Hey its a new poll! Do you allow monks in your campaign?

[hong]

The question hasn't really come up, as no-one's wanted to play a monk in the campaigns I've DMed. However, if they did, I'd probably require an exotic background to go with the exotic abilities. While a fantasy campaign doesn't have to be realistic, some consistency in background and theme is desirable. For those who want spell-slinging western "monks", that's what the cleric (or adept) class is for.

And for those who say that there were no wizards in medieval Europe either: there were. There were plenty of characters who made it their business to inquire about the ways of the universe, whether it was the natural world or the supernatural; Leonardo da Vinci or Roger Bacon would be prime examples of these. They obviously didn't cast spells, but their learning and knowledge were far beyond the average commoner, or even the average noble. In some circumstances, they even attempted research that could quite reasonably be called "magical" even today: recall the origins of chemistry in alchemy, and the quest to turn base metals into gold.

If you want the origin of the archetype of the scholarly wizard, it's in characters like these. They were "wizards" metaphorically speaking, and it should be remembered that in a fantasy world, what is metaphorical often becomes literal.

 

[Hadraniel]

With all of these religions and secret societies around I can see one of these groups having monks. Monks can travel incognito, I mean no weapons or armour worn so they will not stick out. Having people like this could make good assasins as well as protectors for the people.

They might be a elite fighting group of some religion much like paladins. In our campaign we encountered a group of monks that are trained to slay demons.

With some spellcasters able to plane shift they could have went to another world and met some monks. They then spend some time there learn the ways of the monks and travel back home to continue the order.

You can have many way of putting them into a world. You do not have to think oriental when you think of a monk. Instead of Ki Strike call it enhanced strike (feel free to be creative it is 3 o clock here).

With spellcasters and prestige classes having these supernatural abilities I do not see why a monk cannot exist.

 

[Black Omega]

Sure! Regular, tattooed and inkyo.

 

[Humanophile]

As written, I'm iffy. But that's just because I see the same eurocentric/tolkienesque fantasy world... except it has some pockets of far eastern flavor. (I know I'm oversimplifying, but I'm sure you know the games I'm talking about.)

If you're willing to change the class just a little, you could easily make active contemplatives or even just an order of people who train at self-perfection/having these combat abilities always on hand. (F'rex, a secret anti-despotism society, or the militant arm of a school of wizards.) So it's actually more realistic than, say, making every cleric a miracle calling combat badass. (Warning; minor hijacks ahead.) I mean, if leaving the church means you have to know how to smash heads, that's venturing into prestige class territory.

Of course, if you claim that things like psionics and firearms "aren't D&D", but that monks are, I am entitled to give you funny looks...

 

[UnDfind]

Monky Monk Monk

Yes, the Monk can cause a problem with the whole introspective, kung-fu wielding, ascension-focused thing. They didn't really have a place in the european medieval setting, so in those types of worlds, they are out of place (the monk is equivalent to the shao-lin monk, not in any way connected to the abbot-dwelling monks...those would be clerics). The whole thing is how you look at it. Take the Barbarian, a savage from a tribal land...but couldn't he also be a kid, growing up on the streets of some big city, his rage coming from fighting for his life against cutthroats and street toughs for years? The same can go for a monk. Granted they still have the ascension thing, becoming an outsider and stuff, but he could be some English noble who specializes in fisticuffs just as easily as a guy growing up in a monestary in the mysterious east. Imagine if he could use daggers instead of kamas as unarmed attacks. What's the difference (besides less damage)? It all boils down to how creative you are when circumstances don't fit the campaign. Of course I allow Monks, even if we're playing in a pre-renaissance Aztec empire. You can find equivalents in every society for every class.

Okee, rant done

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The question hasn't really come up, as no-one's wanted to play a monk in the campaigns I've DMed. However, if they did, I'd probably require an exotic background to go with the exotic abilities. While a fantasy campaign doesn't have to be realistic, some consistency in background and theme is desirable. For those who want spell-slinging western "monks", that's what the cleric (or adept) class is for.

And for those who say that there were no wizards in medieval Europe either: there were. There were plenty of characters who made it their business to inquire about the ways of the universe, whether it was the natural world or the supernatural; Leonardo da Vinci or Roger Bacon would be prime examples of these. They obviously didn't cast spells, but their learning and knowledge were far beyond the average commoner, or even the average noble. In some circumstances, they even attempted research that could quite reasonably be called "magical" even today: recall the origins of chemistry in alchemy, and the quest to turn base metals into gold.

If you want the origin of the archetype of the scholarly wizard, it's in characters like these. They were "wizards" metaphorically speaking, and it should be remembered that in a fantasy world, what is metaphorical often becomes literal.

Unless I missed another quote, I am the one who mentioned wizards. And I stated that there were more monks than wizards. Not that there were no wizards. And I think that D&D monk abilities are at least as close to real monks as D&D wizard powers are to "real" wizards.

So why is one a problem and not the other?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Then you have been interpreting wrong. As the topic states, "Do you allow monks in your campaign?"

Fair enough. It does not change my vote.

And I don't think it really changes the debate, because the debate has been specifically about the place of monks in a classic middle ages europe game.

And the assumption of a European setting is implied in your first post by your claim that they don't "fit". It is a complaint which has been made before about the monk specifically not "fitting" in a western setting. It is only reasonable to interpret that your question had this in mind. Otherwise, why not ask "which classes do not fit in your campaign?" Then list them all.

EDIT:
Now that I have gone back to re-read your post, it clearly states "standard fantasy campaign". So I have not been interpreting it wrong after all.

 

[hong]

Unless I missed another quote, I am the one who mentioned wizards. And I stated that there were more monks than wizards. Not that there were no wizards. And I think that D&D monk abilities are at least as close to real monks as D&D wizard powers are to "real" wizards.

So why is one a problem and not the other?

Because the source material for wizards can be shown to have its origins in western medieval history, and is thus consistent with a vaguely western medieval campaign world (the default assumption when it comes to D&D). You cannot say the same for a kung-fu monk, at least without some handwaving on the part of the DM and/or player.

Let's get one thing straight. I have no beef with a player who wants to play monks and martial artist types (heck, I even wrote up a martial artist replacement class because I thought the monk was lacking something). However, I'm not going to pretend that the monk, as presented in the PHB, has its origins in any sort of western archetype or character concept.

The martial artist class, for those interested:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Because the source material for wizards can be shown to have its origins in western medieval history, and is thus consistent with a vaguely western medieval campaign world (the default assumption when it comes to D&D). You cannot say the same for a kung-fu monk, at least without some handwaving on the part of the DM and/or player.

Let's get one thing straight. I have no beef with a player who wants to play monks and martial artist types (heck, I even wrote up a martial artist replacement class because I thought the monk was lacking something). However, I'm not going to pretend that the monk, as presented in the PHB, has its origins in any sort of western archetype or character concept.

The martial artist class, for those interested:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm

I completely agree with you.

The D&D monk is clearly based on the eastern archetype.

My only claim is that the eastern archetype is a completely acceptable model for what a western monk would become in a world where magic is real.

You may come up with 100 other models for what the western monk would have become, and they all may be fair and reasonable. But that does not stop the official D&D monk from being fair and reasonable.

The eastern archetype fits perfectly well in a magically altered western setting.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

I love monks. The fit perfectly into FR as well. The new edition clearly went to great lengths to establish a "new fantasy archetype" of monk. Were it is derived from is pretty irrelevant IMO. Monks in FR for instance are either visitors/travellers from the East/Kara-Tur or members of the many orders of Faerûnian monks.

-Zarrock