How do you fit monks into Occidental campaigns?

I don't.

I detest the very concept of the monk in a great many ways that have nothing to do with flavor. I wouldn't even use the monk class in a heavily oriental themed campaign.

I have no problem with the concepts of 'martial artist' or 'skilled with fighting barehanded', but both of those concepts seem to me to fit within the concept of a 'fighter'. So, to me, the problem is first that the fighter isn't well designed if you can't make those concepts within the class.

Likewise, I have very basic problems with the notion of "I can be just as effective of a combatant bare handed and naked as I could with a weapon and armor.", regardless of class implementation. Real 'warrior monks' or 'warrior priests' might well have been skilled with fighting with their hands, but nonetheless prefered to use weapons when they were available. In a world where your naked bare handed men can be front line warriors, why would weapons and armor ever be invented? Not needing equipment with its expense and hassle is a huge advantage. So as a result, the concept of a 'barehanded fighter' is inherently impossible balance. Either its not effective or its too effective. But 'just right' is just about impossible to achieve.

Additionally, I don't have occidental/oriental campaigns. You'd be hard pressed to determine whether Italy, or Wales, or India had more influence over the culture of the nation where my current campaign is set. I don't particularly like straight up copies of real world nations or cultures showing up in my fantasy.

Tonguez said:

The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?

yet most gamers use Westernish settings

How do you reconcile the two?

Click to expand...

By playing a normal D&D fantasy setting which doesn't give a hoot about such things, and not a real-world Occidental-ish setting.

I treat them like any other class in my game. You will never hear me say:

"All barbarians are 'X'"
"All fighters are 'X'"
"All monks are 'X'"

When a player decides to play a class I let them tell me their concept and I tell them if their concept fits my campaign world.

And I play the same. My city-born socialite with a secret history of dragon-blood lineage? A barbarian/sorcerer. No foraging for roots in the wild for this character. His rage ability was reflavored to tapping into the strength of his dragon heritage.

I don't know why people let themselves get so boxxed up in a character class.

Monks (of the "kung-fu fighting" variety) in the quasi-European part of the game world are members of a single order (which then split into three over theological differences) sent into the area as a consequence of a prophecy.

I simply hybridize Western and Eastern fantasy. Though European fantasy lacked "kung-fu" monastic orders, they did have monastic orders. Considering that it's my world, I say "now they do." They train in the ways of the body because they believe it is a way of staying holy. I dunno, really if you're attempting to "reconcile" eastern and western fantasy, you're taking everything far to literally.

No problems with monks. Why would I have?

I adamantly refuse to play a "white dudes only" D&D game. If you want to make a game about and only about psuedo-Christian knights in psuedo-Europe, there's far better games for it. European-only games are about as close as I get to "badwrongfun"

Side note - monks are bar none the worst class in D&D ever, and I don't (just) mean mechanically. They're literally "Racism: the Class!"

I tied the monk class to the Githzerai. They brought it with them when they immigrated to the world.

The Githzerai came in with a Githyanki invasion. Githyanki invade seemingly from out of nowhere and heroes go off to find thier tradition enemy race.

They find the Githzerai and convince them to join the fight against the Githeryanki.

After the Githyanki are expelled some Githzerai decide to stay.

I'm still ironing it out though.

I just did my research on Japanese Feudalism and the role of the monestaries in that culture, then carefully lifted western monasticism out and replaced it. I had a prolonged War of the Roses type war where the king and his son fought each other for the throne and killed each other (cough*Arthur*cough*Mordred). The main religion had monestaries where the monks trained in martial combat including the arts of boxing, wrestling, and pankration (as actually happened in history: Martial arts of the world: an ... - Google Books). Like in feudal Japan the monasteries acted as a de facto government during the civil war and were loathe to give it up. When the new king established power he wanted to break their backs and get at the large amounts of money they had (like King Henry VIII and Tokugawa Japan) and decided to take them down on a flimsy excuse.

Another campaign, I had that world's equivalent to Alexander the Great saved by a wandering Buddhist monk which prompted him to change religions and allow them to spread west which is probably linked to the one above.

And no, there were never martial buddhist monks, were there: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfare-Michael-Jerryson/dp/0195394844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1288829586&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Buddhist Warfare (9780195394849): Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer: Books: Reviews, Prices & more[/ame] (it has been a fascinating read)

ProfessorCirno said:

They're literally "Racism: the Class!"

Click to expand...

<boggle> Uh... you'll have to explain that one to me.