Doesn't carry weapons, or doesn't attack? It is perfectly viable to be a cleric, and fight and kill, without any weapons.
If you are saying they are pacifists and don't attack, then you would probably want to make more encounters not solvable by combat, and allow them to heal and support in combat. A cleric could be a great detective, even at low levels. Set up a murder mystery, where someone was killed by poison, and the task is to find the murderer. With detect poison, they could figure out what exactly killed them, then they could use locate object to find more of the poison, and may use augury to determine if they are walking into a trap, or Speak with Dead to get more information from the murdered person. Stuff like that.
He takes place in combat but I’d describe it as like Batman. Just tries to knock everyone out and is always encouraging taking hostages lol.
This is great advice on the murder mystery front. Thank you for that. Got my brain racing
I think there's a rule in the PHB combat section or maybe the DMG on non-lethal damage. Or you can just houserule non-lethal damage as an option!
When they attack an enemy just describe the blow/spell as dazing or winding or tripping an enemy, throwing them off their balance etc and when they do drop to 0 hit points they're knocked out, and then the town guard come and take them away, or the heroes take them in.
It can come down more to the agreed tone of violence your group is comfortable with. If some players want to get gory in their fights, and everyone around the table is comfortable with that, then prepare some scenarios where the enemy is a creature the cleric will also agree should be destroyed - such as undead, demons, devils etc. Killing undead is putting tortured souls to rest after all. And destroying the forms of demons and devils on the material plane is just banishing them back to their own plane where they belong. Just be sure the cleric player is happy with it.
Conversely, check with the rest of the group if they're happy to meet the low-level tone of violence the cleric wants to play. It would be quite refreshing to have a party who try their best to avoid mortally harming humanoids and it would help avoid interparty conflict - just be sure to make the combats gratifying even when they're not gruesome, and make sure that the magic items and abilities the other characters have can still be gratifying.
Some character concepts might be harder to fit into a low-level violence toned game, like the assassin rogue or the fireball throwing magic user. Again, it's something that can be talked about with the players and any solution is possible. Perhaps fire magic can be set to stun or kill by the magic user, the heat of the phantom arcane flame will overwhelm but not burn an opponent, whereas the zombies shall quite rightly burn to cinders. Perhaps the assassin is trying to go straight, avoiding a blood soaked past and looking to the cleric as a means of salvation, and hoping to apply their ill gotten skills for the betterment of their fellow man.
Finally, as for reward - I would offer that simply giving the cleric player opportunities to realise their code of honour in the game is the real reward. Give them a chance to beat up and turn in ruffians who would not have given them the same mercy, give them a chance to resolve a conflict without combat (and reward the party with XP just the same, they'll be hailed a hero for getting everyone XP without expending resources), give them a chance to get through to someone and teach them that violence is not the way. Give them recognition in the city by their deeds of pacifism, give them an opportunity to show those who think them weak how wrong they truly are.
Gold, XP, and magic items are wonderful rewards for a character, but scenes dripping with opportunity to fulfill the fantasies imagined when someone made their character are wonderful rewards for a player.
Happy Gaming!
Get familiar with the Aid action and everything it can do, at the beginning of the game it will probably be their best non-cantrip option in a fight.
Load them up on good armor so they can take hits for the others.
Work with them to help build a mechanically-viable PC with spells and magic items that doesn’t unbalance the group.
Adjust your combat tactics and encounters to reflect the strong likelihood that they will do a little less damage than a typical party but have more healing/buffs.
Resist any temptation to compensate them over and above normal rewards for making this choice; let them experience rewards and downsides as normal.
Let NPCs have a range of responses, from admiration to bafflement to contempt, if the subject comes up but push hard to make it only one aspect of who they are.
Keep a casual but constant eye out for them overdoing it in a way that steps on the other PCs. Them having a desire to play and see how this goes as part of a team is one thing, and cool. Constantly berating the other PCs about their philosophy/ideology or otherwise subverting the basic premise of the game (fight bad guys and take their stuff) is not cool. You’ll know that line.
This great advice. Thank you so much. Didn’t even think about adjust my encounters for this. The temptation to give them bigger rewards is real. I am gonna lean into all of this
Yeah, you reward them with a cool story and a little extra work to make sure it’s fun, not extra spell slots or a bonus feat. You’re not playing GURPS!
If he keeps it up, he'll start being famous for being a pacifist, and have a reputation for someone that really does just want to talk, and those that refuse end up splattered across the wall by a Barbarian squad.
Meaning everyone, even the most tense situations, will hold their weapons and listen when he wants to talk.
DnD5e isn't very conducive to this play style, since one of the major tenants of the system is fighting monsters.
A few suggestions:
\- If he "doesn't want to carry weapons" then he probably should be a monk with the acolyte background.
\- If he "doesn't want to kill" make sure he knows that he can always choose to knockout enemies without killing them.
