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

[Doc_Klueless]

In a world populated with wizards and sorcerers, fire breathing dragons, dead that walk and cast spells, alternate planes of existance, magical items that restore health or can lay waste to cities, I've never seen a problem with Monks.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

In a world populated with wizards and sorcerers, fire breathing dragons, dead that walk and cast spells, alternate planes of existance, magical items that restore health or can lay waste to cities, I've never seen a problem with Monks.

You know, it really bugs me when someone else does such a better job than me of getting to the bottom line.

 

[Henry@home]

The problem is, why should a monk be necessarily excluded from any particular D&D campaign, when their powers are written ambiguously enough to make a campaign-specific archetype work?

Of Course, no one would begreudge a DM his game world flavor, but Monks would not need to necessarily be written out, just because "Martial Arts didn't originate in Europe."

• Pankration (dont think wrestling; Original Greek Pankration was quite brutal and nasty) was a martial art all its own that originated without eastern influences - it was in fact the first structured martial art, ever.
• Some scholars note that Savate had its origins in 17th century street brawling, though it may well have originated from Thai Kick Boxing; in any event it became something totally different from Thai kick boxing.
• Capoeira developed out of Africa and the West Indies with NO eastern influence at all

The fact is that none of these Martial arts forms are as well-known or practiced as Eastern Martial arts, but they did exist, outside of Traditional Eastern styles and influence. It would not be such as stretch to posit in a western magic fantasy type campaign the existance of schools that taught fighting that allowed normal mortals the ability to subconsciously tap into magicla powers that hardened their minds and bodies to the point of being weapons of tremendous power.

One argument that always comes up in the "fist vs. weapons" debate is the following: If ki is semi-mystical, then why are martial artists not reduced to normal amounts of damage when in an anti-magic field? My answer is, for the same reason that Zombies and golems are not rendered inert in an anti-magic field, or dragons do not collapse under their own weight. They internalize some of this power to the extent that basic functions cannot be "cut off."

So, while DM's are certainly encouraged to limit or permit whatever they wish in their own campaign world, there is no rule of plausibility that states that Monks would never have a place in traditional western fantasy - they are just as plausible as wizards, ranger, barbarians, and the D&D style cleric.

 

[BronzeDragon]

The 1e DL adventures hardcover said that certain followers of Majere were monks now didn't they... wasn't Majere's avatar a 40th level monk?

Rav

(edit spelling)

Never played 1st Edition.

And if they took out the monks for 2nd, they were correct, IMHO.

 

[BronzeDragon]

BronzeDragon: Sure, there are the quiet, guidance monks who spend most of their day meditating. But those aren't the adventuring monks. Adventuring monks are the monks you see in play- the ones who spent time practicing Junnipo along with meditation.

I believe that was my whole point. I have no adventuring monks in my campaign. Monks that keep to the monasteries are fine, and they live for meditation, not bashing.

Originally posted by Tsunami
It's kind of like clerics. Your average cleric isn't going to know how to use a mace, or how to force skeletons to flee in fear of their god. But adventuring clerics do.

In my campaign, most clerics do NOT go out adventuring. They keep to the temples or to the surrounding communities.

Originally posted by Tsunami
Simply put, I allow Adventuring Monks in my campaign.

Simply put, I don't.

 

[Tiefling]

Simply put, I don't.

Why not?

 

[BronzeDragon]

[Snip]

I am not abiding in generalizations. I am fully aware that christendom was very varied throughout the european middle-ages, and that several religious orders with differing ideas were founded and prospered.

What i am arguing is that none of these orders contained ANY "martial" artists, as understood in the east.

There WERE "martial" artists among religious men, but in the european sense. They fought with maces, swords, clubs and things like that, not with their hands.

Those (the Knights Templar are a good example), I consider to be the standard D&D clerics.

And yes, most clerics should NOT go adventuring. Most of the ones in my worlds do NOT. It is a minority that takes matter into their own hands, except on crisis situations. Clerics should remain Oratores unless circumstance requires them to pick up weapons.

Well, if my argument, that weapons are a much more efficient way of killing than bare hands, does not convince you that monks (as portrayed in the PHB) don't fit in an european setting, I don't know what will.

About Wizards, they are rare in any of my worlds. In a certain part of the european middle-ages, they were actually quite "common". The accusations of witchcraft and magical practices, while clearly unfounded by any modern standard, were thought of as totally real by people of the time.

And there were "plenty" of accusations of that kind. They thought so hard about it that they got to kill those they judged to be magicians.

Although I don't (usually) put my players through the rigors of an inquisition, they are not always secure about entering the next village, since there could be a bunch of magic-haters there.

 

[BronzeDragon]

I allow monks, but then martial arts have been an integral part of my campaign world since time immemorial.

Who cared what happened in Europe? My world is not Europe, some faint analogs notwithstanding.]

This I can perfectly understand, and completely agree with.

If you planned your wolrd from the ground up as a place where "martial" arts are common, more power to you.

 

[Dalenthas]

Why don' monk's powers go away in an anti-magic field? Ki itself is two parts extraordinary 1 part supernatural, thus most uses of it are considered extraordinary, and extream concentrations of it (empty body, abundant step, etc) are supernatural.

 

[BronzeDragon]

Why is it so easy to imagine scrawny little guys waving their hands and setting brawny armored men on fire, yet difficult for some to imagine a lithe unarmed man knock said armored man to the ground with a few quick punches and kicks.

Last time I checked we were roleplayers and were supposed to be able to use our imaginations.

Because, maybe, fire kills any armored person in real life, and bare hands, uh, do not?

Wizardry is much easier to imagine, for me at least, than a guy breaking through an opponent's plate and mail with his hand.