists by using object read at the crime scene to pick up clues, or learn about an impending murder by way of clairvoyance, or locate a kidnapper's hideout by engaging in astral projection, or whatever -- and every single time I relay the information to my two-fisted teammates, you and yours always proceed to beat the living hell out of the crooks in question while I tag along with clean hands.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Especially if your pacifist is the person in the group who has super senses or detective skills, they would be vital to finding the bad guys even if they did not fight directly.

Can I just point out how hilarious this would be in practice? I mean, imagine I'm playing the pacifist superhero in the group, and I solve jewel heists by using object read at the crime scene to pick up clues, or learn about an impending murder by way of clairvoyance, or locate a kidnapper's hideout by engaging in astral projection, or whatever -- and every single time I relay the information to my two-fisted teammates, you and yours always proceed to beat the living hell out of the crooks in question while I tag along with clean hands.

And that's the thing, a true pacifist doesn't split hairs like that. They wouldn't, by nature, TELL his two fisted teammates if they knew the teammates would go be violent. Because it'd still be his doing.

[AlanGunhouse]

It really depends on your definition of pacifist. For example, can a pacifist use dodging to have an enemy hit a brick wall and hurt themselves? Can a pacifist wind up an enemy in their own clothing so they can not move? Can a pacifist use a martial art like aikido to turn an enemy's strength against them? My answer is they can, but if yours is something else, then perhaps one of your definition would be useless in a fight.

[Ronin Shinobi]

The definition of a a pacifist is a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. This doesn't mean they don't do anything either. If this was the case we wouldn't have them at protests against war or conflict. They can easily be in a gaming group and just as easily interact without revolving the game or campaign around that character. Unless the GM and group is so gung-oh that all the game is, is just fight bad guys, rest then go out and fight them some more and have little or no role playing in it. Just go out see a bad guy. take them down and then repeat. No RP, no storyline, no NPC interaction or detective work. Which by the way I would find extremely boring. If I wanted that would go play a shoot'em up video game. Pepsi, can you give us gaming examples of where game would change so drastically and would have to revolve around a pacifist because as a GM for various games over the years I honestly can't see where they would be a broken wheel in the group and thus have to tailor make everything around them.

[Pepsi Jedi]

The definition of a a pacifist is a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. This doesn't mean they don't do anything either. If this was the case we wouldn't have them at protests against war or conflict. They can easily be in a gaming group and just as easily interact without revolving the game or campaign around that character. Unless the GM and group is so gung-oh that all the game is, is just fight bad guys, rest then go out and fight them some more and have little or no role playing in it. Just go out see a bad guy. take them down and then repeat. No RP, no storyline, no NPC interaction or detective work. Which by the way I would find extremely boring. If I wanted that would go play a shoot'em up video game. Pepsi, can you give us gaming examples of where game would change so drastically and would have to revolve around a pacifist because as a GM for various games over the years I honestly can't see where they would be a broken wheel in the group and thus have to tailor make everything around them.

Because they refuse to participate in the climax of the storyline. Again, it's well and good to have them roll their dice alot, but when it comes time for the action.. and that time does come... they're going to cower in the corner while the rest of the group does the work. They're demanding to be the special snowflake with special considerations. Most super hero games revolve around conflict. Not passive dice rolling. Are there investigations. Yes. Should the game have that? Yes. Totally. can someone be built to excell at that? Totally.

At the end of the day though, Dr Evil has to get taken out. And if you're playing a true pacifist (( not just a wuss. There is a difference)) that means you'll take no action which would bring harm to someone, and yes, that includes telling your buddies where Dr Evil is gonna be if you know they're going to go engage in violence. A true pacifist doesn't split hairs. He doesn't go "I won't hurt him, but guys beat him till he talks" That sort of mentality would be repugnant to the true pacifist. They wouldn't buddy up with violent people because it would be directly at odds with what they believe. It'd be like a Catholic priest hanging out at a human sacrifice of some sort of demon cult because 'Hey, I'm not killin' the innocent virgin. Someone else is. That's their sin".

Can a pacifist hero work as a secondary support character. A sidekick? Sure. But they aren't the focus of the game. Getting people out of the line of fire during battle can be important. Totally, but it's something normal heroes can do too. You don't need to be pacifistic to care about collateral. That being said the team doesn't need a designated "non fighter" (( unless you just have extra people around))

Why does it end up revolving around the pacifist? Well there's options here. The first is the easiest, the GM just ignores the Pacifist and runs games as he normally would. The Pacifist rolls dice (( along with everyone else)) during the investigative, or research or hunting part. So they're one in 4 or 5 in the group doing that. Then, the action starts and your pacifist refuses to help. Your team is out there slugging it out with the Villain and the pacifists goes, "No. I shall not harm another living thing" and your villain goes, well i'm not going down with out a fight!! (( Very few pacifistic villains after all)). So as the GM you're ignoring the pacifist during that part of the game. The heroic part. The action. The big scenes. So most of your group is being heroes and Mr Pacifist is sitting out like the fat kid in gym class.

OR... The game flips the other way. The investigation and research side of the game gets undue attention. The 3 or 4 guys that built super heroes with super powers are walking around while Mr Pacifist does their investigation rolls or uses their custom super powers to solve the mystery and the ones built on the more traditional super hero model get a roll in here, or one there, but the specialized no fighting pacifist aces them because that's the one thing they're designed for. So instead of one guy sitting out, you have the inverse. one guy getting all the play because you designed the story for them.

Your going to go "Well the others should build more well rounded characters!" and in a way, you're right. They should. No super hero should be 'Just' combat. or just brains. But with the way heroes Unlimited is set up, with the skills you 'can' pick and what not. You don't really see that. Those with enough skills to spread them around adequately, aren't the ultra powerful kind, and those with the strong powers, typically have less skills.

So the guys with energy expulsion and APS and what not, are not the ones with dozens of skills at high percentages to max out that part of the game.

Is it an important part? Yes. There's even a power category for it. But you're not going to have happy groups with a real pacifist.

What most people seem to be describing is a reluctant hero. One that doesn't want to fight. In fact might hate to fight, but is forced to to save people and be the hero. If you look up more than once people have tried to slip around pacifism by stating things like "Use a martial art to turn an enemy's strength against them" You're still hurting people, with it. Yes you're not "Using your fist to punch them" you're using THEIR fist to punch them. You're still doing violence. Or "Use the minimum violence to succeed" again, that's not a pacifist, that's a 'Good hero'. A pacifist doesn't use ANY violence or by action allow violence to be done fore them or from them. Someone "Using the minimum Violence to succeed" is a "Principled or Scrupulous Hero" Superman does this. he uses the absolute minimum force he can to stop a bad guy. He doesn't claim to be a pacifist because he's not.

So again, while ok in books where one guy is writing for an entire team.. a pacifist might have a place. Where it's ok for them to ride the bench for the action part. Or in comics where the same thing can happen. The Pacifist plays the brain and the heroes go out to do the dangerous stuff. (( you see that alot in comics)) Or..... Where the pacifist is the one written for and everything revolves around that gimmick of the character.

In a table top setting where you've got the entire group, it becomes a hindrance on either side of it. Either the GM has to design the game around the Pacifist so that he has something to do and the others are left following him around... or... the game is about the other heroes with the Pacifist often standing to the side watching (( if they'd even do that. ))

[Ronin Shinobi]

So they're one in 4 or 5 in the group doing that. Then, the action starts and your pacifist refuses to help. Your team is out there slugging it out with the Villain and the pacifists goes, "No. I shall not harm another living thing" and your villain goes, well i'm not going down with out a fight!! (( Very few pacifistic villains after all)). So as the GM you're ignoring the pacifist during that part of the game. The heroic part. The action. The big scenes. So most of your group is being heroes and Mr Pacifist is sitting out like the fat kid in gym class.

OR... The game flips the other way. The investigation and research side of the game gets undue attention. The 3 or 4 guys that built super heroes with super powers are walking around while Mr Pacifist does their investigation rolls or uses their custom super powers to solve the mystery and the ones built on the more traditional super hero model get a roll in here, or one there, but the specialized no fighting pacifist aces them because that's the one thing they're designed for. So instead of one guy sitting out, you have the inverse. one guy getting all the play because you designed the story for them.

Your going to go "Well the others should build more well rounded characters!" and in a way, you're right. They should. No super hero should be 'Just' combat. or just brains. But with the way heroes Unlimited is set up, with the skills you 'can' pick and what not. You don't really see that. Those with enough skills to spread them around adequately, aren't the ultra powerful kind, and those with the strong powers, typically have less skills.

So the guys with energy expulsion and APS and what not, are not the ones with dozens of skills at high percentages to max out that part of the game.

Is it an important part? Yes. There's even a power category for it. But you're not going to have happy groups with a real pacifist.

What most people seem to be describing is a reluctant hero. One that doesn't want to fight. In fact might hate to fight, but is forced to to save people and be the hero. If you look up more than once people have tried to slip around pacifism by stating things like "Use a martial art to turn an enemy's strength against them" You're still hurting people, with it. Yes you're not "Using your fist to punch them" you're using THEIR fist to punch them. You're still doing violence. Or "Use the minimum violence to succeed" again, that's not a pacifist, that's a 'Good hero'. A pacifist doesn't use ANY violence or by action allow violence to be done fore them or from them. Someone "Using the minimum Violence to succeed" is a "Principled or Scrupulous Hero" Superman does this. he uses the absolute minimum force he can to stop a bad guy. He doesn't claim to be a pacifist because he's

I'm focusing on here because this is where I'm seeing the central point of your argument. Your seeing a pacifist as someone who will not take action at all if it comes to conflict. That is far from the truth. The basis of pacifism is to follow principles of nonviolence, believing that nonviolent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. This tells me that while they won't slug it out with a crook, depending on their powers or still and how they use them they can still defeat them without having to resort to violence.

Going with my Sue Richard/Violet example, hard to fight at all if the character entraps them in a force field. No violent act, and the character did something beneficial to help with the group. Granted its not going to work all the time and yes, players might get angry if done over and over ending a fight before it begins but as a Gm you then adapt. Also, no this is not conforming and centralizing to the pacifist character. This would be done on anyone playing if its shown the power or what they have is unbalancing, so changing it for a pacifist character is going to be no different if one of the more "violent" characters was using something to unbalance a game.

Also I again state it is up to the player to make a pacifist character useful in a combat situation. If all they see is to do nothing and sit bored, its their fault. As a Gm if i see that after gaming session I will talk and offer advice on how they can become more active in combat situations without restoring to harming any one. If they still can't then I would suggest relinquishing the character to be a NPC and have them make one more suited to their game play.

[Nightmask]

Not seeing how you're getting the idea that the game becomes based around the pacifist, and no that logic doesn't mean most super-heroes are pacifists. The swing/fly/run/drive/walk/teleport/etc into a situation and generally come out swinging. It might be a non-harmful attack like Spider-man's webbing but it's still very proactive in that regard. The pacifist is a step further than that, avoiding the situations as completely as he can and taking the hit rather than fighting back.

Because you didn't read the previous post where they said that their char would avoid fighting unless it was important. I was saying MOST superheroes avoid fighting unless they have to, that doesn't make um pacifistic...

I read the previous post and being a pacifist is more than just avoiding violence until it looks necessary, hence why you can't call heroes pacifists because they don't meet the complete definition of the term.

Now note that the complete pacifist of the 'won't fight even to save my life or anyone else's' stripe simply can't long exist without those willing to fight and defend others even if they wait until they simply have no other choice but fighting. They tend (although not always) have an attitude of how 'superior' they are refusing to fight or be violent but in truth they are if anything inferior, having others fight for them and looking down upon them at the same time.