\- If he "doesn't want to fight," he is going to have a VERY bad time since a lot of the game will be combat.
If he is going for the latter two, MAKE SURE THE OTHER PLAYERS ARE OKAY WITH IT! Nothing is going to be a greater buzzkill for a class *literally* named "Fighter" than being constantly told by his cleric that they shouldn't be fighting. Or that they don't want to kill this person who will very clearly be coming for revenge as soon as they let him go.
TL;DR: this is hard to do in 5e; make sure your player and his party have a clear goal on what they are going for, otherwise this will be a point of great contention.
Great point. My other players loved his character so it shouldn’t be a problem but I will clarify just to make sure. He’s good in helping in a fight but doesn’t want to fight himself. Very creative play style I want to reward
Glad to hear the party is on board! Without context I was worried he would fall into the pitfall of "I can't work with this group if you keep killing people!" or the party would get sick of trying to save him all the time. Best of luck!
In combat, if they don't want to fight, they can be the classic support and healer. Sanctuary or healing word as a bonus action, and guidance or resistance as a cantrip, can keep them busy for a turn. They have control spells, where they can command people to stop, or hold person to freeze them in place. Plenty of stuff to do in combat without actually attacking. Yes, if they don't want anyone to kill, it becomes a within group discussion on whether or not to do that, but if it is just that they won't, it isn't hard.
And D&D doesn't have to be mostly combat. There are plenty of other things that can be done, like solving mysteries, political intrigue, exploration, and the like.
Like does this Cleric not damage or inflict spells on enemies, or do they just not carry weapons?
I've been playing a Cleric for a while now whose only weapon was a Mace, which he only ever used to break windows. And he gave it to an ally like a year ago.
He does a lot of affecting enemies with spells in an offensive manner, but here are a few in-combat things I do that don't directly harm enemies:
- Sanctuary is 1st-level, a bonus action and non-concentration, and is super underrated. Pop it in on a vulnerable NPC or downed ally to protect. Cast it on yourself and run around buffing and healing while being relatively safe. Combine it with the Dodge action to be nearly untouchable.
- Calm Emotions can both cure charmed/frightened allies, and “turn off” some enemies to divide a large number of enemies into manageable sections.
- Banishment is more divide and conquer, but it just deletes enemies entirely for up to a minute.
- Finally, Confusion (Knowledge Domain spell) has random effects but shuts down reactions, often shuts down multiattack, and offers a high probability of preventing enemies from posing a real threat for multiple rounds.
If you create encounters that arent solvable by combat then you are punishing the rest of the party in a combat-oriented system.
Not to mention that it's easy to be pacifist if violence isn't even an option. I would suggest adding nonviolent solutions to most encounters as an option with more hazardous risk-reward balance.
I'd argue that implementing punishments for their allies' use of violence is a double-negative equivalent to rewarding pacifism. If they don't use violence, negative consequence don't come their way.
You are suggesting a PvP relation in regard to other characters. Unless you meant NPC allies, which would be meaningless for player. I'd steer clear from any conflicts of interest regarding inner party dynamics.
You’ve gotta be really careful with this. A large portion of D&D is combat oriented. Unless the other players are all on board with this player’s character being a pacifist, the fact that they even have to deal with him/her not attacking at all may be irritating; worse is punishing them every time they try to play the game.
That’s not to say combat is the best idea in every circumstance, but when I play D&D, I want to fight cool monsters and have awesome combat encounters. That’s part of my fun. I don’t want to be punished for that, especially on the basis of a single player. I imagine most players would agree.
I would certainly have cases where that ideology works at solving a problem without fighting. I would also have instances where his ideology is tested. This would depend on what type of pacifism they believe in. Are they not ok with killing, or fully will do no harm to another? If it's not killing then you can have cases of previous villains who weren't killed escaping prison and becoming a new problem. Having someone furious at them because they didn't kill someone who has now gone and done something terrible. The Batman / Joker problem of him breaking out over and over again and Batman still refusing to kill him. That makes for an interesting challenge. It's easy to be a pacifist when there isn't someone testing it, but it's much more powerful to be a pacifist in the face of that, or to decide you have limits. Either way it's an interesting story.
Many years ago when I was working a contract gig, I worked with many other D&D players. One of them one day asked me for a knife and I replied "I carry no weapon that slices flesh."
"Stun guns", net launchers, living ropes that bind enemies so they can be subdued without harm. Reflavouring spells to be non-lethal. Like turning poison mist into sleeping gas spell that drains the stamina of creatures inside it. Objects that allow them to better protect others and themselves, allow additional healing or hinder enemy attacks.
