Does anyone have ideas on how they might play an effective pacifist character that isn't a detriment to their party? The first idea that jumps out is peace domain cleric of Ilmater, but I have a feeling that never doing any damage could be hard as a player and for the party. In the case of Ilmater, I think it says somewhere that they heal both friends and enemies too. I suppose you could aim for non-lethal damage, but it is still damage. Has anyone done this or a similar idea with any success? Is there another way to go about it that I'm not seeing? The idea isn't limited to just clerics if that helps at all.

Once had an idea for a PC how only really used Hold and stun spells. You could also try the Debuff role, casting spells that don`t necessarily hurt people, just make them easier to defeat.

Clockwork soul sorcerer have a lot of good support and control spell options.

It can depend on exactly what you want from pacifism though.  Are you out to keep supporting your team on the field while they butcher everything in their path, or are you out for more off-field support?  You're probably looking at a multi-class nightmare across Bard, rogue and ranger.  Those classes tend to have a lot of off-field skills that can help you in social situations, wilderness or streetwise.

Use the God Wizard build as a foundation: Origin of the God Wizard

It is not a full answer for your build (the character in the story is not meant to be a pacifist)  but the design of this build is what you want to use for motivation.  In general you want to look for battlefield control, buff, and debuff spells.  The point of the video is that one can build a spellcaster that is optimized but does inflict damage during combat. 

So using the Cleric class as an example, take spells like Bless, Command, Sanctuary, and Shield of Faith as your first level spells. At higher levels consider Silence,  Dispel Magic, Banishment, Freedom of Movement

You probably want to map out your character's build to a level 20 to make sure the options for spells and feats offer you a game plan you think you will enjoy. 

I've heard of someone using the spell point variation of Sorcerer. Went with Divine Soul subclass, I think. Put as many stats as possible into DEX and CHA. Charisma isn't just there for spell effectiveness; it also means you're better at talking you (and maybe the party) out of combat situations as well.  Used the Sanctuary spell also to protect themselves. 

I can also see a Fey Wanderer Ranger being able to fill a similar niche with less worry about Metamagic optimization. This is the Ranger that lets you add WIS bonus to Charisma checks, which is useful for defusing tense situations and tricking people into doing what you want so that the party feels less inclined (maybe) to stab them.

First, I would say talk to the rest of the table about your plans. While you don’t want to give veto power to your character concept to others, it’s good to make sure they won’t get too annoyed.

Second, this comes up sometimes, and I usually think it’s really not a good fit for an adventurer. I mean, you say you don’t want to hurt others, but you’re willing to cast hold person and basically paralyze them in the middle of a battle, knowing full well what the barbarian is going to do to that person in the next 6 seconds. Or you bless your party, so they can hurt others more efficiently. There’s just a lot of intellectual hoops you need to jump through to make it work, and even then, it’s not quite right. You basically say, I won’t personally hurt someone else, but I will make it much easier for my friends to hurt someone else. At some point, the character is just kidding themselves. 

Quote from ArntItheBest >>

You could just always go with non-lethal damage. To quote one of the greatest shows of all time:

Zoë: “Preacher, don’t the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin’?”

Book: “Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.”

 Been a long time since I encountered a fellow Browncoat in the verse. Shiny.

And the recommendation is great too. At my table and at the tables I have played in, non-lethal attacks are perfectly fine if they are called out beforehand. If I knew my player wanted to avoid killing entirely, I would be happy to make their attacks non-lethal by default.

If however, there is the intention to avoid violence of any kind, I once played in a campaign where the party's paladin refused to do any damage as a Redemption Paladin. I didn't mind it and found it pretty impressive that he lasted as long as he did. The Samurai Fighter appreciated it less so when he was run through in the boss fight while the paladin was still trying to negotiate with the fodder kidnappers on the other side of the map. A colossal mess actually. After the Samurai died, the Paladin finally broke his oath and killed the thugs, while the rogue and myself (wizard) killed the boss. The campaign fell apart because the Samurai was pretty pissed his PC died and the Paladin player felt guilty and never came back for following sessions.