Yeah. that's my point. They're annoying in a 'Super hero game'. lol

Really not seeing why you find that annoying, unless you just don't see anything having value if it's not 100% of the time spent focused on conflict. Which is pretty boring and two-dimensional, wasting time reproducing a computer game 'beat on it until it stays down' experience when you're playing a role-playing game.

Alan Dean Foster had a sci-fi trilogy much like that, where 'civilized' space races effectively evolved out of fighting to the point that some could actually go into catatonic shock witnessing the slightest violence, and were fighting a losing war against a group of races brainwashed by a central race to be just a bit better at handling violence than the others. Then they discover humanity and can't begin to comprehend a race at our level of technology that's still so warlike and 'unevolved'. They don't have any problems sending humanity out to fight and die on the front lines to protect them of course, even as they look down on them for being so beastly as to still be able to fight for survival (seems the aliens have REALLY bad comprehension of evolution and what's necessary for species survival, thinking that evolving out of the ability to defend themselves was somehow positive rather than negative).

Kaaay... so... in this situation it'd be 'The group going around doing things, while the Pacifist followed them around, NOT doing anything" one of the two options I put forth to start.

No, that really wouldn't be what would be going on, because your fallacy is 'there are only two options here', which isn't the case. Not beating on people does not equal not doing anything, they are doing other non-combat things that the others are neglecting or too arrogantly contemptuous of to be doing.

Never going to understand that mentality that everyone's just got to be a combat machine and if they're focused in some other area that they're useless or a drain on the party.

Then it's good that..... I didn't say anything like that. I said 'Can the game have lots of detective rolls and what not? Sure. Hopefully a game is not 100% combat"

Didn't I? Look up now.. you quoted it.

I said but when the chips are down, you better have a group to do the heavy lifting or you're fraked. Super villains very rarely give up just because pacifists ask nicely. And being... super villains, they're.. You know. Not above killing you while you're trying to talk them out of supervillainy. Does that mean everyone's 'just got to be a combat machine"? No.. but with out some of them, it's really hard to stop the SUPER VILLAIN from.... doing Villinay things. Most of the make you stop them by force. Thus. Pacifists are pretty severely limited here. Villain's looove pacifists. They call um target practice.

You've some really odd notions, I mean who do you think goes disarming the super-villains mega-death weapon but the guy who ISN'T combat-oriented and instead has those non-combat skills that let him shut the weapon down without killing everyone in the process or accidentally setting it off himself. Villains hate pacifists, they spend their time looking for ways to eliminate the conditions that allow them to exist and recruit minions. Can't be much of a gang when the pacifist has convinced everyone that non-violence isn't the way and you can prosper just by doing hard work and being decent to one another. The pacifist certainly isn't some worthless decoy like you keep making him out to be.

Oh and there's nothing wrong with a member of a group looking after the civilians and trying to help the innocent bystanders especially when emergency teams likely aren't going to be on the scene while his buddies help stop the villains threatening the civilians.

Anything 'Wrong" with it? No. But who do you want to be? The guy that brings Dr Evil to justice and stops his murderous rampage.... or Mr White, the guy who got the kitten out of the tree while your group was doing so? Or 'Heroicly got people to safty while the rest of the team fought Dr Evil's Evil Henchmen?"

Are support roles needed? Sure. Are they as fun as being the super hero? no.

Need to correct your mocking effort there of the pacifist (particularly given I seem to remember Mr. Incredible rescuing a kitten from a tree as part of his daily super-hero efforts right before his wedding, and Superman's done it often enough), as it's a lot closer to 'great job Mr. White evacuating the area while the rest of your team fought Dr. Evil reducing the casualties and being a HERO saving lives'. Plenty of times in the comics you see some of a team helping protect the bystanders while others fight the villain or natural disaster. Makes the guy extremely useful because the rest of his team doesn't have to worry about killing some innocent he was supposed to be protecting.

See that's why it's a game where everyone's working together to save the day, and that includes ensuring when the battle's over the public isn't going 'Hey heroes why didn't any of you try to save anyone when you could have?' and thinking they'd have preferred the villains.

But any hero CAN do that. Mr Metal, the APS metal hero with Matter Expulsion Metal, can get people to safety as well, and when needed he can can punch a henchman in the face.

That's cool and all.

But if he couldn't do violence at all, his usefulness and level of contribution drops. It gets annoying having to build games with enough stuff for Mr "I refuse to hurt anything" to do, while keeping them fun for the rest of the super heroes that wanna be super heroes.

I've said, not impossible, but annoying and hassle, yes.

You've an odd outlook on things, to keep insisting that a character just isn't very useful (to the point of mocking it as an anchor) just for not being interested in beating on opponents all the time. Particularly since it's impossible every character to be equally useful and versatile, even if they've got identical stats and powers and skills.

[Nightmask]

Because they refuse to participate in the climax of the storyline. Again, it's well and good to have them roll their dice alot, but when it comes time for the action.. and that time does come... they're going to cower in the corner while the rest of the group does the work. They're demanding to be the special snowflake with special considerations. Most super hero games revolve around conflict. Not passive dice rolling. Are there investigations. Yes. Should the game have that? Yes. Totally. can someone be built to excell at that? Totally.

Oh but that's just so wrong on so many levels, from misrepresenting the pacifist as a coward cowering in the corner (and Gandhi himself clearly stated that pacifism is the opposite of cowardous and felt violence was acceptable to cowardly behavior) to rating everything he's done before that point as meaningless and without value because he didn't go punching on some villain that they'd have never reached the point of fighting in the first place without his non-violent help.

At the end of the day though, Dr Evil has to get taken out. And if you're playing a true pacifist (( not just a wuss. There is a difference)) that means you'll take no action which would bring harm to someone, and yes, that includes telling your buddies where Dr Evil is gonna be if you know they're going to go engage in violence. A true pacifist doesn't split hairs. He doesn't go "I won't hurt him, but guys beat him till he talks" That sort of mentality would be repugnant to the true pacifist. They wouldn't buddy up with violent people because it would be directly at odds with what they believe. It'd be like a Catholic priest hanging out at a human sacrifice of some sort of demon cult because 'Hey, I'm not killin' the innocent virgin. Someone else is. That's their sin".

Sorry but that's wrong. Plenty of true pacifists have died in WWII, Vietnam, and during the Korean conflict because while they felt it was wrong for them to harm others they weren't entitled to hinder others and lead them to harm because of their actions. Not warning your teammates where the villain is at is not what a pacifist is going to do because he will be causing harm to others by actively helping the villain remain free.

Can a pacifist hero work as a secondary support character. A sidekick? Sure. But they aren't the focus of the game. Getting people out of the line of fire during battle can be important. Totally, but it's something normal heroes can do too. You don't need to be pacifistic to care about collateral. That being said the team doesn't need a designated "non fighter" (( unless you just have extra people around))

Pacifist heroes have no problems working front line (certainly those medics and rescue copter personnel used as cannon fodder in the past US wars, put there by contemptuous officers died valiantly saving wounded soldiers and earned many awards for bravery as a result). They've braved the same threats as everyone else out there and deserve nothing but praise for their heroism instead of dismissing it as 'well they wouldn't kill so they were just worthless'. The men they saved will vehemently disagree. That character is equally valuable and praiseworthy in a game dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

Why does it end up revolving around the pacifist? Well there's options here. The first is the easiest, the GM just ignores the Pacifist and runs games as he normally would. The Pacifist rolls dice (( along with everyone else)) during the investigative, or research or hunting part. So they're one in 4 or 5 in the group doing that. Then, the action starts and your pacifist refuses to help. Your team is out there slugging it out with the Villain and the pacifists goes, "No. I shall not harm another living thing" and your villain goes, well i'm not going down with out a fight!! (( Very few pacifistic villains after all)). So as the GM you're ignoring the pacifist during that part of the game. The heroic part. The action. The big scenes. So most of your group is being heroes and Mr Pacifist is sitting out like the fat kid in gym class.

So what you're saying is apparently that in your eyes the only thing about the game that matters is the battle and anyone not tossing fireballs or letting loose with his lightning bolts is not just worthless but not a hero worthy of the label. Man that's just soooooo wrong. Completely missing how the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'. Seems like those heroes were just worthless, too incompetent to get anywhere without the GM handing it to them without that pacifist doing that investigative work.

OR... The game flips the other way. The investigation and research side of the game gets undue attention. The 3 or 4 guys that built super heroes with super powers are walking around while Mr Pacifist does their investigation rolls or uses their custom super powers to solve the mystery and the ones built on the more traditional super hero model get a roll in here, or one there, but the specialized no fighting pacifist aces them because that's the one thing they're designed for. So instead of one guy sitting out, you have the inverse. one guy getting all the play because you designed the story for them.

Interesting how you consider the time when the game is focused on investigation and research as getting 'undue attention', leaving one to conclude you don't care for that side of things and just want to smash stuff and beat on the villains and hate that the tanks aren't the focus of the game all the time. At least when Thor's chaffing in Avengers Mansion watching the investigative sorts do their thing he's capable of realizing that sometimes the tanks are in fact just worthless and have to wait on someone else being the focus before they can do their thing.

Your going to go "Well the others should build more well rounded characters!" and in a way, you're right. They should. No super hero should be 'Just' combat. or just brains. But with the way heroes Unlimited is set up, with the skills you 'can' pick and what not. You don't really see that. Those with enough skills to spread them around adequately, aren't the ultra powerful kind, and those with the strong powers, typically have less skills.

So the guys with energy expulsion and APS and what not, are not the ones with dozens of skills at high percentages to max out that part of the game.

Is it an important part? Yes. There's even a power category for it. But you're not going to have happy groups with a real pacifist.

What most people seem to be describing is a reluctant hero. One that doesn't want to fight. In fact might hate to fight, but is forced to to save people and be the hero. If you look up more than once people have tried to slip around pacifism by stating things like "Use a martial art to turn an enemy's strength against them" You're still hurting people, with it. Yes you're not "Using your fist to punch them" you're using THEIR fist to punch them. You're still doing violence. Or "Use the minimum violence to succeed" again, that's not a pacifist, that's a 'Good hero'. A pacifist doesn't use ANY violence or by action allow violence to be done fore them or from them. Someone "Using the minimum Violence to succeed" is a "Principled or Scrupulous Hero" Superman does this. he uses the absolute minimum force he can to stop a bad guy. He doesn't claim to be a pacifist because he's not.

So again, while ok in books where one guy is writing for an entire team.. a pacifist might have a place. Where it's ok for them to ride the bench for the action part. Or in comics where the same thing can happen. The Pacifist plays the brain and the heroes go out to do the dangerous stuff. (( you see that alot in comics)) Or..... Where the pacifist is the one written for and everything revolves around that gimmick of the character.

In a table top setting where you've got the entire group, it becomes a hindrance on either side of it. Either the GM has to design the game around the Pacifist so that he has something to do and the others are left following him around... or... the game is about the other heroes with the Pacifist often standing to the side watching (( if they'd even do that. ))

Sorry but no, the GM has to set up every game session with the characters in mind and the player with the pacifist is as due that part of the game where he's more necessary as the more action/combat-oriented sorts when their time comes. You just seem to hate any character that's not beating on things and the idea someone other than your combat-oriented character getting the focus, and worse make the mistake thinking that any character not getting shot at next to yours is somehow worthless or even cowardly and that's just not so.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Not seeing how you're getting the idea that the game becomes based around the pacifist, and no that logic doesn't mean most super-heroes are pacifists. The swing/fly/run/drive/walk/teleport/etc into a situation and generally come out swinging. It might be a non-harmful attack like Spider-man's webbing but it's still very proactive in that regard. The pacifist is a step further than that, avoiding the situations as completely as he can and taking the hit rather than fighting back.