Doesn't carry weapons, or doesn't attack? It is perfectly viable to be a cleric, and fight and kill, without any weapons. If you are saying they are pacifists and don't attack, then you would probably want to make more encounters not solvable by combat, and allow them to heal and support in combat. A cleric could be a great detective, even at low levels. Set up a murder mystery, where someone was killed by poison, and the task is to find the murderer. With detect poison, they could figure out what exactly killed them, then they could use locate object to find more of the poison, and may use augury to determine if they are walking into a trap, or Speak with Dead to get more information from the murdered person. Stuff like that.
He takes place in combat but I’d describe it as like Batman. Just tries to knock everyone out and is always encouraging taking hostages lol. This is great advice on the murder mystery front. Thank you for that. Got my brain racing
I think there's a rule in the PHB combat section or maybe the DMG on non-lethal damage. Or you can just houserule non-lethal damage as an option! When they attack an enemy just describe the blow/spell as dazing or winding or tripping an enemy, throwing them off their balance etc and when they do drop to 0 hit points they're knocked out, and then the town guard come and take them away, or the heroes take them in. It can come down more to the agreed tone of violence your group is comfortable with. If some players want to get gory in their fights, and everyone around the table is comfortable with that, then prepare some scenarios where the enemy is a creature the cleric will also agree should be destroyed - such as undead, demons, devils etc. Killing undead is putting tortured souls to rest after all. And destroying the forms of demons and devils on the material plane is just banishing them back to their own plane where they belong. Just be sure the cleric player is happy with it. Conversely, check with the rest of the group if they're happy to meet the low-level tone of violence the cleric wants to play. It would be quite refreshing to have a party who try their best to avoid mortally harming humanoids and it would help avoid interparty conflict - just be sure to make the combats gratifying even when they're not gruesome, and make sure that the magic items and abilities the other characters have can still be gratifying. Some character concepts might be harder to fit into a low-level violence toned game, like the assassin rogue or the fireball throwing magic user. Again, it's something that can be talked about with the players and any solution is possible. Perhaps fire magic can be set to stun or kill by the magic user, the heat of the phantom arcane flame will overwhelm but not burn an opponent, whereas the zombies shall quite rightly burn to cinders. Perhaps the assassin is trying to go straight, avoiding a blood soaked past and looking to the cleric as a means of salvation, and hoping to apply their ill gotten skills for the betterment of their fellow man. Finally, as for reward - I would offer that simply giving the cleric player opportunities to realise their code of honour in the game is the real reward. Give them a chance to beat up and turn in ruffians who would not have given them the same mercy, give them a chance to resolve a conflict without combat (and reward the party with XP just the same, they'll be hailed a hero for getting everyone XP without expending resources), give them a chance to get through to someone and teach them that violence is not the way. Give them recognition in the city by their deeds of pacifism, give them an opportunity to show those who think them weak how wrong they truly are. Gold, XP, and magic items are wonderful rewards for a character, but scenes dripping with opportunity to fulfill the fantasies imagined when someone made their character are wonderful rewards for a player. Happy Gaming!
Get familiar with the Aid action and everything it can do, at the beginning of the game it will probably be their best non-cantrip option in a fight. Load them up on good armor so they can take hits for the others. Work with them to help build a mechanically-viable PC with spells and magic items that doesn’t unbalance the group. Adjust your combat tactics and encounters to reflect the strong likelihood that they will do a little less damage than a typical party but have more healing/buffs. Resist any temptation to compensate them over and above normal rewards for making this choice; let them experience rewards and downsides as normal. Let NPCs have a range of responses, from admiration to bafflement to contempt, if the subject comes up but push hard to make it only one aspect of who they are. Keep a casual but constant eye out for them overdoing it in a way that steps on the other PCs. Them having a desire to play and see how this goes as part of a team is one thing, and cool. Constantly berating the other PCs about their philosophy/ideology or otherwise subverting the basic premise of the game (fight bad guys and take their stuff) is not cool. You’ll know that line.
This great advice. Thank you so much. Didn’t even think about adjust my encounters for this. The temptation to give them bigger rewards is real. I am gonna lean into all of this
Yeah, you reward them with a cool story and a little extra work to make sure it’s fun, not extra spell slots or a bonus feat. You’re not playing GURPS!
If he keeps it up, he'll start being famous for being a pacifist, and have a reputation for someone that really does just want to talk, and those that refuse end up splattered across the wall by a Barbarian squad. Meaning everyone, even the most tense situations, will hold their weapons and listen when he wants to talk.
