looking for a D&D 3.5 non combat game

So, I've been wanting to play a 3.5 game lately, but I'm wanting to try my hand at a completely non-combat game where I'm playing a Cleric or a Monk who has focused on the Vow of Peace/Vow of Nonviolence. The only problem I keep running into in such games, are DMs that are combat focused, or parties that are the same, and thus it becomes impossible for such a character to maintain the vows. With that in mind, I think this would work best in some political setting, but I think it'd be fun to have a chance to NOT worry so much about the rolls in regards to adventuring.

.............Maybe.

Very maybe. What kind of spells would you focus on as a Cleric?

Healing, Investigative, and Disabling spells. Things that would be more akin to taking prisoners, questioning prisoners, outing political leaders who are corrupt, etc.

At the bare minimum, I'm looking to start out at least level 7.

If there's no combat I could run you a 10 easy.

Giantitp Diplomacy variant? To ensure you can't just waltz through every political encounter?

Well, I'm wanting a party based game, 3 or 4 people total, so a completely combat free game may not work, but enough lack of combat that I can play such a character without being in a situation where I'd break my vows.

I love the Vows (and Apostle of Peace too). My question though, is in a game that does not involve many rolls, what is the point of any particular build or feat choice? Unless you were highly skilled as well.

One of my favorite characters I made was a neutral good aasimar Healer/Apostle of Peace.

I've never heard of any 3.5 game that didn't involve at least the possibility of combat...my urban game I'm recruiting for now has the possibility of combat, but it is realistic in that there are other ways to overcome them rather than violence/killing. And a large chunk of the XP-rewards come from overcoming non-combat challenges.

How do you interpret those vow feats? By RAW it seems like they would allow for the character's companions to do the killing as long as the character him/herself doesn't cause any direct damage. RP wise it might be sketchy (as IRL a strict pacifist would probably not stand back and allow her companions to slay something). But still...

Ohhhhh riiiiiight.

Sorry- I envisioned a solo. I'm DM'ing a game and applying for 3. I couldn't possibly run a full party. My apologies!

I generally leave that up to the DM interpretation, but I've run across many who say that you break your vows if you do anything to aid your party while they fight, and then there are DMs who say you break the vow if your party even fights.

My impression of the vows was that it was only in regards to innocents. E.G If your party is being attacked they can attack back. You can demand your enemy make peace and does not attack- if he does and the party attacks they suffer penalties, if he breaks the peace the party can kill him.

I think the vows are highly specific to "Innocents" so clearing out a kobold nest who prays on the community is okay- but killing women and children kobolds is NOT okay as they didn't participate in the raids- yes even if one day they might.

I am more the first type...my take is that, even pacifist clerics understand that there are SOME situations that can only end in violence...if a Balor is rampaging at the party, and the pacifist's powers cannot simply calm/stop/disable/banish it, then the only answer is to fight...I think as long as the pacifist doesn't become directly involved, in the slaying, it's ok. After all, the Vows are about not personally engaging in an activity, not never witnessing such activity. They would probably feel sad and maybe guilty that they had to witness something die, but in the end characters are wise enough I think to understand that they can't pacify the entire universe....

However I tend to NOT extend the Vows to things like Balors, which are physical manifestations of evil and slaughter and cannot be anything else...even an Apostle of Peace, I think, would understand that these things are beyond peaceful solutions, at least, because of their very nature. (Hence the Apostle of Peace's Censure Fiends ability...) They wouldn't be like "YES! SLAUGHTER THE EVIL!" and actively try to kill it, but maybe be more like, "Hmmm, such a pity you can't see the light of goodness...I cannot help you nor protect you from my comrades' wrath..." and help their comrades how they can but kind of avert their eyes to the horror or killing. Or something.