Pacifist chararters and power

Hi everyone here, more that doubt I have let said way to debate about something I have notice, and is how pacifist chararter often relies in superior power in order to mantain their vow to not kill.it something I have seen a lot, so far I have some examples of it: Rumonori kenshi(othewise know as Samurai x for many), Undertale(If you havent play the game I sugest to leave since is going to be spoilers),Avatar: the last airbender and so on, let see:

In the case of Rumonori kenshi, the chararter is a retire assain who bow to kill no more, he also made a habit of protecting other from harm which he does in a regular basis, this is all good but when I was thinking about it, almost all moment happen because Kenshi manage to overpower his oponent, I mean the guy was OP as fuck as his sword style manage to overpower all his foes in single blow,maybe a little bit longer(point in case, his master is so powerfull the author just admit he would break the whole story so he kept away) when shishio makoto enter the stage and both fight, is very clear he cant win without kill him so what happen? he is set blaze for fighting to long, while there is a good explanation is made clear is because he dosent break his vow, so you could said the story "break a little bit" him.

Moving to Western animation we have Avatar where this dosent happen that much because his air bends allow Anag to disarm his oponent or run away so from most part the show dosent relly in "peace thanks to power" EXCEPT which the infamous Ozin fight where is made clear TWICE he dosent have any chooce but to kill him and from most part, this is mantain....right until he hit a rock and his avatar power come back to crup stomp him and is reveal he get a shinny new power allowing to take his power away, a moment where the story "curve" himself around the chararter and his dilema by giving more power to preserve his not killing oath

With undertale you can said happen the same thing because the game state as fact that by reseting you are pretty much inmortal and also have control of the entire underground which highlight the whole thing: you and your whims are the only thing that divide Pacifist from Genocie and all because the power of determination.

And to finish this examples and going with my point is Superman in Men of Steel, that movie show a rather intersting scenario in which Clark cant just mantain his not kill by punching his way into sucess, Zod is getting the same power and learing even faster and in this case he impose the rule("ether you die or I do") and there is not third object,power or something else to save him so...he just kill him, not that he wanted but unlike many other example once he is overpower he have to make a sadistic choice and...he just do it, the story dosent break in order to maintain is oath

Which make ask: is just me or too many times a chararter need to have more power in order to mantain is pacifist way? it feel almost like luxury the chararter is able to aford because he can take is way with little to not problem but once that power is ether overcome or move around them, the chararter is left helpless until the story somehow move in is favor.

now I ask, how you move pacifist chararter who DOSENT relies in power to solve situations?

This is, I guess, the problem with having pacifist characters in action focused shows. When the plot is mainly moved forward by beating someone up (whether it's a villain kicking the story off by beating a good guy or a hero beating a villain for information to get to his kidnapped friend) pacifists end up being either Martial and/or Technical Pacifists.

Another variation I've seen is one where the pacifist character gets beaten up for not standing up for themselves and then his/her friend, a non-pacifist character, will beat that guy up for them... so I guess when a show is mainly built on violence someone will always get beaten up no matter what.

edited 14th May '16 1:35:40 AM by Paradisesnake

I think Superman might be the best possible example of this to exist in popular fiction.

A thing I keep thinking about with this is that the vast majority of stories involve the protagonist and the antagonist in some sort of power struggle. Even in cases where the antagonist is Gaia. In non-combat stories, like romances, power is going to be some form of influence or ability to make argumentation.

There is a possible equivalent of pacifism in these sorts of stories. A person could refrain from winning the girl from the bad guy by simply making the best argument. Instead, trying to get the bad guy to agree with the protagonist only.

The best authors can find ways to allow a protagonist to win with far less power than the antagonist. But at the end of the day, the audience wants the hero to win, and a hero who will not break their vow for anything loses if they don't have enough power. The best stories explore issues like this.

"Power" is the ability to get someone to do something that they would not otherwise do.