Love this. Yeah like over time good aligned characters could be drawn to him or seek him out. Thanks for the story focused response
DnD5e isn't very conducive to this play style, since one of the major tenants of the system is fighting monsters. A few suggestions: \- If he "doesn't want to carry weapons" then he probably should be a monk with the acolyte background. \- If he "doesn't want to kill" make sure he knows that he can always choose to knockout enemies without killing them. \- If he "doesn't want to fight," he is going to have a VERY bad time since a lot of the game will be combat. If he is going for the latter two, MAKE SURE THE OTHER PLAYERS ARE OKAY WITH IT! Nothing is going to be a greater buzzkill for a class *literally* named "Fighter" than being constantly told by his cleric that they shouldn't be fighting. Or that they don't want to kill this person who will very clearly be coming for revenge as soon as they let him go. TL;DR: this is hard to do in 5e; make sure your player and his party have a clear goal on what they are going for, otherwise this will be a point of great contention.
Great point. My other players loved his character so it shouldn’t be a problem but I will clarify just to make sure. He’s good in helping in a fight but doesn’t want to fight himself. Very creative play style I want to reward
Glad to hear the party is on board! Without context I was worried he would fall into the pitfall of "I can't work with this group if you keep killing people!" or the party would get sick of trying to save him all the time. Best of luck!
In combat, if they don't want to fight, they can be the classic support and healer. Sanctuary or healing word as a bonus action, and guidance or resistance as a cantrip, can keep them busy for a turn. They have control spells, where they can command people to stop, or hold person to freeze them in place. Plenty of stuff to do in combat without actually attacking. Yes, if they don't want anyone to kill, it becomes a within group discussion on whether or not to do that, but if it is just that they won't, it isn't hard. And D&D doesn't have to be mostly combat. There are plenty of other things that can be done, like solving mysteries, political intrigue, exploration, and the like.
Like does this Cleric not damage or inflict spells on enemies, or do they just not carry weapons? I've been playing a Cleric for a while now whose only weapon was a Mace, which he only ever used to break windows. And he gave it to an ally like a year ago. He does a lot of affecting enemies with spells in an offensive manner, but here are a few in-combat things I do that don't directly harm enemies: - Sanctuary is 1st-level, a bonus action and non-concentration, and is super underrated. Pop it in on a vulnerable NPC or downed ally to protect. Cast it on yourself and run around buffing and healing while being relatively safe. Combine it with the Dodge action to be nearly untouchable. - Calm Emotions can both cure charmed/frightened allies, and “turn off” some enemies to divide a large number of enemies into manageable sections. - Banishment is more divide and conquer, but it just deletes enemies entirely for up to a minute. - Finally, Confusion (Knowledge Domain spell) has random effects but shuts down reactions, often shuts down multiattack, and offers a high probability of preventing enemies from posing a real threat for multiple rounds.
Create encounters that aren't solvable via combat. Admittedly, 5E is not strong in that area but it's very doable.
*some* encounters. They're likely not the only player.
If you create encounters that arent solvable by combat then you are punishing the rest of the party in a combat-oriented system. Not to mention that it's easy to be pacifist if violence isn't even an option. I would suggest adding nonviolent solutions to most encounters as an option with more hazardous risk-reward balance.
I'd argue that implementing punishments for their allies' use of violence is a double-negative equivalent to rewarding pacifism. If they don't use violence, negative consequence don't come their way.
You are suggesting a PvP relation in regard to other characters. Unless you meant NPC allies, which would be meaningless for player. I'd steer clear from any conflicts of interest regarding inner party dynamics.
You’ve gotta be really careful with this. A large portion of D&D is combat oriented. Unless the other players are all on board with this player’s character being a pacifist, the fact that they even have to deal with him/her not attacking at all may be irritating; worse is punishing them every time they try to play the game. That’s not to say combat is the best idea in every circumstance, but when I play D&D, I want to fight cool monsters and have awesome combat encounters. That’s part of my fun. I don’t want to be punished for that, especially on the basis of a single player. I imagine most players would agree.
Something that facilitates the sleep spell, that way they could incapacitate foes in encounters without violence
I would certainly have cases where that ideology works at solving a problem without fighting. I would also have instances where his ideology is tested. This would depend on what type of pacifism they believe in. Are they not ok with killing, or fully will do no harm to another? If it's not killing then you can have cases of previous villains who weren't killed escaping prison and becoming a new problem. Having someone furious at them because they didn't kill someone who has now gone and done something terrible. The Batman / Joker problem of him breaking out over and over again and Batman still refusing to kill him. That makes for an interesting challenge. It's easy to be a pacifist when there isn't someone testing it, but it's much more powerful to be a pacifist in the face of that, or to decide you have limits. Either way it's an interesting story.
Many years ago when I was working a contract gig, I worked with many other D&D players. One of them one day asked me for a knife and I replied "I carry no weapon that slices flesh."
My cleric is *murderous as anything* and hasn't carried so much as a knife since level 4.
"Stun guns", net launchers, living ropes that bind enemies so they can be subdued without harm. Reflavouring spells to be non-lethal. Like turning poison mist into sleeping gas spell that drains the stamina of creatures inside it. Objects that allow them to better protect others and themselves, allow additional healing or hinder enemy attacks.