Because you didn't read the previous post where they said that their char would avoid fighting unless it was important. I was saying MOST superheroes avoid fighting unless they have to, that doesn't make um pacifistic...

I read the previous post and being a pacifist is more than just avoiding violence until it looks necessary, hence why you can't call heroes pacifists because they don't meet the complete definition of the term.

Then you're not being a pacifist. You're being a reluctant hero.

Now note that the complete pacifist of the 'won't fight even to save my life or anyone else's' stripe simply can't long exist without those willing to fight and defend others even if they wait until they simply have no other choice but fighting. They tend (although not always) have an attitude of how 'superior' they are refusing to fight or be violent but in truth they are if anything inferior, having others fight for them and looking down upon them at the same time.

Yeah. that's my point. They're annoying in a 'Super hero game'. lol

Really not seeing why you find that annoying,

They tend to have an attitude of how 'superior' they are, refusing to fight while having others fight for them and looking down on them at the same time" .... but you're not seeing how that's being annoying?

unless you just don't see anything having value if it's not 100% of the time spent focused on conflict. Which is pretty boring and two-dimensional, wasting time reproducing a computer game 'beat on it until it stays down' experience when you're playing a role-playing game.

Alan Dean Foster had a sci-fi trilogy much like that, where 'civilized' space races effectively evolved out of fighting to the point that some could actually go into catatonic shock witnessing the slightest violence, and were fighting a losing war against a group of races brainwashed by a central race to be just a bit better at handling violence than the others. Then they discover humanity and can't begin to comprehend a race at our level of technology that's still so warlike and 'unevolved'. They don't have any problems sending humanity out to fight and die on the front lines to protect them of course, even as they look down on them for being so beastly as to still be able to fight for survival (seems the aliens have REALLY bad comprehension of evolution and what's necessary for species survival, thinking that evolving out of the ability to defend themselves was somehow positive rather than negative).

Kaaay... so... in this situation it'd be 'The group going around doing things, while the Pacifist followed them around, NOT doing anything" one of the two options I put forth to start.

No, that really wouldn't be what would be going on, because your fallacy is 'there are only two options here', which isn't the case. Not beating on people does not equal not doing anything, they are doing other non-combat things that the others are neglecting or too arrogantly contemptuous of to be doing.

You're assuming there's tons to do while the group is fighting the main villian. Or things that some how the other char's in the group couldn't do. Can you name any one thing a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can NOT?

Never going to understand that mentality that everyone's just got to be a combat machine and if they're focused in some other area that they're useless or a drain on the party.

Then it's good that..... I didn't say anything like that. I said 'Can the game have lots of detective rolls and what not? Sure. Hopefully a game is not 100% combat"

Didn't I? Look up now.. you quoted it.

I said but when the chips are down, you better have a group to do the heavy lifting or you're fraked. Super villains very rarely give up just because pacifists ask nicely. And being... super villains, they're.. You know. Not above killing you while you're trying to talk them out of supervillainy. Does that mean everyone's 'just got to be a combat machine"? No.. but with out some of them, it's really hard to stop the SUPER VILLAIN from.... doing Villinay things. Most of the make you stop them by force. Thus. Pacifists are pretty severely limited here. Villain's looove pacifists. They call um target practice.

You've some really odd notions, I mean who do you think goes disarming the super-villains mega-death weapon but the guy who ISN'T combat-oriented and instead has those non-combat skills that let him shut the weapon down without killing everyone in the process or accidentally setting it off himself.

The other guy in the group? If there is noone but the pacifist in the group with those skills.... you've developed a point in the game based around the one guy. Which was my main point. You either end up designing situations souly for the Pacifist (( A mega death weapon that ONLY the pacifist can disarm)) or you ignore them.

Villains hate pacifists, they spend their time looking for ways to eliminate the conditions that allow them to exist and recruit minions. Can't be much of a gang when the pacifist has convinced everyone that non-violence isn't the way and you can prosper just by doing hard work and being decent to one another.

LOL RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And the one in a million times that happens. good for you. The other 999,999 times, the gang shoot your idiot in the face for trying to teach them non viooolence while in the midsts of a super crime/villainous act. How many people in jail do you think honestly see the horror of their actions and come out to be 100% law abiding contributing members of society?

You honestly think the guy can just hold up his hands and talk your crooks out of being Villains? If so, they're pretty pansy villains and probably not in need of super heros to take um out. That's the sort of stuff standard cops can do.

*shakes head* You're really reachin' for that one man. "Stop being villains and just do hard work and be decent t one another" LOL BANG. Dead Pacifist.

The pacifist certainly isn't some worthless decoy like you keep making him out to be.

Actually Decoy is some what useful. Once in a while. But again a true pacifist wouldn't go along with a group conducting massive violence. They don't just go "Oh I'm a pacifist but it's ok for you to beat answers out of that guy"

Oh and there's nothing wrong with a member of a group looking after the civilians and trying to help the innocent bystanders especially when emergency teams likely aren't going to be on the scene while his buddies help stop the villains threatening the civilians.

Anything 'Wrong" with it? No. But who do you want to be? The guy that brings Dr Evil to justice and stops his murderous rampage.... or Mr White, the guy who got the kitten out of the tree while your group was doing so? Or 'Heroicly got people to safty while the rest of the team fought Dr Evil's Evil Henchmen?"

Are support roles needed? Sure. Are they as fun as being the super hero? no.

Need to correct your mocking effort there of the pacifist (particularly given I seem to remember Mr. Incredible rescuing a kitten from a tree as part of his daily super-hero efforts right before his wedding, and Superman's done it often enough),

Yeah? You probably remember them beating the crap out of the bad guy when it came to it as well, right?

as it's a lot closer to 'great job Mr. White evacuating the area while the rest of your team fought Dr. Evil reducing the casualties and being a HERO saving lives'. Plenty of times in the comics you see some of a team helping protect the bystanders while others fight the villain or natural disaster. Makes the guy extremely useful because the rest of his team doesn't have to worry about killing some innocent he was supposed to be protecting.

Hey if you want to be the guy in the background getting the bystander's out of the way any time it's a fight. Have a party. Doesnt sound very fun to me. Is it needed. Sure. Is it a key point of the super hero story? not so much. The Heroes usually try and take the fight where people won't get hurt. OR.. they don't have that option and HAVE to fight it out in hopes of downing the criminal as fast as possible.

But.. if you want to build a char who will always be the one clearing the area so your buddies can fight... and have fun being that guy. Go head.

See that's why it's a game where everyone's working together to save the day, and that includes ensuring when the battle's over the public isn't going 'Hey heroes why didn't any of you try to save anyone when you could have?' and thinking they'd have preferred the villains.

But any hero CAN do that. Mr Metal, the APS metal hero with Matter Expulsion Metal, can get people to safety as well, and when needed he can can punch a henchman in the face.

That's cool and all.

But if he couldn't do violence at all, his usefulness and level of contribution drops. It gets annoying having to build games with enough stuff for Mr "I refuse to hurt anything" to do, while keeping them fun for the rest of the super heroes that wanna be super heroes.

I've said, not impossible, but annoying and hassle, yes.

You've an odd outlook on things, to keep insisting that a character just isn't very useful (to the point of mocking it as an anchor)

I am mocking it. How many comic books are about the non hero that doesn't do the heroic work?

just for not being interested in beating on opponents all the time. Particularly since it's impossible every character to be equally useful and versatile, even if they've got identical stats and powers and skills.

If you're not interested in taking down the bad guy, don't put on the cape. Go become an EMT or a Doctor or a new age healer. Heck. HEALERS on teams rarely refuse to pick up a weapon and fight when it comes to it. I'm not saying everyone -----has------ to fight every enemy. I'm saying it's annoying to a group if you refuse to fight any of them.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Because they refuse to participate in the climax of the storyline. Again, it's well and good to have them roll their dice alot, but when it comes time for the action.. and that time does come... they're going to cower in the corner while the rest of the group does the work. They're demanding to be the special snowflake with special considerations. Most super hero games revolve around conflict. Not passive dice rolling. Are there investigations. Yes. Should the game have that? Yes. Totally. can someone be built to excell at that? Totally.

Oh but that's just so wrong on so many levels, from misrepresenting the pacifist as a coward cowering in the corner (and Gandhi himself clearly stated that pacifism is the opposite of cowardous and felt violence was acceptable to cowardly behavior)

So? Lots of people that refuse to fight say they're braver than those that do. That's some serious 'sour grapes' sort of thing man. Hate to break it to you but MOST people too afraid to fight, aren't brave. Does it sometimes take a more mature person to walk away from a fight? yes. Does that mean all people refusing to fight are brave? no. Most times you're just too scared.

Did I represent the pacifist as cowering in a corner. Yes. Do they all? no. Some just stand there.

to rating everything he's done before that point as meaningless and without value because he didn't go punching on some villain that they'd have never reached the point of fighting in the first place without his non-violent help.

I'm not saying it's meaningless. I'm saying it's all to a point. The point is to capture or stop the Super Villain. The Super Villain isn't going to get talked out of Super Villainy. It's going to take force. Force is somthing the Pacifist can't do, by it's nature.

At the end of the day though, Dr Evil has to get taken out. And if you're playing a true pacifist (( not just a wuss. There is a difference)) that means you'll take no action which would bring harm to someone, and yes, that includes telling your buddies where Dr Evil is gonna be if you know they're going to go engage in violence. A true pacifist doesn't split hairs. He doesn't go "I won't hurt him, but guys beat him till he talks" That sort of mentality would be repugnant to the true pacifist. They wouldn't buddy up with violent people because it would be directly at odds with what they believe. It'd be like a Catholic priest hanging out at a human sacrifice of some sort of demon cult because 'Hey, I'm not killin' the innocent virgin. Someone else is. That's their sin".

Sorry but that's wrong.

Sorry but it's not. You are not describing pacifists.

Plenty of true pacifists have died in WWII, Vietnam, and during the Korean conflict because while they felt it was wrong for them to harm others they weren't entitled to hinder others and lead them to harm because of their actions.

That's not a pacifist. That's a conscientious objector. A 'True pacifist" would refuse to harm others, and take their jail time. Again, you're not describing a true pacifist. you're describing someone reluctant to do stuff but DOES.

Not warning your teammates where the villain is at is not what a pacifist is going to do because he will be causing harm to others by actively helping the villain remain free.

So your idea of pacifism says it's ok to be violent to some people?

Can a pacifist hero work as a secondary support character. A sidekick? Sure. But they aren't the focus of the game. Getting people out of the line of fire during battle can be important. Totally, but it's something normal heroes can do too. You don't need to be pacifistic to care about collateral. That being said the team doesn't need a designated "non fighter" (( unless you just have extra people around))

Pacifist heroes have no problems working front line (certainly those medics and rescue copter personnel used as cannon fodder in the past US wars, put there by contemptuous officers died valiantly saving wounded soldiers and earned many awards for bravery as a result). They've braved the same threats as everyone else out there and deserve nothing but praise for their heroism instead of dismissing it as 'well they wouldn't kill so they were just worthless'.

BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG DIFFERENCE here Nighty. Those medics and chopper personnel LAY DOWN FIRE. They shoot back. They are troops. They fight. They fight right up till they needs to be medics and often DURING. Being a medic doesn't make you a Pacifist. Stop thinking about GI Joe's Lifeline. (( who also comes with guns and isn't a Pacifist in anything except for the cartoon and even then he had 100 team mates to slaughter around him.))

The men they saved will vehemently disagree.

Medics and chopper crews are not pacifists. So your argument is moot. Heck chaplins can pick up their rifles and fight in the army. Priests all the way back to my ancestors time at the battle of Sterling Bridge, killed.

That character is equally valuable and praiseworthy in a game dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

But your pacifists in the superhero game is not dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

Why does it end up revolving around the pacifist? Well there's options here. The first is the easiest, the GM just ignores the Pacifist and runs games as he normally would. The Pacifist rolls dice (( along with everyone else)) during the investigative, or research or hunting part. So they're one in 4 or 5 in the group doing that. Then, the action starts and your pacifist refuses to help. Your team is out there slugging it out with the Villain and the pacifists goes, "No. I shall not harm another living thing" and your villain goes, well i'm not going down with out a fight!! (( Very few pacifistic villains after all)). So as the GM you're ignoring the pacifist during that part of the game. The heroic part. The action. The big scenes. So most of your group is being heroes and Mr Pacifist is sitting out like the fat kid in gym class.

So what you're saying is apparently that in your eyes the only thing about the game that matters is the battle and anyone not tossing fireballs or letting loose with his lightning bolts is not just worthless but not a hero worthy of the label.

No. I'm saying that's usually the climax of the game.

Man that's just soooooo wrong. Completely missing how the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.

So all super heroes other than a pacifists are stupid? I think Batman would disagree. He often goes in alone and beats the hell out of dozens to100s of bad guys, after doing the smart stuff too. *GASP* Look at that!

Seems like those heroes were just worthless, too incompetent to get anywhere without the GM handing it to them without that pacifist doing that investigative work.

Not at all. You're missing the point, that the game should be built and played so the "Non pacifists' have the ability to track down the villain. That it shouldn't be something that ONLY The pacifist can do... because.. if you do........ You're building the game around the one guy.

THAT has always been part of my point.

OR... The game flips the other way. The investigation and research side of the game gets undue attention. The 3 or 4 guys that built super heroes with super powers are walking around while Mr Pacifist does their investigation rolls or uses their custom super powers to solve the mystery and the ones built on the more traditional super hero model get a roll in here, or one there, but the specialized no fighting pacifist aces them because that's the one thing they're designed for. So instead of one guy sitting out, you have the inverse. one guy getting all the play because you designed the story for them.

Interesting how you consider the time when the game is focused on investigation and research as getting 'undue attention',

You seriously need to focus Nightmask. That's not what I said. I said that there are options, of which this is ONE OPTION, where it's unbalanced in this fashion. That if you go this way, it's undue attention, where most of your group isn't in the focus. That it's all about the one guy. It's part of the overall flow of the post. Not alone independant of the other, as you're trying to make it out. You're picking out sentences out of context and going "GASP!! OMG!!"

leaving one to conclude you don't care for that side of things and just want to smash stuff and beat on the villains and hate that the tanks aren't the focus of the game all the time.

If you totally take it out of context which you clearly are, to try and make your point. You could conclude that. if you read it all, where that was one option, where the GM is "All investigation, no combat" As it was being explained. No. You're trying to make me out to be a thug. I'm not. I'm saying if you go with this option of focus. All the other heroes in the game that have offensive powers, are left hanging when it 100% concentrates on investigation (( or what ever)) Your pacifist is up to.

Quit trying to make your point by purposefuly going out of context. It doesn't make your point. It shows you're not comprehending the entire thing.

At least when Thor's chaffing in Avengers Mansion watching the investigative sorts do their thing he's capable of realizing that sometimes the tanks are in fact just worthless and have to wait on someone else being the focus before they can do their thing.

Yes. But with out Thor to use his hammer at the big fight in the issue, all that investigative stuff is moot isn't it? You need both. If you have too much of one (( in the example)) The rest get bored. 1 pacifist amist 5 or more players... the two options i've presented will usually happen. Either undue attention to the one guy... or the poor one guy gets largely ignored.

Your going to go "Well the others should build more well rounded characters!" and in a way, you're right. They should. No super hero should be 'Just' combat. or just brains. But with the way heroes Unlimited is set up, with the skills you 'can' pick and what not. You don't really see that. Those with enough skills to spread them around adequately, aren't the ultra powerful kind, and those with the strong powers, typically have less skills.

So the guys with energy expulsion and APS and what not, are not the ones with dozens of skills at high percentages to max out that part of the game.

Is it an important part? Yes. There's even a power category for it. But you're not going to have happy groups with a real pacifist.

What most people seem to be describing is a reluctant hero. One that doesn't want to fight. In fact might hate to fight, but is forced to to save people and be the hero. If you look up more than once people have tried to slip around pacifism by stating things like "Use a martial art to turn an enemy's strength against them" You're still hurting people, with it. Yes you're not "Using your fist to punch them" you're using THEIR fist to punch them. You're still doing violence. Or "Use the minimum violence to succeed" again, that's not a pacifist, that's a 'Good hero'. A pacifist doesn't use ANY violence or by action allow violence to be done fore them or from them. Someone "Using the minimum Violence to succeed" is a "Principled or Scrupulous Hero" Superman does this. he uses the absolute minimum force he can to stop a bad guy. He doesn't claim to be a pacifist because he's not.

So again, while ok in books where one guy is writing for an entire team.. a pacifist might have a place. Where it's ok for them to ride the bench for the action part. Or in comics where the same thing can happen. The Pacifist plays the brain and the heroes go out to do the dangerous stuff. (( you see that alot in comics)) Or..... Where the pacifist is the one written for and everything revolves around that gimmick of the character.

In a table top setting where you've got the entire group, it becomes a hindrance on either side of it. Either the GM has to design the game around the Pacifist so that he has something to do and the others are left following him around... or... the game is about the other heroes with the Pacifist often standing to the side watching (( if they'd even do that. ))

Sorry but no, the GM has to set up every game session with the characters in mind and the player with the pacifist is as due that part of the game where he's more necessary as the more action/combat-oriented sorts when their time comes.

So in a group of 5 players, the Pacifist should get one fifth time to shine right? So the investigative part of the story if all things are equal, he'll be sitting out for 4/5ths of the stuff?

WOW... that's pretty much exactly the problem I put forth. Huh? The guy sitting around for 4/5th of the time when his char isn't in the spotlight because the game isn't designed around him. Thanks for coming around to my point of view.

You just seem to hate any character that's not beating on things

Not at all. I dislike the PLAYER, that chooses to put something like this into the game, to try and be the special snow flake, and makes things harder on others around them. I've often said it's not impossible. Just annoying. How many Pacifists do you honestly know in the world? I'd wager none... maybe one or two depending on how spirutal or godly or what ever *Waves hand* But MOST people aren't even remotely pacifistic... nor do they hang around with um much. they're annoying.

and the idea someone other than your combat-oriented character getting the focus,

No, they should get focus. Just not undue focous. In a group of 5 heroes they should get about 1/5th focus.... where in.. .4/5ths of the time they'll be largely out of the stuff the rest of the group will be doing... thus.. .Annoying... OR... they'll get more than their 1/5ths..... and the other 4 people get the shaft for the one guy.... That's why it's annoying.

and worse make the mistake thinking that any character not getting shot at next to yours is somehow worthless or even cowardly and that's just not so.

[/quote]

So again name something that a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can't.

[Nightmask]

Really not seeing why you find that annoying,

They tend to have an attitude of how 'superior' they are, refusing to fight while having others fight for them and looking down on them at the same time" .... but you're not seeing how that's being annoying?

Funny, you seem just fine insisting how it's a-okay for the ones who fight to hold some kind of superior attitude and looking down on the guys who contribute but not by fighting. Or was that double standard something you're in favor of? Looking down on the hero who doesn't fight in the group.

No, that really wouldn't be what would be going on, because your fallacy is 'there are only two options here', which isn't the case. Not beating on people does not equal not doing anything, they are doing other non-combat things that the others are neglecting or too arrogantly contemptuous of to be doing.

You're assuming there's tons to do while the group is fighting the main villian. Or things that some how the other char's in the group couldn't do. Can you name any one thing a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can NOT?

Now you know that's a pointless question because a pacifist isn't a set range of skills or powers, it's a philosophy/mindset. The Non-Pacifist who isn't a medical doctor can't perform emergency medicine if the Pacifist is a doctor, the non-Pacifist who is a medical doctor can do emergency medicine where the Pacifist who isn't a medical doctor can't.

You've some really odd notions, I mean who do you think goes disarming the super-villains mega-death weapon but the guy who ISN'T combat-oriented and instead has those non-combat skills that let him shut the weapon down without killing everyone in the process or accidentally setting it off himself.

The other guy in the group? If there is noone but the pacifist in the group with those skills.... you've developed a point in the game based around the one guy. Which was my main point. You either end up designing situations souly for the Pacifist (( A mega death weapon that ONLY the pacifist can disarm)) or you ignore them.

Again that's a fallacy offering only two options when there are more possibilities than that. Meanwhile you insist that 'oh no it's okay to build the game around the fighters in fact that's how it's supposed to be, God forbid anything be included for a less combat-oriented character to get some face time as only the fighters ought to get the credit for everything'. I guess I have to point out that just like RL games do not revolve completely around fighting and the hard work of the non-combat sorts is just as vital for saving the day.

Villains hate pacifists, they spend their time looking for ways to eliminate the conditions that allow them to exist and recruit minions. Can't be much of a gang when the pacifist has convinced everyone that non-violence isn't the way and you can prosper just by doing hard work and being decent to one another.

LOL RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And the one in a million times that happens. good for you. The other 999,999 times, the gang shoot your idiot in the face for trying to teach them non viooolence while in the midsts of a super crime/villainous act. How many people in jail do you think honestly see the horror of their actions and come out to be 100% law abiding contributing members of society?

You honestly think the guy can just hold up his hands and talk your crooks out of being Villains? If so, they're pretty pansy villains and probably not in need of super heros to take um out. That's the sort of stuff standard cops can do.

*shakes head* You're really reachin' for that one man. "Stop being villains and just do hard work and be decent t one another" LOL BANG. Dead Pacifist.

You have some serious contempt for non-violent people, like all those RL people who stand up to criminals non-violently every day. And yes sometimes they do end up dead so what that means they were chumps to be mocked? That's a whole lot of bravery standing up to evil when you know there's a good chance you'll end up injured or dead. Indeed it's quite heroic, facing them down showing how weak they are in the end.

The pacifist certainly isn't some worthless decoy like you keep making him out to be.

Actually Decoy is some what useful. Once in a while. But again a true pacifist wouldn't go along with a group conducting massive violence. They don't just go "Oh I'm a pacifist but it's ok for you to beat answers out of that guy"

Clearly you're wrong and simply don't comprehend what a pacifist is, otherwise you wouldn't continually mock and dismiss them out of hand with such unrealistic examples.

Need to correct your mocking effort there of the pacifist (particularly given I seem to remember Mr. Incredible rescuing a kitten from a tree as part of his daily super-hero efforts right before his wedding, and Superman's done it often enough),

Yeah? You probably remember them beating the crap out of the bad guy when it came to it as well, right?

That's because they aren't pacifists, but you were using such examples as a contemptuous commentary on pacifists as if such actions were examples of being worthless or unheroic or otherwise not worthy of heroes.