Hard power, the ability to best someone in a fight and to coerce them to do it, is only one way. A pacifist character who completely avoids hurting others (as opposed to "not going for blood in a fight") can still exert a lot of power if he relies on persuasion or trickery or other such non-martial skills. The archetypes are Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

So stop thinking "warrior character in a fighting-focused adventure" and start thinking about people who use rhetoric, or oratory, or personality, or even things like business acumen and information manipulation, to get people to do things that they want to see happen.

edited 14th May '16 11:38:30 AM by SabresEdge

It naturally takes more power and control of it to defeat a person without killing them. The only true subversion of this scenario I can think of is Marina Ismail in Gundam 00. She is a truly pacifist character who does not fight and refuses use even a gun, and has absolutely no power at all.

@ unknowing: Is English your first language?

Like what Sabres Edge said.

A "pacifist" character might not use physical force to retaliate against a person using physical violence.

....but he or she might investigate the perpetrator, gather evidence, and report his ass to the authorities and have the perpetrator thrown into jail or executed.

"I think Superman might be the best possible example of this to exist in popular fiction. "

That is why I used Mo S because it show what happen to him when power is not enought

I think Spiderman is a good example of a guy who dosent use power to overcome is foes, instead he relie in cleaverness and being more inteligent, Anag usually is like this except in that episode

No, Is not my first language

Supes might not kill, but he's still portrayed as a fighter who relies on brute force and hard power (in international relations-speak). He's not a pacifist by strict definitions.

And then the person hires top notch lawyers who use methods legal and illegal to convince a jury (if there is a jury) that not only is their client innocent, but they are in fact victims. The sue for damages, and you go to jail for being attacks.

Now whether this happens or not (in either fiction or non-fiction) is up in the air, but don't assume that kind of power is foolproof.

You also have to consider that if said pacifist character is killed in the attack, it's pretty hard for them to investigate. Or what if the attacker is a good planner and leaves little to no evidence of who they are?

...I feel like the only reason I even posted was to try and counter your post. I don't know why. I actually agree with some of the points here (especially the one about how it takes more skill to not kill someone).

And the hero could either be a top notch prosecuter or provide authorities and media with so much clear and damning evidences that not even top notch lawyers could do to save him.

What is even the point of this? If the villain just straight out kills the hero, it doesn't matter if the hero is pacifistic or not, does it?

No shit? Who said anything about this being fool proof? This is just a potential option. And it sure as fuck will be more effective and result in less collateral damages.

Yeah. I'm not sure why I did that. Maybe I was just arguing for the sake of arguing. Just forget I brought it up.

...I think that there are other ways for a Pacifist to have power. Like a barrier that protects them from all attacks.

Or if you are a city of Pacifists, hole yourself up in an area that's really hard to get into (like there's only one entrance, and it's through some treacherous shit).

...Man, I'm not good at this at all. Guess I should avoid writing pacifists.

I don't think self-defense is a violation of pacifism.

Yeah, but these ideas aren't really synching with me for some reason.

I suspect pacifists don't really work in action-focused genres, unless a specific situation is set up and the pacifist is a minor character. Otherwise the pacifist looks rather stupid for not attacking in a world where Violence is the Only Option and/or Violence Really Is the Answer.

You could also change the genre to one where the above two tropes aren't crucial elements of the setting, but that's a complete rework of the entire story. You would end up with an entirely different work.

Also, many heroes, even those not explicitly stated to be pacifist, beat up only people who attack them first. If self-defense doesn't break pacifism, but the pacifist is constantly getting attacked anyway... we're back to Violence is the Only Option and/or Violence Really Is the Answer.

edited 14th May '16 10:14:35 PM by hellomoto

That's pretty much it, right there: don't make an action-focused series. Those are, almost by definition, situations where things have escalated to the point that force is the only option. Focus on the negotiations, persuasion, and chicanery. Focus on soft power if you want to have a pacifistic character.

edited 16th May '16 12:19:57 AM by hellomoto

& Yeah, no. Sorry but this is exactly the wrong kind of attitude for an artist to have. The whole point of art is to create something new or find a new way to look at something familiar and already seen. If every time artists ran into a problem they just said, "Well, I guess this can't be done. Next project", then we would never get anything fresh. It's the job of an artist to attempt to solve the "unsolvable" problems.

I mean, one of the examples mentioned in this thread, Avatar: The Last Airbender, did a great job in using a pacifist character in an action focused series. Aang is the type of Martial Pacifist you expect to find in the Wuxia and kung-fu movie genres that inspired the series. He's not Superman who claims he doesn't want to hurt people and then pummels a villain through a brick wall, but an actual pacifist character with beliefs fit for a pacifist. Avatar also does a great job in using Aang's pacifism as a means to build drama when he realizes that the only way to stop Ozai for good is by killing him.

