Hey, I got a question for the more experienced GMs:

One of my players is taking a little special RP path in our adventure. He's a pacifist cleric and whenever a monster comes up, he wants to step up and cite out of the bible, trying to appease the monster.

Any ideas how I can stop this without saying "no" or what check he should have to roll (that is obviously gonna lead to no effect)?

Thanks in advance!

The monsters are hostile. Persuasion to shift their attitude from hostile to neutral before they attack might, MIGHT work. Have him role playing it and let him roll a check. 

Of course that will only work if they understand the language that he’s talking in. 

Quote from Bennacious_FlimFlam >>

Hey, I got a question for the more experienced GMs:

One of my players is taking a little special RP path in our adventure. He's a pacifist cleric and whenever a monster comes up, he wants to step up and cite out of the bible, trying to appease the monster.

Any ideas how I can stop this without saying "no" or what check he should have to roll (that is obviously gonna lead to no effect)?

Thanks in advance!

Heh. If the player of the cleric is citing the reallife Bible, reminding him that D&D is a fictional universe, and the player is effectively turning their own religion into an imaginary, fictional, false religion.

If the player is comfortable with that, and as long the player isnt coercing any other players, then it seems fine to me.

In a fictional context, I use "positive energy" as an abstract way to represent monotheism. So, monotheistic cleric concepts effectively bypass the immortals in the wheel, and access the plane of positive energy, themselves, directly.

If monsters care about "positive energy", great. If not, great.

You are the DM. You are the world. You are the religion(s). You can decide what works and what doesnt.

It's an ability check. Set the DC high and if it works, they remain hostile to the rest of the party. Depending on how he acts throughout the fight, they might turn hostile to him again.

You probably can't convince most monsters to not attack very quickly. Against a human enemy, this might work better, but it depends on the attitude of the person. 

Generally, the DM style of "yes-no-maybe" works best here.

Most player ideas either work automatically, because they are a good idea, or automatically fail because the idea seems exceedingly unlikely in the current situation.

Only in a situation where the DM feels it can honestly go either way, would the DM decide to have the player roll an ability check.

Let your players know when an idea is yes-no or maybe.

Focusing on the actual circumstances in the story, will make the story better anyway. Players will invest more, when they get more in tune with the story and the assumptions that are in play in the story.

Quote from Bennacious_FlimFlam >>

 

Any ideas how I can stop this without saying "no" or what check he should have to roll (that is obviously gonna lead to no effect)?

 Given the way you put this question, it seems your mind is made up that you don't want to let him do this. If that's accurate, you're not doing anyone any favours by pretending otherwise and letting him roll a completely pointless check when he could be doing something that might actually be useful instead. If it's no, just say no.

If on the other hand you would be willing to allow it if you have a workable mechanic, perhaps homebrew a spell (model it on the Charm/Hold/Dominate spells) or, better yet, a Channel Divinity use for this. I think that at the very least it should be clear this sort of ability can't simply be an at-will mechanic that he can (try to) use as often as he'd like and on any monster he'd like. It'd be something the power of his faith, the power of his deity working through him, would accomplish and in D&D, that kind of thing tends to be a strictly regimented resource.

Quote from pangurjan >>

If on the other hand you would be willing to allow it if you have a workable mechanic, perhaps homebrew a spell (model it on the Charm/Hold/Dominate spells).

Heh. New Cleric spell:

Guilt Trip
9th-level enchantment

The PC wanting to be a Pacifist is very cool but partially problematic. What you could do is make some Homebrew rules such as when the cleric tries to not attack, what they could do is take "mental" damage, such as feeling guilty. I'm not sure this is very hard. But do whatever YOU think is best. If you think the PC should just fight you could gently explain how they aren't really helping the group.

I have a player who is a Pacifist Monk. What he decided to do was to never kill, he only knocks out or punches. He is kinda like Ty Lee from Avatar the Last Airbender. (Not sure if you have seen it.) You could suggest something like that to the PC.

Just ask whatever you decide on gently, as it could cause bitterness in the player.

On his turn, he can use his "action" to make a persuasion check against the enemy. If they are currently engaged with him or his allies, the roll would be made at Disadvantage, and the DC would be quite high.

The main problem with this would be that he is not contributing materially to combat -- the other players are likely to object.

You *can* play a pacifist character, as a healer/buffer/debuffer -- easily doable as a cleric. But "talking to orcs while they are in combat with your friends" is very unlikely to work -- the orc or goblin or what have you will think it is just a trick to get them to lower their guard while the other PCs attack. And if the other PCs aren't also pacifists, the enemy will be right.

I would suggest to the player that it might be better to make up a cleric who refuses to personally attack enemies. A cleric who casts bless, protection, healing word, cure wounds, lesser restoration, etc. in combat and is focused on defending the party and healing them up, or maybe locking down enemies with Hold Monster but won't make violent moves against them, could be an amazingly effective party member.

Also, orating to an Owlbear is not going to do very much. No amount of scripture will stop a hungry animal. 

