So, in our Friday Night Game, I have been playing a pacifist cleric named Zephyr Draven. (Curse of Strahd)
I made Zephyer as a challenge to myself and also to see if it could be done. I focus on healing and buffing my party, my AC and also assisting the party in attacks and defense. Zephyr won't personally hit or hurt anything. We are now 5th level and up until last Friday, my character has never hit or caused damage to anything. On Friday, Zephyr used Spirit Guardians, which does 3d8 radiant damage, WIS save for half. Now, my War Pixies (that's what my Spirit Guardians are lol) are the ones protecting me and doing the damage. I know Zephyr cast the spell, but it's to keep him alive and safe.
Does him casting Spirit Guardians break his pacifist vows? I don't think it does, but I was wondering what the community thought about it.
Now, you can do a lot of fun stuff without actually attacking something and causing it damage as well. (Tripping, pushing, Bullrushing, Tickling... I haven't tried that last one yet...lol) It's been a challenge to play this character but I can't believe how much fun I am having with him. Even though my party comes at me for never attacking, last Friday his Spirit Guardians did 92 points of damage in less than a round! It was awesome!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...Debts must always be paid, sometimes in more than blood and gold. But this is Ordo Ursa," Ren places his hand on Erakas's chest, right where the Dragonborn's heart is. "Right here. And it always has been and always will be. Don't ever forget that. Because I won't."
Serandis Mendaen (Aereni Elven Rogue/maybe one day Wizard)- Project Point Playtest
I'm on the fence. On one hand it says they're there to protect you. However, it's not triggered when they act aggressively toward you, it's when they're in the area of effect. Because the area follows you and you choose to affect a particular creature, you can force the damage onto something, and thus have it be considered an aggressive act of your own.
So long as you're not forcing the damage onto something, and solely staying back to use it to defend yourself or other ranged characters, I'd say it is defensive and doesn't break the vow. If you force the damage onto something, it does, in my opinion.
I have to disagree with this being pacifist actions. Using your war pixies, is just using an intermediary to do your dirty work. Your still causing violence and suffering.If that is your idea of a pacifist, okay then. I would think a pacifist wanting a defensive spell would have one that keeps hostiles away from them, like sanctuary or circle of protection, or even something new.
It does damage. Even if it's damage by proxy, you still cast it. I have to agree with CptnJack, that's not pacifist. The purpose of the spell is to do damage to those who get close.
Hm, I am on the fence with this, but I tend towards it's OK. As long as you don't deliberately move into range so that your pixies attack, you're good. I view it like this: Letting my dog out of the house into my yard doesn't show aggression on my part. If you jump the fence and he rips your face off, that's completely on you. It's a defensive cast with an active defense. If they respect your defense you aren't breaking your vows.
Walking into the enemy though is like letting go of the leash when my dog starts to growl. Making a deliberate choice to put your defense into range is the same as doing the damage yourself. The intent is key. As long as the enemy has to CHOOSE to get hit, you are good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I believe it would be how you see the spell effect. One could argue that you arent directly inflicting damage, you are still doing it indirectly through your spell.
If i recall, in a previous edition using your channel divinity feature in any capacity was considered an aggressive action and caused a lot of issues.
As for this instance, i would side on the spell being aggressive as i view pacifist doing no harm, whether directly or not. I would also say if you cast a buff spell on an ally that dealt damage to their enemies would also be considered aggressive by indirect means.
If you cast is when a creature is within range it is definitely an offensive spell designed to harm and therefore against a pacifists beliefs. Arguing that it is only used to defend you is n different than having a view that you will never strike first but if someone attacks you then you are free to attack them.
I would also view a spell like Bless as anti-pacifist as it allows more harm to be done to creatures and therefore party buffing spells should be limited to things like aid.
A grey area would be something like hold person, it doesn't harm them itself but makes them more vulnerable to your non-pacifist) friends.
Oho a moral (spiritual ) dilemma. It would depend on your vows and the line your church draws, from our own experience, the christian church espouses that we not do 10 things, and that we turn the other cheek. This is the same church that bankrolled and bribed crusaders to attack foreign lands and forgave all sins for those that were successful.
Ironically the Christian rule of never drawing blood for its priesthood is where Dnd clerics had their original 'no sharp weapon' proficiency issue. Sad to see them get that treated as garbage yet druids still get stuck with a no metal armour as 'historically its been like this in previous editions' Now the christian church looked past its militant orders beating people to death as long as they bludgeoned them 'yay pacificism!'
What that means for you is this - if your god / faith / order / church is fine with you partying up with some people murderhoboing as long as your only keeping them alive to murder hobo some more? Then summoned monsters spiritual weapons spirit guardians are all fine as its not your lilly white (obviously hypocritical and probably sanctimonious) hands with speckles on them.
Justice isnt of itself just, Morality is not moral to those of different beliefs - so decide for yourself where you wish to draw the line based on how you want to develop / challenge yourself. You have already encountered the point where simply healing is becoming inefficient compared to inflicting harm so my only advice is - dont ruin your character by making it impossible to play :)
I keep thinking that casting Spirit Guardians is something like setting up a perimeter of automated machine gun turrets - if you put them there and turn them on, does it matter that you don't have to manually pull the trigger?
Spirit Guardians is an "offensive defensive" spell, because it does damage as its essential function. A more truly pacifist option would be something like Shield, where no harm is done (only prevented).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, in our Friday Night Game, I have been playing a pacifist cleric named Zephyr Draven. (Curse of Strahd)
I made Zephyer as a challenge to myself and also to see if it could be done. I focus on healing and buffing my party, my AC and also assisting the party in attacks and defense. Zephyr won't personally hit or hurt anything. We are now 5th level and up until last Friday, my character has never hit or caused damage to anything. On Friday, Zephyr used Spirit Guardians, which does 3d8 radiant damage, WIS save for half. Now, my War Pixies (that's what my Spirit Guardians are lol) are the ones protecting me and doing the damage. I know Zephyr cast the spell, but it's to keep him alive and safe.
