Vash the Stampede from Trigun
Rurouni Kenshin
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I made this post on September 16, 2014. I’m reposting it because it works for the question I’m going to put at the very end.)
For anyone who doesn’t know the above characters, Vash and Kenshin are from anime. Vash is a skilled gunsman and Kenshin is a deadly samurai from the Meji Era. Two entirely different heroes from entirely different settings. Yet, they are the best examples of a Pacifist Hero. Both follow codes to never kill with Vash doing it to honor a deceased loved one and Kenshin doing it to atone for his role a Manslayer during the war. It is a key part of their stories and personality. Their different reasons also take a new angle that I’ll get into during the list. By the way, I know Pacifist tends to mean no conflict, but it’s the best word that I could find for this.
Now, some people might say that they’re like Batman because Batman doesn’t kill. At least not on purpose . . . most times . . . depends on the movie. They might actually be closer to Spider-Man and Superman here, but I’m still throwing in one major difference for these Pacifist Heroes. Unlike American superheroes, Vash and Kenshin don’t usually go looking for trouble. They will step in when they find trouble, handle ghosts from their past, and try to stop the problem through talking first. Violence is shown to be a rather regrettable decision for these characters while you get the feeling that Spider-Man gets some joy out of throwing down with his enemies. So, I would say a Pacifist Hero is one that does not kill and wants to stay out of the fight entirely.
How can you use a hero like this?
- DO NOT make this character a pretense jerk who thinks he/she is better than everyone because they don’t kill. You can do this if they’re a minor character and supposed to be obnoxious, but a main hero with this path should be very casual about it. They can try to talk others out of killing and be upset if it’s done (looking at you, Vash.), but having them preach too much hurts them as characters.
- Create a deep and realistic back story to the decision not to kill. A promise to a friend can be a good start, but there should be more to that relationship. Don’t just say ‘I refuse to kill because it is wrong’ and leave it at that. People want main heroes to have some depth of morality. Take a little time with this and you might even pull an enemy and/or subplot from it.
- You can have a Pacifist Hero be terrible in a fight. Unlike the examples given, it is entirely reasonable to have a main hero who refuses to fight be unskilled. This means they’re a liability in action scenes, but not everyone is a badass. To counter this type of uselessness, give them a strong area like healing, knowledge, or anything that helps them retain their main character status. Otherwise, readers will wonder why the capable warriors don’t ditch the main guy and finish the story on their own.
- Contrary to #3, you CAN make your Pacifist Hero a dangerous opponent and skilled in combat. Just because they refuse to kill doesn’t mean they’re going to avoid learning how to defend themselves. This brings an interesting dynamic to them because it means they have the ability to easily take a life, but still refuse to do so to their enemies.
- If you have a character who has lived the pacifist life since childhood and never killed then you may want to put in something that tries to break their path. Vash is such a character and one of the goals of his enemies is to prove that his pacifist ways are worthless. This does cause problems for him and makes him question his faith at times, which is great for character development. You can also toy with the idea of the character either intentionally or unintentionally taking a life to throw them into a whirlwind of emotion.
- It can help to have a foil for this character. Either a rival or an ally who sees no problem killing in certain situations or for kicks. This creates a clash of beliefs and it will put the most pressure on the Pacifist Hero. After all, how do you stop a Psycho Hero without falling into their level or making him/her an enemy?
- Enemies and allies from a character’s past works great for an atoning character if you go the Kenshin route. You get to unearth more of their pre-pacifism persona and this can bring out the ‘threat’ of the old version reappearing. You get a lot out of teasing that a hero like this will fall off the wagon and take a life.
Do you think a character who doesn’t kill their enemies is weak or strong? I ask this because I’ve met many who think a non-killing enemy is lame and weaker than one who does kill.
Legends of Windemere 
What an interesting topic! Great tips. I might think of adding a character like this to a book someday. In regard to the tip about a character who isn’t good in a fight, I think about the TV character Columbo. Although he was never in a fight in the show, in some episodes, he mentioned that he hates guns. He didn’t even carry one.
I guess I’m not surprised that some people think a person who avoids killing another person is weak. I think it takes more strength to avoid killing someone, especially if you have the skills and means to do so. People who think someone could easily kill someone else probably never had to talk to someone who did. They don’t know the psychological damage it does to the person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never saw Columbo, but that is an interesting example. Nobody would even think of him being in a fight due to how he appears and acts. So, he would easily get a pass. Totally agree on how people who have never had to kill or give much thought to it are quick to think it’s an easy solution. That or they’re psychopaths who would commit murder if it wasn’t for our laws.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think those that do not kill generally hold the moral upper ground, although I guess that depends on their, and your, personal moral stance. Sometimes killing is the only way, but maybe you should at least feel bad about the necessity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True. Remorse is a big deciding factor. Over the years, I’ve seen more and more people ignore that reaction. Either its the author not adding it or the audience doesn’t acknowledge the character’s feelings. The ending of ‘Man of Steel’ comes to mind because people complain a lot about Superman killing Zod. Don’t usually see people note that he was upset being his own actions even though he was forced into a terrible choice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a major fight with many combatants it might be difficult to avoid at least not maiming a few. I guess a no kill hero would still be able to keep the principle but staying alive would be more of a challenge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some will go as far as injuring and incapacitating. Everything short of killing. The guy in red with the guns is a good example. He fights to disarm and injure to stop the fight. He’s also covered in scars and permanent injuries because he refuses to kill.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How does a character like that make you feel since you have read him?
LikeLike
They’re interesting and maintain a level of suspense. Not only if they’re survive, but if they’ll cross that line. This is because they always have people questioning their path. This can cause the audience to question the use of violence and general human nature too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can see that. The idea of pushing a character to the point of breaking would add a dimension of suspense and bring into question just how the character can sustain the vow to be no-kill.
LikeLike
Definitely. It also creates the possibility of them being forced to break their vow then come to terms with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That would be a terrific story.
LikeLike
Yup. I enjoyed it when I saw it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can imagine.
LikeLike
These kind of planning issues drive me crazy. I can see it working very well, but also being hard to pull off. I would want to do some kind of misdirection and switch along the way. The only one that comes to mind this early is in Quigley Down Under. When it turned out he did know how to use a six-shooter.
LikeLike
Oh, and Kane from Kung Fu. Pacifist, but totally capable.
LikeLike
Not knowing how to kill is an interesting twist. With the planning, I think the real challenge is finding non-lethal ways to end conflict. Chase scenes are useful here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is actually a topic I handled throughout my Minstrels of Skaythe series. The evil overlord was in charge, and his minions and secret police were everywhere, attacking and killing people for little to no reason. There was a huge assumption by most of the world that this was just how it was. You had to be as violent or more violent just to have a shred of safety.
Along come my pacifist mages of the resistance. Everyone who encountered them did believe they were cowards, weak, and/or insane to refuse violence. The minstrels were also very polite, and this was viewed by people around them as insolent and inciting more violence.
They were often attacked and would defend themselves but not retaliate. The POV showed each of them being fearful and spending a lot of time avoiding notice, but they held to their beliefs. It was a really interesting series to write.
LikeLike
It does make an interesting point. In a world where violent brutality is the main way to survive, those who do the opposite would be seen as weak. They’d have a higher chance of injury and death too.
LikeLiked by 1 person