Would it be feasible to play a pacifist character in the Watch? Or a squad (or maybe even an entire Watch) or pacifists, given the difficulty of roleplaying a pacifist as part of a team that does not share those values.
Are there options in defining the Shadow that could make the Shadow’s forces either so completely inhuman that killing them wouldn’t trouble someone with a code against harming other people or expressly redeemable, making subduing its agents preferable to killing them? Are there missions that could focus more on capture, sabotage, or subversion of the enemy rather than combat or even missions that could allow for something like diplomacy?
Most importantly, would that undermine the themes of the game by enforcing a traditionally feminine peacemaker role or by seeking peaceful resolution with an oppressive and violent force?
(posting to remind myself to post later)
Listening
📌
.
I think playing a pacifist character would be easy, playing a whole squad or Watch based on that philosophy would probably only work if you indeed found an in-fiction reason for it, such as the enemy being completely irredeemable or beyond saving, as you said.
In each phase of the campaign there are 1 or 2 missions that can be more political and/or strategic that wouldn’t require violence at all; in fact we wanted to ensure we had some like that. If you wanted to change them all to fit this, it would only require some time brainstorming mission concepts with your group to pull off.
Would it undermine the themes of the game? I dunno; people fight in all kinds of ways. I personally think resisting through non-violence isn’t still fighting oppression, but it’s all confusing when you consider the war in TW is all metaphor for exactly that: different forms of resistance.
I’d probably start with a pacifist character – maybe a medic, scout, or some other important yet non-violent role – and just insist you avoid Taking Point on the more action-oriented missions. If it works, try to convince the players to all do it with you next time and see how it plays.
I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this too.
I feel like The Watch spends just as much or more time managing clan-infighting and logistics as it does actually smacking Shadow critters around; while I’m not sure an entirely diplomatic squad is super feasible, you could easily restructure play around action away from the front lines.
Based on my experience, I think it would require some very specific reworkings of the premise and setting to pull off in a way that everyone would find satisfying. Certainly there are positive stories of conscientious objectors during wartime, but these narratives tend to be functional precisely because such people were a small passionate minority. I guess what I’m saying is, if you’re telling a war story, you need a majority of the people resisting oppression to be returning fire, otherwise you’re telling a story about defeat and subjugation, which is certainly a story too.
I also think (again, depending on the game you want to play) it really undermines some of the narrative power of the story the Watch tells if the Shadow opposition can be reduced to “critters.” I think it’s important that they be humanized, because the drama of a war story is exactly that hurting other humans is simultaneously upsetting and contextually necessary.
To be clear, I’m speaking on the challenge of reworking the entire party’s role in the broader narrative, rather than a single player wanting to make a special character.