Does him casting Spirit Guardians break his pacifist vows? I don't think it does, but I was wondering what the community thought about it.
Now, you can do a lot of fun stuff without actually attacking something and causing it damage as well. (Tripping, pushing, Bullrushing, Tickling... I haven't tried that last one yet...lol) It's been a challenge to play this character but I can't believe how much fun I am having with him. Even though my party comes at me for never attacking, last Friday his Spirit Guardians did 92 points of damage in less than a round! It was awesome!
"...Debts must always be paid, sometimes in more than blood and gold. But this is Ordo Ursa," Ren places his hand on Erakas's chest, right where the Dragonborn's heart is. "Right here. And it always has been and always will be. Don't ever forget that. Because I won't."
Serandis Mendaen (Aereni Elven Rogue/maybe one day Wizard)- Project Point Playtest
I consider spirit guardians a defensive spell and one suitable for a pacifist.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I'm on the fence. On one hand it says they're there to protect you. However, it's not triggered when they act aggressively toward you, it's when they're in the area of effect. Because the area follows you and you choose to affect a particular creature, you can force the damage onto something, and thus have it be considered an aggressive act of your own.
So long as you're not forcing the damage onto something, and solely staying back to use it to defend yourself or other ranged characters, I'd say it is defensive and doesn't break the vow. If you force the damage onto something, it does, in my opinion.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Well, as long as you don't move within 15 feet of something, it's ok. But if something moves within 15 feet of you, it's their fault.
Playing: Nothing Right Now
DM-ing: The Secrets of Skyhorn Lighthouse
Check out my homebrew: THE WARPER
I have to disagree with this being pacifist actions. Using your war pixies, is just using an intermediary to do your dirty work. Your still causing violence and suffering.If that is your idea of a pacifist, okay then. I would think a pacifist wanting a defensive spell would have one that keeps hostiles away from them, like sanctuary or circle of protection, or even something new.
It does damage. Even if it's damage by proxy, you still cast it. I have to agree with CptnJack, that's not pacifist. The purpose of the spell is to do damage to those who get close.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Hm, I am on the fence with this, but I tend towards it's OK. As long as you don't deliberately move into range so that your pixies attack, you're good. I view it like this: Letting my dog out of the house into my yard doesn't show aggression on my part. If you jump the fence and he rips your face off, that's completely on you. It's a defensive cast with an active defense. If they respect your defense you aren't breaking your vows.
Walking into the enemy though is like letting go of the leash when my dog starts to growl. Making a deliberate choice to put your defense into range is the same as doing the damage yourself. The intent is key. As long as the enemy has to CHOOSE to get hit, you are good.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I believe it would be how you see the spell effect. One could argue that you arent directly inflicting damage, you are still doing it indirectly through your spell.
If i recall, in a previous edition using your channel divinity feature in any capacity was considered an aggressive action and caused a lot of issues.
As for this instance, i would side on the spell being aggressive as i view pacifist doing no harm, whether directly or not. I would also say if you cast a buff spell on an ally that dealt damage to their enemies would also be considered aggressive by indirect means.
I've tried so hard to make a pacifist cleric. How did you do it?
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
If you cast is when a creature is within range it is definitely an offensive spell designed to harm and therefore against a pacifists beliefs. Arguing that it is only used to defend you is n different than having a view that you will never strike first but if someone attacks you then you are free to attack them.
I would also view a spell like Bless as anti-pacifist as it allows more harm to be done to creatures and therefore party buffing spells should be limited to things like aid.
A grey area would be something like hold person, it doesn't harm them itself but makes them more vulnerable to your non-pacifist) friends.
Oho a moral (spiritual ) dilemma. It would depend on your vows and the line your church draws, from our own experience, the christian church espouses that we not do 10 things, and that we turn the other cheek. This is the same church that bankrolled and bribed crusaders to attack foreign lands and forgave all sins for those that were successful.
Ironically the Christian rule of never drawing blood for its priesthood is where Dnd clerics had their original 'no sharp weapon' proficiency issue. Sad to see them get that treated as garbage yet druids still get stuck with a no metal armour as 'historically its been like this in previous editions' Now the christian church looked past its militant orders beating people to death as long as they bludgeoned them 'yay pacificism!'
What that means for you is this - if your god / faith / order / church is fine with you partying up with some people murderhoboing as long as your only keeping them alive to murder hobo some more? Then summoned monsters spiritual weapons spirit guardians are all fine as its not your lilly white (obviously hypocritical and probably sanctimonious) hands with speckles on them.
Justice isnt of itself just, Morality is not moral to those of different beliefs - so decide for yourself where you wish to draw the line based on how you want to develop / challenge yourself. You have already encountered the point where simply healing is becoming inefficient compared to inflicting harm so my only advice is - dont ruin your character by making it impossible to play :)
Focused only on healing and restorative spells.
Always took the dodge or disengage action in combat if enemies closed in.
Always tried to calm a conflict that appeared to be heading for combat.
It was quite tough, but i was at a point that i didnt want to play with that group anymore, and used it as my escape point.
I keep thinking that casting Spirit Guardians is something like setting up a perimeter of automated machine gun turrets - if you put them there and turn them on, does it matter that you don't have to manually pull the trigger?
Spirit Guardians is an "offensive defensive" spell, because it does damage as its essential function. A more truly pacifist option would be something like Shield, where no harm is done (only prevented).