Pacifist Ruleset Reform Debate 2020

[Ryback]

As the hypocritical pacifist guy, I'll just chime in now and say I broadly agree with the proposed changes. Removing player intention from the pacifist criteria makes for a cleaner, more straightforward category. A run is not pacifist if you damage a monster by shooting, or if you shoot barrels that explode and damage a monster. That's it.

 

Intention is a messy thing to judge anyway, as there's two kinds - the intention of the player and the intention of the Doomguy. The Doomguy doesn't have the level knowledge we have. He doesn't know that a particular teleporter on Perfect Hatred will make him telefrag a Cyberdemon - why charge him with that monster's death?

 

I don't expect this will change pacifist running much except a few less edge case demos will be discarded. It's unlikely telefrag deaths will become a new pacifist tactic for clearing a path as it's tricky and takes too much time. Inevitably running tends toward faster, simpler routes.

[SleepyVelvet]

necrobump.

 

'Late to the party.

 

I have a couple pacifist demos, so I think I'll throw my opinion here too, for fun.

 

I like the definition in the OP.  If I was a more active pacifist demo-er, and the definition wasn't changed, I would've 100% started uploading "pacifist-plus" runs in my own definition.  I always thought of pacifist as "beat the map without using the game's main tool: direct weapon damage".  It's not often life gives you teleporters, crushers, and barrels to have fun and be creative with (I'll choose not to die on the barrel hill though).  Even when map hazards are present and abusable in a non-pacifist playthrough or run, you typically just use your weapons anyway, which still makes the category distinct, quirky and fun.  After reading, I do respect the opposing arguments though, like from GrumpyCat.

 

----------------------------

 

Off topic: I see a surge of new pacifist runners right now.  Hello yall :)