On the other hand, my Eloquence Bard in another campaign had a focus on control/utility/buffs/debuffs. Very little in the way of damage though I did have some. It was pretty inconsequential that I rarely did damage because I was very much contributing elsewhere. I don't know if the game can well-support strict pacifist behavior, but if you fill necessary roles in combat like healing and control, you can get by with doing little damage.

Non-lethal can be an option, but you'd need to check with your DM. As far as I know, the RAW option for nonlethal is under Knocking a Creature Out: Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.

So RAW you can only do it in melee, and even then it only matters if you're the one who makes the enemy hit zero. If you beat a guy up, non-lethally, and take them from full to 1 hp, then your ally comes along and shanks him, and he's just as dead as if you'd been doing lethal damage the whole time. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, but really, were you being a pacifist? I will say that kind of moral dilemma can be interesting to role play.

And, if you do just knock the enemy out, then there's the question of what to do with them. Now, that can also be an interesting role play situation, but its only interesting the first couple times. Then it just starts to drag as you need to take them back to the authorities, or what have you, while the rest of the party is like, It's an aberration. Where are we going to take a Gibbering Mouther?

Quote from Xalthu >>

First, I would say talk to the rest of the table about your plans. While you don’t want to give veto power to your character concept to others, it’s good to make sure they won’t get too annoyed

I second this. I've been in a party with a player who took this sort of idea to an extreme, to the point that he was casting healing spells on a beholder in the middle of a fight because "it's what my character would do"

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

First, I would say talk to the rest of the table about your plans. While you don’t want to give veto power to your character concept to others, it’s good to make sure they won’t get too annoyed

 

I second this. I've been in a party with a player who took this sort of idea to an extreme, to the point that he was casting healing spells on a beholder in the middle of a fight because "it's what my character would do"

 Sounds like a character who's at distinct risk of being found in the bottom of a pit on fire.

I would say...join a low combat, high roleplay campaign. I've seen some on start.playing.games. Make sur ethe palyers understand that you won't be doing damage. There are several wizard subclasses you could be (not evoker, necromancer, or order of scribes though). Life cleric might work....just keep healing party members.

A true pacifist is against violence and would try to talk the party out of performing violent acts. Why is the person who has moral objections to violence traveling with people they consider abhorrent villains? 

While they might not do any damage in a fight, would they really want to help those that hurt or killed others? Why would they heal somebody they KNOW will kill somebody in the future?

One of the weaknesses of D&D as an RPG system is that a huge section of the rules is centered exclusively on combat. There are campaigns where a strict adherence to pacifism would become a problem and some campaigns where it might make things more fun. Yes, as others suggested, a pacifist PC is something to discuss with other players, but this is also a subject you can broach beforehand with your DM. If your DM supports the idea (presumably because it fits with the flavor of the campaign) then you have an ally with you when you talk about it with the other players. If the DM poo poos the idea, then there really isn't a point in discussing it with the other players anyway.

Or find a different RPG to play. One that has mechanics less centered on combat, like Star Trek Adventures or Kids on Bikes.

Quote from TShaw2912 >>

Does anyone have ideas on how they might play an effective pacifist character that isn't a detriment to their party? The first idea that jumps out is peace domain cleric of Ilmater, but I have a feeling that never doing any damage could be hard as a player and for the party. In the case of Ilmater, I think it says somewhere that they heal both friends and enemies too. I suppose you could aim for non-lethal damage, but it is still damage. Has anyone done this or a similar idea with any success? Is there another way to go about it that I'm not seeing? The idea isn't limited to just clerics if that helps at all.

 You can make a character that doesn't deal damage to the enemies for sure, but that isn't a true pacifist. A true pacifist doesn't take part in combat at all, and urges other people to not engage in combat either. A true pacifist would only cast healing spells or use spell effects that separates the two hostile sides from each other so they cannot fight each other and would stabilize enemies and allies alike. I would strongly discourage you from playing one unless the rest of the table & DM are on board and you are thus playing a mystery or intrigue based game designed to have no or minimal combat.

Probably an Arakocra Cleric

I have this concept in use. Except that the character isn't a full pacifist, but cannot cause harm to any living thing and thus doesn't have any effective means to deal damage. 

The character also has no armor or any mundane means of defence. Dexterity is 8, str 6. Simply put, he is very old. 