See that's why it's a game where everyone's working together to

You've an odd outlook on things, to keep insisting that a character just isn't very useful (to the point of mocking it as an anchor)

I am mocking it. How many comic books are about the non hero that doesn't do the heroic work?

Now see, you keep dismissing it as not being heroic, and that's your problem. You think the entirety of what makes up a hero is beating up on people and that's just laughably wrong, lowering the idea of the hero to parody or caricature. Try telling that pacifist fire-fighter he's a non-hero because he's not punching out people and 'just' running into burning buildings that could collapse at any second to rescue someone trapped inside. Someone will more than likely punch you unless you do it where no one else can overhear. Heroes put their lives on the line to protect and save others, and that entails a lot more than beating up some villain, anyone can do that. Some other villain could do it just as easily, going to call the villain a hero because he beat up another villain to save the day?

just for not being interested in beating on opponents all the time. Particularly since it's impossible every character to be equally useful and versatile, even if they've got identical stats and powers and skills.

If you're not interested in taking down the bad guy, don't put on the cape. Go become an EMT or a Doctor or a new age healer. Heck. HEALERS on teams rarely refuse to pick up a weapon and fight when it comes to it. I'm not saying everyone -----has------ to fight every enemy. I'm saying it's annoying to a group if you refuse to fight any of them.

Yet quickly run for that medical care after the fight whining and probably quite perturbed when the character you've treated with contempt all the time before that refuses to help you out because you're just so sure of yourself you can heal yourself too.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Really not seeing why you find that annoying,

They tend to have an attitude of how 'superior' they are, refusing to fight while having others fight for them and looking down on them at the same time" .... but you're not seeing how that's being annoying?

Funny, you seem just fine insisting how it's a-okay for the ones who fight to hold some kind of superior attitude and looking down on the guys who contribute but not by fighting. Or was that double standard something you're in favor of? Looking down on the hero who doesn't fight in the group.

One person making an entire group change to accomidate them, is annoying, which ever side it's own. If you're one of 5 people and expect them all to revolve around you, you're an ass.

No, that really wouldn't be what would be going on, because your fallacy is 'there are only two options here', which isn't the case. Not beating on people does not equal not doing anything, they are doing other non-combat things that the others are neglecting or too arrogantly contemptuous of to be doing.

You're assuming there's tons to do while the group is fighting the main villian. Or things that some how the other char's in the group couldn't do. Can you name any one thing a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can NOT?

Now you know that's a pointless question because a pacifist isn't a set range of skills or powers, it's a philosophy/mindset.

No it's got a point. Your 'Use' for the pacifist can be done by anyone.

The Non-Pacifist who isn't a medical doctor can't perform emergency medicine if the Pacifist is a doctor, the non-Pacifist who is a medical doctor can do emergency medicine where the Pacifist who isn't a medical doctor can't. [

That's my point. There's nothing the pacifist can do, that a non pacifist can't also do. THAT IS the point. So having one around for the soul purpose of that stuff is silly.

You've some really odd notions, I mean who do you think goes disarming the super-villains mega-death weapon but the guy who ISN'T combat-oriented and instead has those non-combat skills that let him shut the weapon down without killing everyone in the process or accidentally setting it off himself.

The other guy in the group? If there is noone but the pacifist in the group with those skills.... you've developed a point in the game based around the one guy. Which was my main point. You either end up designing situations souly for the Pacifist (( A mega death weapon that ONLY the pacifist can disarm)) or you ignore them.

Again that's a fallacy offering only two options when there are more possibilities than that.

That was YOUR EXAMPLE man. LOL

Meanwhile you insist that 'oh no it's okay to build the game around the fighters in fact that's how it's supposed to be, God forbid anything be included for a less combat-oriented character to get some face time as only the fighters ought to get the credit for everything'.

No. I'm saying you build it for the group. Not for the one guy that wants special treatment. if you have 5 people in the group. You build it for the other 4, not the 1. Or you give him 1/5th the focus. Where in, just as I said originally, 4/5ths of the time he's standin' round not doing anything.

I guess I have to point out that just like RL games do not revolve completely around fighting and the hard work of the non-combat sorts is just as vital for saving the day.

I guess I have to point out... that giving the guy mor than his fair share of the time and effort.. isn't fair to the other 4 guys at the table.

Villains hate pacifists, they spend their time looking for ways to eliminate the conditions that allow them to exist and recruit minions. Can't be much of a gang when the pacifist has convinced everyone that non-violence isn't the way and you can prosper just by doing hard work and being decent to one another.

LOL RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And the one in a million times that happens. good for you. The other 999,999 times, the gang shoot your idiot in the face for trying to teach them non viooolence while in the midsts of a super crime/villainous act. How many people in jail do you think honestly see the horror of their actions and come out to be 100% law abiding contributing members of society?

You honestly think the guy can just hold up his hands and talk your crooks out of being Villains? If so, they're pretty pansy villains and probably not in need of super heros to take um out. That's the sort of stuff standard cops can do.

*shakes head* You're really reachin' for that one man. "Stop being villains and just do hard work and be decent t one another" LOL BANG. Dead Pacifist.

You have some serious contempt for non-violent people,

I live in the real world where 100% non violent people are abused and killed by violent people every day. REALLY Nighty? Your henchmen will just turn over a new leaf and join the ranks of the good and pure because they were talked out of it by offering them.. *Cracks up* Hard work and being decent to one another?

That's stupid. I'm sorry but it is. I'm not saying YOU'RE stupid. I'm saying that idea is stupid.

like all those RL people who stand up to criminals non-violently every day.

What "ALL THOSE" RL people that stand up to criminals non-violently every day? I'm not saying they don't exist.. I'm asking which one's your talking about. Much less 'ALL THOSE".

And yes sometimes they do end up dead so what that means they were chumps to be mocked?

Sometimes, yeah. Depends on the situation. But if someone steps infront of a gunman shooting up the place and goes 'I think you should really put the gun down. We can solvve all this with hard work and being decent to one another" and he gets shot in the face. He's totally a chump to be mocked. That's stupid.

That's a whole lot of bravery standing up to evil when you know there's a good chance you'll end up injured or dead.

You see bravery. I see stupidity. Sometimes do you have to die for good things to happen. sure. Are you going to get it done simply by dieing? no. Fighting till the last and dieing for a good cause is alot different than just letting the evil kill you because you're an idiot. The 'evil' isn't going to suddenly stop after blowing you away and change his mind. See the error of his ways and become good. To imply so is silly.

Indeed it's quite heroic, facing them down showing how weak they are in the end.

Naa. Just shows you're stupid enough to stand there and let him kill ya. Nothing heroic about dieing a useless death.

The pacifist certainly isn't some worthless decoy like you keep making him out to be.

Actually Decoy is some what useful. Once in a while. But again a true pacifist wouldn't go along with a group conducting massive violence. They don't just go "Oh I'm a pacifist but it's ok for you to beat answers out of that guy"

Clearly you're wrong and simply don't comprehend what a pacifist is, otherwise you wouldn't continually mock and dismiss them out of hand with such unrealistic examples.

No Nightmask. Clearly YOU don't comprehend what a pacifist is. You are constantly describing a reluctant hero. Not True Pacifism. Pacifism isn't 'Non violent till I need to kick some ass" Pacifism is "I will not engage in violence, even to defend myself." And that's your problem. "A recluctant hero" can be played and can be part of a group. A nice contributing part. MANY heroes are heroes because while they might not want to be, they have to be. The entire "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" Thing. To NOT act is worse than having to act.

----That-----Is-----Not-----Pacifisim----.

What you seem to be on about is "Contingent pacifism" Pacifisim with.... you know. Exceptions. Contingent pacifists may accept the permissibility or even necessity of war in some circumstances and reject it in others, while absolute pacifists will always and everywhere reject war and violence.

I'm talking about Absolute pacifists. Ones that don't make exceptions as to when they can kill. Because really... that's not holding the thing true. That's the same as people that go "i'm a vegetarian, except for hamburgers' Well.. You're not a vegetarian then are you?

Need to correct your mocking effort there of the pacifist (particularly given I seem to remember Mr. Incredible rescuing a kitten from a tree as part of his daily super-hero efforts right before his wedding, and Superman's done it often enough),

Yeah? You probably remember them beating the crap out of the bad guy when it came to it as well, right?

That's because they aren't pacifists, but you were using such examples as a contemptuous commentary on pacifists as if such actions were examples of being worthless or unheroic or otherwise not worthy of heroes.

See that's why it's a game where everyone's working together to

You've an odd outlook on things, to keep insisting that a character just isn't very useful (to the point of mocking it as an anchor)

I am mocking it. How many comic books are about the non hero that doesn't do the heroic work?

Now see, you keep dismissing it as not being heroic, and that's your problem. You think the entirety of what makes up a hero is beating up on people and that's just laughably wrong, lowering the idea of the hero to parody or caricature.

No.. YOU keep saying that. I'm pointing out that beating up on the supervillian is a big part of being a hero. That with out it, you're missing alot of what makes them the super hero. Instead of just a Detective.

Try telling that pacifist fire-fighter he's a non-hero because he's not punching out people and 'just' running into burning buildings that could collapse at any second to rescue someone trapped inside.

Hero? Totally. Super hero in a comic book? Nope. Heck a fire fighter is a good 'day job' for many heroes. (( not mine.. my guy turns into an action figure.... but many!))

But you're mistaking 'Hero' for "SUPER Hero" Are there hero fire fighters? Dude.. totally... but they're not fighting Dr Evil and his Evil Henchmen. He's putting out a fire and saving people. Apples and Tunafish there man.

Someone will more than likely punch you unless you do it where no one else can overhear.

Naa. I'm 6'3" and about 225. Very few people punch me for words. But I'd never say a pacifist firefighter is less of a hero.

But then, I wouldn't call him a superhero either. The firefighter isn't out fighting Dr Evil, is he?

Heroes put their lives on the line to protect and save others, and that entails a lot more than beating up some villain, anyone can do that.

Totally agree, but that's why there's a difference between the hero saving people from a fire, or diging one out of rubble, and the super heroes fighting super villains. ANd no. not 'anyone' can beat up a super villain. That's why you need super heroes. Because the normal people can't beat up the super villain. The cops can't take um down. You need super heroes to do it.

Some other villain could do it just as easily, going to call the villain a hero because he beat up another villain to save the day?

nope, but the 'Anti-hero' is huge in comics lately. Really geared up with Wolverine and hasn't really gone away. The "Hero" that's a jerk or totally ok with Killing to do his heroic stuff. Wolverine, Punisher, ect ect ad infin. Comics are full of them. Usually they're wanted by the cops because... they go around killin' people all the time. There's dozens if not 100s of pages talking about it in the HU books man.

And sometimes Criminals just take out other criminals. "No honor among theives" and all that. Most Criminals aren't too picky.

just for not being interested in beating on opponents all the time. Particularly since it's impossible every character to be equally useful and versatile, even if they've got identical stats and powers and skills.

If you're not interested in taking down the bad guy, don't put on the cape. Go become an EMT or a Doctor or a new age healer. Heck. HEALERS on teams rarely refuse to pick up a weapon and fight when it comes to it. I'm not saying everyone -----has------ to fight every enemy. I'm saying it's annoying to a group if you refuse to fight any of them.

Yet quickly run for that medical care after the fight whining and probably quite perturbed when the character you've treated with contempt all the time before that refuses to help you out because you're just so sure of yourself you can heal yourself too.