Avatar really only falters with this setup right at the end when the writers had to resort to an Ass Pull to give Aang the ability to take away Ozai's powers. And even then, if you know more about the mythology and religious beliefs that the series is based on, this "twist" could have been foreseen making it less of a twist (although this doesn't remove the fact that for an average viewer it still comes off as an Ass Pull).

My point is, Tropes Are Not Bad, and like any other this character archetype also can be used well. In my opinion, the actual problem is writers trying to "have their cake and eat it too": instead of exploring the problems a pacifist will run into in a world where violence is an everyday occurrence they try to create these characters who are saints and MMA fighters at the same time. A character who's supposed to be a pacifist shouldn't beat his/her opponent to a pulp with a Slasher Smile on their face (unless showing the audience that the character is a hypocrite is actually the purpose of the writer).

edited 15th May '16 11:50:38 PM by Paradisesnake

Pretty much, when I said "power" I use "brute strenght" ether in punching the guy or just overwhelming with flash power until he is done, is pretty much taking a life in everything but the actual action and as this tropper said, superman is the worst when it come to that as almost all this problem is just punching the living shit of it and when he cant THEM is real conflict, his battle with zod show that pretty well: in the moment Superman can overhelm his oponent with punches and without the story creating a magical exist for him, he just....kill him, I like that scene and I like man of steel but is still Superman falling because he cant punch his problem in the face.

And like the tropper said, Avatar use the "cleaver protagonist" to win fight which make hin intersting, the problem with Ozai aside the out of nowhere-bending was that as soon Anag hit that rock he pass into full avatar mode and beat the living shit of Ozai, Korra in a way have that issue with everyone thinking she "talk" with kuvira, ignoring that she disable her mecha and bend a shot to the face from a freaking canon

Spiderman would be another cleaver protagonist as barely few fight end with him puching his way into power, making the death of chararterm or of the own fault(I least in the first trilogy it was outside of his control)

How does one 'explore the issues a pacifist faces in a world full of violence' in an action genre? Without making the pacifist look very stupid or utterly out-of-the-way, that is. Having her be a mastermind controlling things behind the scene would be the best way I can think of.

An action-focused genre would keep non-action time to a minimum, which can be a problem for pacifist characters who don't engage in action. Maybe the pacifist sets up non-lethal traps and generally tries to trip up enemies? Or does that go against pacifism?

I suppose attack reflection is cheating.

edited 16th May '16 12:25:21 AM by hellomoto

I am reminded of a Trigun that talked about how the anime series treats its pacifism as a project rather than something that if Vash even so much hurt a fly, he fails utterly. It even talks about how Vash within the second-to-last had to learn to forgive himself, to learn from his mistakes and that not to give up when he fails. Here is the blog.

edited 16th May '16 12:30:54 AM by GAP

You seem to be misunderstanding what it actually means to be a pacifist in practice. Pacifism isn't just a character trait "character X cannot participate in combat". It's an ideology, and sometimes people have to act against their ideologies. The same way a vegetarian might be forced to eat meat in order to survive getting shipwrecked on a deserted island, a pacifist character can get drafted during a war and end up fighting in the front line... or, you know, be a monk who gets tasked by destiny to fight a fireslinging evil overlord.

Also, why is attack reflection "cheating"? Wouldn't it be natural for a pacifist to find a more defensive use for their abilities? Since all Airbending is taught by the Air Nomad monks, Aang's abilities can be considered to be very pacifistic by nature. Zaheer in The Legend of Korra challenges this, since he got his abilities from a different source, and thus in the third season we get to see that Airbending can be also used offensively to suffocate people.

What if a pacifist ends up getting powers that are almost purely offensive in nature? What if s/he gets pulled in the middle of a conflict that s/he can help to solve, but only if s/he is ready to use violence? Hell, most groups of heroes have a designated healer who probably doesn't do much fighting but still participates in the action. What kind of friction would it cause when this kind of character gets paired up with others who don't have any problems with beating mooks up?