Works like a charm! Has been very useful to the party, in combat and off. Probably requires a party of 4 (minimum)

Mark of Scribing Gnome, High Sorcery BG

Life cleric 1 for healing bonus (no class restriction), rest is land druid for utility and crowd control, wild shape for survivability and to circumvent terrible physical stats when climbing etc. 

I use the spellpoint variant to maximize low level spell use, because that's where I shine. I think spellpoint is pretty mandatory for this build, because I depend a lot on lvl 1 spells for protection. 

Sanctuary, shield, mage armor, absorb elements, mirror image. Basically Sanctuary discourages enemies from targeting me. Absorb elements for halving lots of damage types when saves fail. 

Then I heal my friends with Aura of Vitality, healing spirit, 4pt goodberries etc, throw sanctuary on downed allies or innocents to prevent killing blows, solve problems with LOTS of utility and also debuff/restrain enemies with Plant Growth etc. 

Wild shape has been mostly for utility so far. 

Action economy / spell priority requires some thought. 

I think the thread is still somewhere to be found. 

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics/157697-a-build-without-any-damage-capability

The problem is, none of these are true pacifists.

A pacifist is somebody that considers all violence as unjustifiable and opposes all and any forms of violence - no exceptions. A pacifist does not contribute towards any violent disputes for any side: they would not buff allies or debuff enemies, because in either circumstance they would be contributing to the violence. 

In a combat the pacifist would be doing things like calm emotions spell on everyone, sanctuary on everyone (friend and foe). etc. Anything that favours either side, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" in the conflict, immediately breaks the definition of a pacifist. Buffing and healing only allies makes it easier for the allies to fight, hence not pacifism, and restraining or debuffing enemies makes them less able to defend themselves against the violence, and so not pacifism.

Perhaps, first and foremost, is if you are wanting a "non-damaging" character, or an actual pacifist. They are not the same thing.

Pacifists don't really work unless all in the party are pacifists because any pacifist who sticks around and allows a party member to be violent is not a pacifist.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

The problem is, none of these are true pacifists.

A pacifist is somebody that considers all violence as unjustifiable and opposes all and any forms of violence - no exceptions. A pacifist does not contribute towards any violent disputes for any side: they would not buff allies or debuff enemies, because in either circumstance they would be contributing to the violence. 

In a combat the pacifist would be doing things like calm emotions spell on everyone, sanctuary on everyone (friend and foe). etc. Anything that favours either side, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" in the conflict, immediately breaks the definition of a pacifist. Buffing and healing only allies makes it easier for the allies to fight, hence not pacifism, and restraining or debuffing enemies makes them less able to defend themselves against the violence, and so not pacifism.

Perhaps, first and foremost, is if you are wanting a "non-damaging" character, or an actual pacifist. They are not the same thing.

Pacifists don't really work unless all in the party are pacifists because any pacifist who sticks around and allows a party member to be violent is not a pacifist.

 Just like that Redemption Paladin I played with.

Result = dead team members. :P

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

The problem is, none of these are true pacifists.

A pacifist is somebody that considers all violence as unjustifiable and opposes all and any forms of violence - no exceptions. A pacifist does not contribute towards any violent disputes for any side: they would not buff allies or debuff enemies, because in either circumstance they would be contributing to the violence. 

In a combat the pacifist would be doing things like calm emotions spell on everyone, sanctuary on everyone (friend and foe). etc. Anything that favours either side, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" in the conflict, immediately breaks the definition of a pacifist. Buffing and healing only allies makes it easier for the allies to fight, hence not pacifism, and restraining or debuffing enemies makes them less able to defend themselves against the violence, and so not pacifism.

Perhaps, first and foremost, is if you are wanting a "non-damaging" character, or an actual pacifist. They are not the same thing.

Pacifists don't really work unless all in the party are pacifists because any pacifist who sticks around and allows a party member to be violent is not a pacifist.

Your definition is of absolute pacifism, while other forms exist. Pacifism can mean absolute opposition of all forms of violence, but not necessarily.

But more importantly, it's not important. You are not the OP, so please let the OP decide whether these suggestions are helpful for their purposes or not, and what they meant by a pacifist character.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/