*shrugs* Then why's he on the team? Remember YOU were the one that said he felt himself surperior to others and that others were inferior to him.. but now he's not only not going to help out with the fight, but also refuse to heal the team?

Yeah... your super hero team is going to keep that jerk around a LONG time........ because he's so useful and fun to be around.

[Nightmask]

Oh but that's just so wrong on so many levels, from misrepresenting the pacifist as a coward cowering in the corner (and Gandhi himself clearly stated that pacifism is the opposite of cowardous and felt violence was acceptable to cowardly behavior)

So? Lots of people that refuse to fight say they're braver than those that do. That's some serious 'sour grapes' sort of thing man. Hate to break it to you but MOST people too afraid to fight, aren't brave. Does it sometimes take a more mature person to walk away from a fight? yes. Does that mean all people refusing to fight are brave? no. Most times you're just too scared.

Did I represent the pacifist as cowering in a corner. Yes. Do they all? no. Some just stand there.

You've got to be insisting on that just to great conflict, I can't imagine anyone honestly believing such ridiculous stuff. The pacifist and coward have NOTHING in common, and the pacifist NEVER speaks to his choices as bravery, that's other people telling them how brave they were. The pacifist simply stands by his convictions, its others who call them brave. Only a nut would call those brave pacifists in WWII cowards after wading through withering enemy fire to rescue injured soldiers, and more doing it to mock someone with far greater bravery than they could ever hope for. That's often why people tear down others like that, because they feel they can't live up to it and must tear them down for the sake of their ego.

to rating everything he's done before that point as meaningless and without value because he didn't go punching on some villain that they'd have never reached the point of fighting in the first place without his non-violent help.

I'm not saying it's meaningless. I'm saying it's all to a point. The point is to capture or stop the Super Villain. The Super Villain isn't going to get talked out of Super Villainy. It's going to take force. Force is somthing the Pacifist can't do, by it's nature.

No, it's to protect and help others, sometimes that involves stopping a villain. There's nothing about being able to use force that makes one somehow superior to those that don't, and too much insistence on that just comes off as sour grapes looking to tear down people who somehow manage to save the day without having to hurt someone.

At the end of the day though, Dr Evil has to get taken out. And if you're playing a true pacifist (( not just a wuss. There is a difference)) that means you'll take no action which would bring harm to someone, and yes, that includes telling your buddies where Dr Evil is gonna be if you know they're going to go engage in violence. A true pacifist doesn't split hairs. He doesn't go "I won't hurt him, but guys beat him till he talks" That sort of mentality would be repugnant to the true pacifist. They wouldn't buddy up with violent people because it would be directly at odds with what they believe. It'd be like a Catholic priest hanging out at a human sacrifice of some sort of demon cult because 'Hey, I'm not killin' the innocent virgin. Someone else is. That's their sin".

Sorry but that's wrong.

Sorry but it's not. You are not describing pacifists.

No, you're the one not describing pacifists, you've got them confused with cowards who're afraid to be hurt or killed. Pacifists don't fit that definition.

Plenty of true pacifists have died in WWII, Vietnam, and during the Korean conflict because while they felt it was wrong for them to harm others they weren't entitled to hinder others and lead them to harm because of their actions.

That's not a pacifist. That's a conscientious objector. A 'True pacifist" would refuse to harm others, and take their jail time. Again, you're not describing a true pacifist. you're describing someone reluctant to do stuff but DOES.

No, again YOU keep describing what a pacifist is wrongly. I mean seriously it's laughable how you keep misrepresenting things. Some of those pacifists did get jail time, others the military used as throwaway human beings considering their lives as worthless because they wouldn't kill and felt them cowards. Yet those so-called cowards were out there loading up on medals for bravery above and beyond the call going into the most dangerous situations to rescue their fellow soldiers. Because you'd have to be completely blind or trolling to insist that a pacifist would leave all those wounded soldiers to die because 'oh no I can't harm others so I'll just stand here doing nothing!'. Yeah that's just complete nonsense. That pacifist is right out there because he's harming his fellow man by not acting and helping him out when he's in need.

Not warning your teammates where the villain is at is not what a pacifist is going to do because he will be causing harm to others by actively helping the villain remain free.

So your idea of pacifism says it's ok to be violent to some people?

Pacifism isn't a single set of rules, and people disagree on what constitutes a true pacifist. Not all pacifists are completely unwilling to fight, but some refuse all forms of violence including that required to defend others.

Pacifist heroes have no problems working front line (certainly those medics and rescue copter personnel used as cannon fodder in the past US wars, put there by contemptuous officers died valiantly saving wounded soldiers and earned many awards for bravery as a result). They've braved the same threats as everyone else out there and deserve nothing but praise for their heroism instead of dismissing it as 'well they wouldn't kill so they were just worthless'.

BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG DIFFERENCE here Nighty. Those medics and chopper personnel LAY DOWN FIRE. They shoot back. They are troops. They fight. They fight right up till they needs to be medics and often DURING. Being a medic doesn't make you a Pacifist. Stop thinking about GI Joe's Lifeline. (( who also comes with guns and isn't a Pacifist in anything except for the cartoon and even then he had 100 team mates to slaughter around him.))

No, those medics are NOT laying down fire, and they are NOT shooting back. They have soldiers who're doing the shooting while they're saving lives (because it's a bit hard to shoot at someone while doing emergency medical care on someone or carrying him back to an evac chopper). That being REAL soldiers who were pacifists drafted into the war, not some cartoon character. It's obvious you haven't actually looked at the history of things like WWII or you'd know that many RL pacifists were out on the front lines rescuing troops and dying alongside them because there's NOTHING about being a pacifist that means you refuse to save lives or that you can't or won't act alongside those who are fighting.

The men they saved will vehemently disagree.

Medics and chopper crews are not pacifists. So your argument is moot. Heck chaplins can pick up their rifles and fight in the army. Priests all the way back to my ancestors time at the battle of Sterling Bridge, killed

I said pacifists were medics and chopper crews, I did not say that all of them were. Your suggestion there about clergy is also moot and pointless as you well know they aren't expected to fight and just because some priests have used weapons and violence does not mean that they all do or even most do.

That character is equally valuable and praiseworthy in a game dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

But your pacifists in the superhero game is not dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

They aren't my pacifists and you'd have to be blind to insist that they aren't dealing with the same threats when they're in the middle of the action along with their comrades.

So what you're saying is apparently that in your eyes the only thing about the game that matters is the battle and anyone not tossing fireballs or letting loose with his lightning bolts is not just worthless but not a hero worthy of the label.

No. I'm saying that's usually the climax of the game.

There is no climax to the game, the game is never-ending. That battle is rarely the climax of anything, it's just a brief pausing of things before the next battle begins.

Man that's just soooooo wrong. Completely missing how the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.

So all super heroes other than a pacifists are stupid? I think Batman would disagree. He often goes in alone and beats the hell out of dozens to100s of bad guys, after doing the smart stuff too. *GASP* Look at that!

You're the one insisting all superheroes who aren't pacifists are stupid, I've never said that. You've made it out how the pacifist is the only one doing non-combat things and tossing out the ridiculous notion about having to make the game revolve around him and his being the only one doing the investigative stuff and research. I'm not the one who's repeated made that point, you're the one who's been making out the violent heroes as idiots who can't do anything but fight.

Seems like those heroes were just worthless, too incompetent to get anywhere without the GM handing it to them without that pacifist doing that investigative work.

Not at all. You're missing the point, that the game should be built and played so the "Non pacifists' have the ability to track down the villain. That it shouldn't be something that ONLY The pacifist can do... because.. if you do........ You're building the game around the one guy.

THAT has always been part of my point.

Your point's always been about how combat's all that the game's about and anything else was worthless. You've been the one making out how the players of the violent characters have built them with nothing but combat in mind so that they couldn't find the shoestrings on the shoes on their feet. A well-rounded group can do quite a bit rather than being overly specialized.

Interesting how you consider the time when the game is focused on investigation and research as getting 'undue attention',

You seriously need to focus Nightmask. That's not what I said. I said that there are options, of which this is ONE OPTION, where it's unbalanced in this fashion. That if you go this way, it's undue attention, where most of your group isn't in the focus. That it's all about the one guy. It's part of the overall flow of the post. Not alone independant of the other, as you're trying to make it out. You're picking out sentences out of context and going "GASP!! OMG!!"

I can't help it if you insist on making up extreme examples that don't come into play in the average game, where you believe that a game is all about the combat and having anyone along who isn't about combat and violence it's somehow making the game about him. Just sounds like a lot of jealousy not wanting anyone else getting the spotlight.

leaving one to conclude you don't care for that side of things and just want to smash stuff and beat on the villains and hate that the tanks aren't the focus of the game all the time.

If you totally take it out of context which you clearly are, to try and make your point. You could conclude that. if you read it all, where that was one option, where the GM is "All investigation, no combat" As it was being explained. No. You're trying to make me out to be a thug. I'm not. I'm saying if you go with this option of focus. All the other heroes in the game that have offensive powers, are left hanging when it 100% concentrates on investigation (( or what ever)) Your pacifist is up to.

Quit trying to make your point by purposefuly going out of context. It doesn't make your point. It shows you're not comprehending the entire thing.

I'm comprehending just fine, you seem to be missing the point. Including making it out as 'all or nothing' as if a game would have to be all combat or all investigation and whoever wasn't suited for the other is left out. That's not how the average GM does it, they reasonably balance things so there's a little bit of everything because adventuring and RP isn't all just one thing or another.

At least when Thor's chaffing in Avengers Mansion watching the investigative sorts do their thing he's capable of realizing that sometimes the tanks are in fact just worthless and have to wait on someone else being the focus before they can do their thing.

Yes. But with out Thor to use his hammer at the big fight in the issue, all that investigative stuff is moot isn't it? You need both. If you have too much of one (( in the example)) The rest get bored. 1 pacifist amist 5 or more players... the two options i've presented will usually happen. Either undue attention to the one guy... or the poor one guy gets largely ignored.

Your example though is a failing on the GM's part if he's emphasizing one part of the game to the detriment of one or more players, and you keep presenting it as a given rather than an exception.

Sorry but no, the GM has to set up every game session with the characters in mind and the player with the pacifist is as due that part of the game where he's more necessary as the more action/combat-oriented sorts when their time comes.

So in a group of 5 players, the Pacifist should get one fifth time to shine right? So the investigative part of the story if all things are equal, he'll be sitting out for 4/5ths of the stuff?

WOW... that's pretty much exactly the problem I put forth. Huh? The guy sitting around for 4/5th of the time when his char isn't in the spotlight because the game isn't designed around him. Thanks for coming around to my point of view.

Too bad for your example that's just not how anything works. You're presenting an unrealistic extreme as if it were a given and it's not.

You just seem to hate any character that's not beating on things

Not at all. I dislike the PLAYER, that chooses to put something like this into the game, to try and be the special snow flake, and makes things harder on others around them. I've often said it's not impossible. Just annoying. How many Pacifists do you honestly know in the world? I'd wager none... maybe one or two depending on how spirutal or godly or what ever *Waves hand* But MOST people aren't even remotely pacifistic... nor do they hang around with um much. they're annoying.

So you have problems with someone wanting to play what he likes rather than what you approve of?

and worse make the mistake thinking that any character not getting shot at next to yours is somehow worthless or even cowardly and that's just not so.

So again name something that a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can't.

Anything the non-pacifist doesn't know how to do that the pacifist does. So the Hardware: Analytical can do everything that Ancient Weapons Master who doesn't even have more than basic math and first aid can't do.