Quote from Bennacious_FlimFlam >>

Hey, I got a question for the more experienced GMs:

One of my players is taking a little special RP path in our adventure. He's a pacifist cleric and whenever a monster comes up, he wants to step up and cite out of the bible, trying to appease the monster.

Any ideas how I can stop this without saying "no" or what check he should have to roll (that is obviously gonna lead to no effect)?

Thanks in advance!

He can do whatever he likes, not sure why would that appease any monster, ever?  It makes his character especially annoying, so I would give every monster advantage to hit him while he is reading.  The only  check is DC 10 wisdom, if successful he realizes that he is being foolish and that this will never help unless you come across someone with appreciation for his bible (whatever that is).

A bit late for this advice, but in the future, do a session zero.

See who his deity is that he worships, make a mob of followers of a deity that is diametrically opposed to his. You'll find that his preaching to the masses has the opposite effect of what he is intending. As far as quoting from the RL bible, I would allow it if the passages aren't particularly religious, like proverbs or something (I'm agnostic so I wouldn't be able to direct you to an exact area). 

It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind that his oration wont have any affect. You should tell them that directly. It may make them want to change their character entirely, if that was that massive big part of their character.

You can also suggest that they do other things that maintain pacifism while in combat. Here are some that I thought of/saw earlier:

• They can focus on charm magic
• They can buff/heal their allies exclusively
• (With the players permission) You can have sort of story event that forces their character to take a life and change the character's views 
• They can use their biblical readings as a part of casting the spells.
• Offensive magic isn't so much a killing force, but a liberating one that brings the creature closer to their god (depending on how the player wants to play the character)
• They can work to detain the hostiles more so then fight them. (IDK how good cleric is at this, but i know that Druid has a decent spell list to allow for detaining in place of killing)
• They can serve as a martyr, protecting their allies and acting as a tank for the group. 

The best option is probably a combination of these things, plus some other things that I hadn't thought of. 

I will say, having a pacifist character that is unwilling to fight or change their ideals on fighting, is a real buzzkill for a table, especially if the others players/characters don't hold the same values. I would highly recommend that you have a discussion with that player and the whole table to see how people feel about that concept. Having a situation where one player condemns the actions of every other player, especially when its something that is integral to the game as combat, that often makes the game feel bad to play. 

Quote from Lunali >>

A bit late for this advice, but in the future, do a session zero.

This is good advice, but it is never too late to do a session zero! Session zeroes should not be restricted to just the pre first session, and I think session zeroes should happen whenever it feels like it should happen.

In this case, I am not sure if it warrants doing a session zero mid campaign since it seems to involve just the GM and the player, but I think the GM and the player should probably talk to each other about it.

This isn't problematic.  PC is exploring trial and error.  If the PC is actually trying to channel divinity, see if their domain actually has an effect on that sort of creature (I don't off the top of my head know the most "broad spectrum" domain, one that would effect undead and fiends ... but denizens of the prime material plane, I don't know if there's one that does that specifically).

If the PC is simply sermonizing, DC with difficulty set on the context.  If it's an entreaty to listen to the peaceful wisdom of the PC's deity, that's a persuasion check.  If it's more a "fire and brimstone, heed these words or faith wrath of my god" thing, that's intimidation.  Again, difficulty set on circumstances.  If it's simply to grant peaceful passage, that's one thing, say at a toll road where the guard is giving the adventurers scrutiny.  If the players are encroaching on a lair and what to buy time to parlay out of their that's a bit more difficult.  If the players are being beset by marauders or highway robbers, DC is based on whether the attack is out of malice, desperation, or sport (say "merry robbers").  

This is one of those things, where the PC says "I'm going to do this."  And the DM says "You can try...."

If the PC thinks they are somehow imbued with their gods power and "speaking from the Bible" will miraculously end hostilities, that's channeling divinity and you need to get the player more on track on what a player's options are at their level as far as that goes.

One more thing, is the player playing a Christian in the game?  In most D&D worlds, a bible and christianity would be, anachronistic isn't even it write, it would be more cosmologically paradoxical.  The cultural and archaeological referents relating to the construction of the modern Bible just don't exist in most game worlds.  If you're actually playing in a real world Earth analog post first century AD so the text and the faith are actually things, lots of domains could apply to christendom, and again that's requires more work between you and the player to figure out what best suits the players conception.  

I think my top recemondation is to talk to the player. Express what you want to happen, and try and negotiate. Make it to where they are happy, and the rest of the party and you are happy. Any one of the recemondations listed above are great.

Thinking outside the box... what if you have the player roll attack spells, but interpret the verbal and somatic components as him reading vigorously certain passages out of the holy book. The damage taken is not physical damage but "conversion" damage. If the cleric does enough damage with divine spells against an enemy to bring them to 0 hp, instead of dying or being KO'ed, they are "converted to the cause" and stop fighting the party (which they'd do anyway if they were at 0 hp).

I'd be clear that, conversion won't work if physical damage was also done, so the cleric will have to be the ONLY one to damage them. Or maybe you can establish a % - if you do more than 75% of the damage, the creature is converted rather than killed.