There's all kinds of ways to make a pacifist character work even in an action focused show. It might not be easy, sure, but it's definitely doable.

edited 16th May '16 1:02:10 AM by Paradisesnake

As a practical example, how about Mac Gyver? Maybe not quite a pacifist, but very much fond of finding roundabout solutions to problems traditionally resolved by force in other action shows. Engineering misdirections and tactical advantages is a Difficult, but Awesome way to demonstrate non-violence as a viable philosophy, even for people not favored by the superpower lottery. Even a decently made roleplaying game can avoid the usual expectations for the genre by providing at least two types of alternatives. So yeah, there's plenty of options for actual pacifists to resolve potentially violent situations, without being powerhouses themselves.

Funnily enough, superhero logic has it that characters who do use subterfuge and trickery instead of fighting are somehow shadier and less moral for it, as opposed to the clear-cut bruisers. Make of that what you will.

edited 16th May '16 7:19:21 AM by indiana404

This discussion reminds me of Kung Fu: The Legend Continues. Anyone ever seen it? In one episode, the hero, having trained in pacifist martial arts only, is forced to initiate an attack to protect someone. And loses, because his fighting style only allows him to defend.

MacGyver is symbolically a pacifist in his outright refusal to use a gun properly under any circumstances whatsoever.

Pacifism ^note that is true pacifism and not the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" nonsense we see in fiction is really hard.

While it is true that pacifists in media are treated as only those who refuse to kill, those who hold back or those who only fight in self defence, a true pacifist is someone who opposes to using violence of any kind for any reason. In some cases, when the pacifist lives in a country at war, they even refuse to perform any act that could support the war effort even if what they do is not immediately violent (e.g. a man quitting his job as a printing press operator because they were printing war propaganda).

With that in mind, there are three questions we should ask: is it possible for someone to choose peace in a world driven by conflict and violence? What are the consequences of choosing peace when other people will not respect that choice? How far is the pacifist willing to go for his ideals?

To try to answer the question, let's look at the most complex setting known to man: the real world.

Back in the 1910's, when the world had gone mad, quite a few men and women embraced their pacifism by becoming conscientious objectors. Society expected them to fight or to do anything to support those who did, yet they did not falter.

So, is it possible to choose peace in a world driven by conflict? Yes, it is. Even during a time period with more rigid norms than ours, even with the nationalist spirits at an all-time high, and with the (perceived) threat of their enemies destroying everything they held dear, pacifists did not betray their ideals.

But... what are the consequences of choosing peace when other people will not respect that choice? At best, men and women were mocked by their cowardice or they were shamed for turning their back on the people who bravely killed others in their behalf. In the worst of cases they were imprisoned, beaten by random people in the streets (not even by soldiers, enemy or otherwise), and even executed. Pacifists had to hide from the "enemy" and from their own brethren who saw them as traitors. Because reasons.

Yet, despite the opposition they face, how far is the pacifist willing to go for his ideals? Well, that depends on the person. While there are some who endured the shaming, imprisonment and even faced death with "dignity", there were others who broke their vow of pacifism when threatened with an immediate threat to themselves or their loved ones.

Now, with the history lesson out of the way, let's try to find out why works of fiction rarely deal with true pacifists: it's too freaking hard.

Most people don't want to see a bad guy getting away with their dastardly deeds. Locking the villains away (unless we destroy the key) is not enough because they can still escape. We can't have that. We want them to pay for what they did. So we ask for the bad guy to be punished, either with death (if the work permits it) or with a good ol' thrashing.

So, in a work of fiction (whatever the medium or genre), the creators might want to have a pacifist character because they're complex and interesting and good... BUT, there are expectations about a work. If there is conflict, we want it to be resolved and we want the antagonist to lose. In genres with an emphasis in action, we also expect them to be punished.^note I know there are exceptions...

Paradisesnake is right when saying that the main problem is with creators wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Having some kind of higher power intervene (or just plain having more power) may seem the easiest way to keep a character pure to his ideals, however, that usually means the creator will bend the rules of his world to favour the pacifist. And that's terrible.

Now, having a pacifist in an action-oriented work can be done, but it takes a lot of effort and, depending on the target audience, it might not be worth it. Why have an Actual Pacifist when a Technical Pacifist could suffice?

edited 16th May '16 5:30:23 PM by Cid