[Nightmask]

One person making an entire group change to accomidate them, is annoying, which ever side it's own. If you're one of 5 people and expect them all to revolve around you, you're an ass.

Except that your insistence how it's a forgone conclusion just doesn't cut it because it isn't.

Now you know that's a pointless question because a pacifist isn't a set range of skills or powers, it's a philosophy/mindset.

No it's got a point. Your 'Use' for the pacifist can be done by anyone.

No, it has no point because pacifist isn't a power category, it has nothing that comes with it just as being a non-pacifist doesn't. The pacifist can do what he's skilled at and if the non-pacifist doesn't have those skills the pacifist can do them and he can't.

The Non-Pacifist who isn't a medical doctor can't perform emergency medicine if the Pacifist is a doctor, the non-Pacifist who is a medical doctor can do emergency medicine where the Pacifist who isn't a medical doctor can't.

That's my point. There's nothing the pacifist can do, that a non pacifist can't also do. THAT IS the point. So having one around for the soul purpose of that stuff is silly.

That's not a point, you keep presenting pacifists as if they were a power category. It's pointless.

I guess I have to point out that just like RL games do not revolve completely around fighting and the hard work of the non-combat sorts is just as vital for saving the day.

I guess I have to point out... that giving the guy mor than his fair share of the time and effort.. isn't fair to the other 4 guys at the table.

With the false assumption that he's getting an unfair amount of an arbitrarily defined amount of attention, based apparently on nothing but the idea that as a pacifist it's a given which is simply not so.

You have some serious contempt for non-violent people,

I live in the real world where 100% non violent people are abused and killed by violent people every day. REALLY Nighty? Your henchmen will just turn over a new leaf and join the ranks of the good and pure because they were talked out of it by offering them.. *Cracks up* Hard work and being decent to one another?

That's stupid. I'm sorry but it is. I'm not saying YOU'RE stupid. I'm saying that idea is stupid.

In the real world 100% non-violent people change lives and make violent people give up violence every day, so it's stupid to pretend that they don't exist or that it can't happen. Even with the vast decay in Marvel comics towards anti-heroism they've actually managed to increase the number of examples of villains actually giving it up and becoming non-villains and some even becoming heroes.

That's a whole lot of bravery standing up to evil when you know there's a good chance you'll end up injured or dead.

You see bravery. I see stupidity. Sometimes do you have to die for good things to happen. sure. Are you going to get it done simply by dieing? no. Fighting till the last and dieing for a good cause is alot different than just letting the evil kill you because you're an idiot. The 'evil' isn't going to suddenly stop after blowing you away and change his mind. See the error of his ways and become good. To imply so is silly.

While you consider it a useless death most don't, and such standing up have changed things. Segregation and racism didn't end because of violence, it was standing up for what was right even when it meant being beaten and killed and persevering in spite of that that brought about change. When enough men and women saw it was wrong thanks to that non-violence they woke up and worked to change it. Violent conflict would have simply kept it going and made it worse.

Now see, you keep dismissing it as not being heroic, and that's your problem. You think the entirety of what makes up a hero is beating up on people and that's just laughably wrong, lowering the idea of the hero to parody or caricature.

No.. YOU keep saying that. I'm pointing out that beating up on the supervillian is a big part of being a hero. That with out it, you're missing alot of what makes them the super hero. Instead of just a Detective.

Please, don't go ascribing to me what you keep saying. Beating up super-villains isn't the central aspect of the hero, it's protecting people and saving lives. There's just a lot of villains around that need stopping, and comics often show the more action scenes of the heroes and don't show us much of their non-villain fighting activities.

Yet quickly run for that medical care after the fight whining and probably quite perturbed when the character you've treated with contempt all the time before that refuses to help you out because you're just so sure of yourself you can heal yourself too.

*shrugs* Then why's he on the team? Remember YOU were the one that said he felt himself surperior to others and that others were inferior to him.. but now he's not only not going to help out with the fight, but also refuse to heal the team?

Now you know I never said that at all, you're the one who's insisted on that as being a core aspect of pacifists. I've merely pointed out that if the others are going to be contemptuous of the hero for being a pacifist don't come whining to him for medical care when they're just so 'superior' to him they should be able to heal themselves.

Yeah... your super hero team is going to keep that jerk around a LONG time........ because he's so useful and fun to be around.

Now see, when everyone else is being a jerk he's just joining in. They're all being jerks because he's a pacifist putting him down only to come running when they need something just simply getting back what they've been dishing out. Don't want to be treated poorly don't treat others poorly.

In any case this has become way off topic and just not interested in continuing this just so you can spend more time demonstrating how little you know about pacifists and how much contempt you have for them.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Oh but that's just so wrong on so many levels, from misrepresenting the pacifist as a coward cowering in the corner (and Gandhi himself clearly stated that pacifism is the opposite of cowardous and felt violence was acceptable to cowardly behavior)

So? Lots of people that refuse to fight say they're braver than those that do. That's some serious 'sour grapes' sort of thing man. Hate to break it to you but MOST people too afraid to fight, aren't brave. Does it sometimes take a more mature person to walk away from a fight? yes. Does that mean all people refusing to fight are brave? no. Most times you're just too scared.

Did I represent the pacifist as cowering in a corner. Yes. Do they all? no. Some just stand there.

You've got to be insisting on that just to great conflict, I can't imagine anyone honestly believing such ridiculous stuff.

Really? You honestly think everyone that refuses to fight are some how braver than those that do? And all of them are doing so our of a sense of hightened morality, and not fear of getting their butt kicked? You must live in a "Perfect world"

I live on Earth.

The pacifist and coward have NOTHING in common,

Neither will fight. That's something. Something big.

and the pacifist NEVER speaks to his choices as bravery,

Why not? you've already stipulated that the pacifist think's he's better than others and looks down on them. Where's he getting this nice guy stuff you're pulling out now?

that's other people telling them how brave they were.

Brave not to fight? Who said this?

The pacifist simply stands by his convictions, its others who call them brave.

To be more accurate, the pacifist simply stands..... and again, who's calling him brave for not fighting? Standing by one's convictions is great. Till it hurts others.

Only a nut would call those brave pacifists in WWII cowards after wading through withering enemy fire to rescue injured soldiers, and more doing it to mock someone with far greater bravery than they could ever hope for.

Dude.. what do you think was happening out there? Do you think people got put into the med corps just for claiming pacifisim? Being a medic does not mean you're a pacifist. You're equating one to the other. It's simply not true. Medics fight too.

That's often why people tear down others like that, because they feel they can't live up to it and must tear them down for the sake of their ego.

I'm not tearing down doctors and medics. I just don't automatically equate them to being pacifists. Far from it. That's a FALSE and ARTIFICIAL Linking you're making.

to rating everything he's done before that point as meaningless and without value because he didn't go punching on some villain that they'd have never reached the point of fighting in the first place without his non-violent help.

I'm not saying it's meaningless. I'm saying it's all to a point. The point is to capture or stop the Super Villain. The Super Villain isn't going to get talked out of Super Villainy. It's going to take force. Force is somthing the Pacifist can't do, by it's nature.

No, it's to protect and help others, sometimes that involves stopping a villain.

So, you're saying that the point is to protect others and let the villain go? Interesting... can't he hurt other victims then? And your pacifist be responsible for their pain?

There's nothing about being able to use force that makes one somehow superior to those that don't,

Lets see here.

1) Pacifist... can't stop the villain because the villain laughs at him when the pacifists asks him to stop. Or tells him to stop.. Or..... 2) Non pacifist, whom can, if needed, stop the villain from doing villainous things, through the use of force.....

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Yep. That's something that makes um superior. Your pacifist can't do anything but ask. Everyone else can do more than ask. Thus, the inferiority.

and too much insistence on that just comes off as sour grapes looking to tear down people who somehow manage to save the day without having to hurt someone.

How you going to do it Nightmask? The 'Forcefield' techniquic someone brought up above? Sure that works once. Maybe twice. But as also pointed out above your enemies learn real quick how to get around that one. So other than a 'one trick pony' how are you going to 'Some how manage to save the day with out having to hurt someone" when you're playing in a super powered game? Again, the Villains don't stop just for the asking.

At the end of the day though, Dr Evil has to get taken out. And if you're playing a true pacifist (( not just a wuss. There is a difference)) that means you'll take no action which would bring harm to someone, and yes, that includes telling your buddies where Dr Evil is gonna be if you know they're going to go engage in violence. A true pacifist doesn't split hairs. He doesn't go "I won't hurt him, but guys beat him till he talks" That sort of mentality would be repugnant to the true pacifist. They wouldn't buddy up with violent people because it would be directly at odds with what they believe. It'd be like a Catholic priest hanging out at a human sacrifice of some sort of demon cult because 'Hey, I'm not killin' the innocent virgin. Someone else is. That's their sin".

Sorry but that's wrong.

Sorry but it's not. You are not describing pacifists.

No, you're the one not describing pacifists, you've got them confused with cowards who're afraid to be hurt or killed. Pacifists don't fit that definition.

Some do. You're describing "Contingent pacifism" Pacifisim with.... you know. Exceptions. Contingent pacifists may accept the permissibility or even necessity of war in some circumstances and reject it in others, while absolute pacifists will always and everywhere reject war and violence.

And as I pointed out before. That's not the same thing as Absolute pacifists. Being a contingent pacifist is like being a Vegetarian that doesn't eat any meat except for beef. Meaning.. you're not a Vegetarian at all... and if you're a pacifist that believes in pacifism, except when YOU want to beat up someone. You're not a Pacifist.

Plenty of true pacifists have died in WWII, Vietnam, and during the Korean conflict because while they felt it was wrong for them to harm others they weren't entitled to hinder others and lead them to harm because of their actions.

That's not a pacifist. That's a conscientious objector. A 'True pacifist" would refuse to harm others, and take their jail time. Again, you're not describing a true pacifist. you're describing someone reluctant to do stuff but DOES.

No, again YOU keep describing what a pacifist is wrongly. I mean seriously it's laughable how you keep misrepresenting things. Some of those pacifists did get jail time, others the military used as throwaway human beings considering their lives as worthless because they wouldn't kill and felt them cowards. Yet those so-called cowards were out there loading up on medals for bravery above and beyond the call going into the most dangerous situations to rescue their fellow soldiers.

Cite your source? Prove it?

Because you'd have to be completely blind or trolling to insist that a pacifist would leave all those wounded soldiers to die because 'oh no I can't harm others so I'll just stand here doing nothing!'. Yeah that's just complete nonsense. That pacifist is right out there because he's harming his fellow man by not acting and helping him out when he's in need.

That's part of my point as to their participation in superteams. You can't get it both ways Nightmask.

Not warning your teammates where the villain is at is not what a pacifist is going to do because he will be causing harm to others by actively helping the villain remain free.

So your idea of pacifism says it's ok to be violent to some people?

Pacifism isn't a single set of rules, and people disagree on what constitutes a true pacifist. Not all pacifists are completely unwilling to fight, but some refuse all forms of violence including that required to defend others.

So we're back to the vegetarians that eat hamburger...... they claim to be something, except for somthing that totally disqualifies them for what they claim to be. *nods*

Pacifist heroes have no problems working front line (certainly those medics and rescue copter personnel used as cannon fodder in the past US wars, put there by contemptuous officers died valiantly saving wounded soldiers and earned many awards for bravery as a result). They've braved the same threats as everyone else out there and deserve nothing but praise for their heroism instead of dismissing it as 'well they wouldn't kill so they were just worthless'.

BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG DIFFERENCE here Nighty. Those medics and chopper personnel LAY DOWN FIRE. They shoot back. They are troops. They fight. They fight right up till they needs to be medics and often DURING. Being a medic doesn't make you a Pacifist. Stop thinking about GI Joe's Lifeline. (( who also comes with guns and isn't a Pacifist in anything except for the cartoon and even then he had 100 team mates to slaughter around him.))

No, those medics are NOT laying down fire, and they are NOT shooting back.

On what PLANET!?!?!? Our medics most certainly ARE laying down fire and shooting back. They shoot right up untill they have someone injured. They don't just run around and hide behind rocks till they're needed!!

They have soldiers who're doing the shooting while they're saving lives

THEY ARE SOLDIERS DOING THE SHOOTING. Right untill they NEED To be medics.

(because it's a bit hard to shoot at someone while doing emergency medical care on someone or carrying him back to an evac chopper).

Hard? yeah, That's why it's called war. You're living in fantasy land. My father has a chest full of metals. Three different purple hearts. His last one, he got, carrying a 200lbs sergent though the jungle, while commanding a platoon of Air Cav, and FIRING HIS WEAPON and FIGHTING EVERY DAMN INCH of the way. Often having to put the guy down to fight. Pick him back up and keep going. Or shooting with the guy over his shoulder. Don't tell me you can't do it. I know you can. I'm here because you can. My dad got shot 7 different times by a sniper. Used a 203 to blow up the tree the sniper was in, PICKED UP THE SERGENT and carried him another 15 miles. 3 medics back at the base had to tackle him to get him to take medical care because my dad was ordering his troops be tended to first. So don't tell me you can't do it. I've seen the metals and I've looked into his eyes when he told me about it. To this day his right arm is crippled and his right hand a claw due to those bullets. I've seen the wounds. I've seen the medical files.

Is it hard? Yeah. But believe it or not, in the middle of war, 'easy' often isn't an option. And Medics, while they do want to save the guy they're helping. need to be alive to do it. So they carry weapons and return fire.

That being REAL soldiers who were pacifists drafted into the war, not some cartoon character. It's obvious you haven't actually looked at the history of things like WWII or you'd know that many RL pacifists were out on the front lines rescuing troops and dying alongside them because there's NOTHING about being a pacifist that means you refuse to save lives or that you can't or won't act alongside those who are fighting.

Show me. Cite your source about these legions of pacifists on the front lines.

The men they saved will vehemently disagree.

Medics and chopper crews are not pacifists. So your argument is moot. Heck chaplins can pick up their rifles and fight in the army. Priests all the way back to my ancestors time at the battle of Sterling Bridge, killed

I said pacifists were medics and chopper crews, I did not say that all of them were

You've implied it repeatedly by citing them as pacifists that don't fight.

Your suggestion there about clergy is also moot and pointless as you well know they aren't expected to fight and just because some priests have used weapons and violence does not mean that they all do or even most do.

It's not moot. It proves that any and all kinds can and will fight when needed to. Be they clergy or chopper crews or medics. If you honestly think all those people are pacifistic you have a horribly skewed view of the military and the real world.

That character is equally valuable and praiseworthy in a game dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

But your pacifists in the superhero game is not dealing with the same threats as everyone else.

They aren't my pacifists and you'd have to be blind to insist that they aren't dealing with the same threats when they're in the middle of the action along with their comrades.

But they're not in the middle of the action. When the action starts they sit out.

So what you're saying is apparently that in your eyes the only thing about the game that matters is the battle and anyone not tossing fireballs or letting loose with his lightning bolts is not just worthless but not a hero worthy of the label.

No. I'm saying that's usually the climax of the game.

There is no climax to the game, the game is never-ending. That battle is rarely the climax of anything, it's just a brief pausing of things before the next battle begins.

LOL look at your own words. "The battle is rarely the climax of anything, it's just a brief pausing of things before the next battle begins" LOL sounds like it's alot more important than.... wait.. You just said it was! Thanks for again, proving my point, even though you did so accidentally.

Man that's just soooooo wrong. Completely missing how the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.

So all super heroes other than a pacifists are stupid? I think Batman would disagree. He often goes in alone and beats the hell out of dozens to100s of bad guys, after doing the smart stuff too. *GASP* Look at that!

You're the one insisting all superheroes who aren't pacifists are stupid, I've never said that.

Except.. you did,

the characters you're lauding are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.

So.. not the word "stupid" but the word "Incompetent" to the point they'd never get with in a thousand miles of a villian"

Same thing

You've made it out how the pacifist is the only one doing non-combat things and tossing out the ridiculous notion about having to make the game revolve around him and his being the only one doing the investigative stuff and research.

LOL No.. I haven't. In fact I've said REPEATEDLY the exact opposite. That anything a pacifist can do the rest of the group can do. UNLESS You SPECIFICLY build it around the Pacifist. I've challenged you repeatedly to say something the pacifist can do that non pacifists can't.

I'm not the one who's repeated made that point, you're the one who's been making out the violent heroes as idiots who can't do anything but fight.

Except that's exactly what you've said. REPEATEDLY.

the characters you're lauding (Non pacifists) are apparently so incompetent that without that pacifist they'd never get within a thousand miles of the villain to have that 'climatic moment'.

That's just once with in a couple of paragraphs....

Seems like those heroes were just worthless, too incompetent to get anywhere without the GM handing it to them without that pacifist doing that investigative work.

Not at all. You're missing the point, that the game should be built and played so the "Non pacifists' have the ability to track down the villain. That it shouldn't be something that ONLY The pacifist can do... because.. if you do........ You're building the game around the one guy.

THAT has always been part of my point.

Your point's always been about how combat's all that the game's about and anything else was worthless.

You don't read well. Honestly asking. Are you like 12? You claim that combat's all the game's about and everything else was worthless. but RIGHT THERE. I said

Not at all. You're missing the point, that the game should be built and played so the "Non pacifists' have the ability to track down the villain. That it shouldn't be something that ONLY The pacifist can do.

So you're just lieing and putting words in my mouth. With in two lines of me saying the opposite.

You've been the one making out how the players of the violent characters have built them with nothing but combat in mind so that they couldn't find the shoestrings on the shoes on their feet.

No. I said how they don't have dozens and dozens of skills set aside for specialization in that vein, to have the entire game evolve around it. Again. You're lieing and putting words in my mouth. Stop.

A well-rounded group can do quite a bit rather than being overly specialized.

Interesting how you consider the time when the game is focused on investigation and research as getting 'undue attention',

You seriously need to focus Nightmask. That's not what I said. I said that there are options, of which this is ONE OPTION, where it's unbalanced in this fashion. That if you go this way, it's undue attention, where most of your group isn't in the focus. That it's all about the one guy. It's part of the overall flow of the post. Not alone independant of the other, as you're trying to make it out. You're picking out sentences out of context and going "GASP!! OMG!!"

I can't help it if you insist on making up extreme examples that don't come into play in the average game,

You can totally help lieing and putting words in my mouth I never said. And the entire thread is an extreme example that doesn't come into play in the average game.

where you believe that a game is all about the combat

Again. You lie to try and make your point. I've never once said that or indicated it.

and having anyone along who isn't about combat and violence it's somehow making the game about him.

Never said that either. I said that having someone along that refuses to help out with the combat, and demands that undue time be spent to appease his special snowflake char is annoying. That there were options. 1) being ignore the snow flake and let him get 1/5th or less of the attention, where he's going around for 4/5ths of the time useless OR... give him undue attention, more than his 1/5th's worth. Both of which are annoying to the other people at the table.

Just sounds like a lot of jealousy not wanting anyone else getting the spotlight.

Says the guy that plays a char that by it's nature will need special circumstances, or.... not be in the spotlight?

leaving one to conclude you don't care for that side of things and just want to smash stuff and beat on the villains and hate that the tanks aren't the focus of the game all the time.

If you totally take it out of context which you clearly are, to try and make your point. You could conclude that. if you read it all, where that was one option, where the GM is "All investigation, no combat" As it was being explained. No. You're trying to make me out to be a thug. I'm not. I'm saying if you go with this option of focus. All the other heroes in the game that have offensive powers, are left hanging when it 100% concentrates on investigation (( or what ever)) Your pacifist is up to.

Quit trying to make your point by purposefully going out of context. It doesn't make your point. It shows you're not comprehending the entire thing.

I'm comprehending just fine

No. You're just arguing to argue. You've contradicted yourself in this reply.

you seem to be missing the point. Including making it out as 'all or nothing' as if a game would have to be all combat or all investigation and whoever wasn't suited for the other is left out. That's not how the average GM does it, they reasonably balance things so there's a little bit of everything because adventuring and RP isn't all just one thing or another.

At least when Thor's chaffing in Avengers Mansion watching the investigative sorts do their thing he's capable of realizing that sometimes the tanks are in fact just worthless and have to wait on someone else being the focus before they can do their thing.

Yes. But with out Thor to use his hammer at the big fight in the issue, all that investigative stuff is moot isn't it? You need both. If you have too much of one (( in the example)) The rest get bored. 1 pacifist amist 5 or more players... the two options i've presented will usually happen. Either undue attention to the one guy... or the poor one guy gets largely ignored.

Your example though is a failing on the GM's part if he's emphasizing one part of the game to the detriment of one or more players, and you keep presenting it as a given rather than an exception.

No I give it as an option. The other side of it is that the GM gives everyone fair time and billing, and your Pacifist is useful 1/5th of the timeand 4/5ths of the time is tagging along.

Sorry but no, the GM has to set up every game session with the characters in mind and the player with the pacifist is as due that part of the game where he's more necessary as the more action/combat-oriented sorts when their time comes.

So in a group of 5 players, the Pacifist should get one fifth time to shine right? So the investigative part of the story if all things are equal, he'll be sitting out for 4/5ths of the stuff?

WOW... that's pretty much exactly the problem I put forth. Huh? The guy sitting around for 4/5th of the time when his char isn't in the spotlight because the game isn't designed around him. Thanks for coming around to my point of view.

Too bad for your example that's just not how anything works. You're presenting an unrealistic extreme as if it were a given and it's not.

Sure it is. You said they should all get equal time. So in a group with 5 heroes. That's 1/5th of the time or... 20% if you prefer, that focuses on the Pacifist. The other 4/5ths of the game, by fairness would focus on the non pacifists. So... for 80% of the time. Your guy is just following along.

You just seem to hate any character that's not beating on things

Not at all. I dislike the PLAYER, that chooses to put something like this into the game, to try and be the special snow flake, and makes things harder on others around them. I've often said it's not impossible. Just annoying. How many Pacifists do you honestly know in the world? I'd wager none... maybe one or two depending on how spirutal or godly or what ever *Waves hand* But MOST people aren't even remotely pacifistic... nor do they hang around with um much. they're annoying.

So you have problems with someone wanting to play what he likes rather than what you approve of?

If they're annoying. yes. I'm human. If it's annoying to the entire group. More so. Not every type char fits with every group. My group and myself loathe mini/maxers too. And twinks. Hate um. Mock um. Look down on um. The works. We think they're stupid.

and worse make the mistake thinking that any character not getting shot at next to yours is somehow worthless or even cowardly and that's just not so.

So again name something that a pacifist can do that a non pacifist can't.

Anything the non-pacifist doesn't know how to do that the pacifist does. So the Hardware: Analytical can do everything that Ancient Weapons Master who doesn't even have more than basic math and first aid can't do.

So your answer is 'Nothing'. There's nothing that a pacifist can do that someone who's not, can't do. That anything a pacifist can learn to do, so can the non pacifist.