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

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Have to disagree again. Gaining levels is a measure of personal power and connection to your God, not secular power.

A D&D cleric can be level 20 and still be a wanderer.

Now you are just playing word games. Earlier you stated that clerics were not about gainging personal power, now you say they are. Which is it. My whole point was that the political power gained is completely beside the point.

Clerics gain power in and of themselves to personally do more things. If that is the way the gods work, then is compeltely follows that monks wouild also gain more personally power, unlike real western monks, but completely like D&D monks.

 

[BronzeDragon]

Now you are just playing word games. Earlier you stated that clerics were not about gainging personal power, now you say they are. Which is it. My whole point was that the political power gained is completely beside the point.

Clerics gain power in and of themselves to personally do more things. If that is the way the gods work, then is compeltely follows that monks wouild also gain more personally power, unlike real western monks, but completely like D&D monks.

Let me repeat, they are NOT about gaining personal power.

If they DO gain it in the course of adventuring, it's mainly because they now have better connections to their god, which, BTW, can also happen with someone who remains cloistered. I see NO problem with a cloistered cleric who is level 20 and never fought a kobold in his life.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Only if the supernatural association was with the devil. If the association was with God (as healing would be considered), the person would probably be proclaimed a saint.

Not in middle ages Europe. Spontaneous healing would be a nearly certain guarantee that you would be assumed to have entered into a deal with the devil.

Otherwise, how could people understand the curing of people by Christ as something good.

Christ did not live in middle ages Europe. By the middles ages it was accpeted in the official religion that Christ was god. It was not accpeted that anyone else was god. So the only way for anyone else to heal would be through the devil.

And no, I do not retract my quote because there are, again, NO monks as described in the PHB in my campaign world. There is NO chance one of them would stumble upon one of the cities of my world.

The open-mindedness of the "modern" western world is certainly not present in my campaign. People don't just accept anything that comes their way. That doesn't mean they don't change, but change takes a great deal of time and effort.

And again, eastern monks just don't exist, so there is no chance such a thing would create a philosophical debate at one of the cities in my campaign world.

And I promise I won't ever use specific terms again. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

Your quote (paraphrased) was that if a D&D style monk appeared in your world (even though he can't) he would be <killed in a non-specific way>>.

So I now go back to asking what about those abilities would get you killed when the fireballing, polymorphing wizard next dorr is fine?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Let me repeat, they are NOT about gaining personal power.

Just 2 posts ago you said they do gain personal power. Which is it?????

If they DO gain it in the course of adventuring, it's mainly because they now have better connections to their god, which, BTW, can also happen with someone who remains cloistered. I see NO problem with a cloistered cleric who is level 20 and never fought a kobold in his life. [/B]

I agree about the L20 cloistered cleric.

But the powers that a cleric gains are purely about getting more ability to make magical changes occur. Which completely contradicts your initial comment that clerics are not about gaining personal power.

In the real world you (more or less) would be correct. But when you try to impose this view on the D&D mechanics, it does not work to try and sya that it must be this way.

Look, we can debate your world all day. I really don't care how you want to run it. But as long as you insist that eastern modeled monks do not fit in a western world with magic and interactive gods added to it, I will insist that you are trying to impose a narrow-minded view on the game.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

OMG! Let me clear things out definitely:

1 - There ARE monks in my campaign world.

2 - They ARE cloistered.

3 - They are NOT the monk class as specified in the PHB.

4 - They are better described as the Cleric class.

5 - They USUALLY don't go out adventuring.

So, what I was saying is that my monks are not the PHB monks. They don't fight with bare hands (indeed, most don't fight at all), they don't have the ideal of self-perfection at their hearts, so on, so forth.

Fine. And all I am saying is that these restrictions prevent "full freedom of interpretation." If you don't want full freedom of interpretation, fine. But don't claim you allow it, when you don't.

It is not as ifd you are dis-allowing a house rule. You are tearing 3 pages out of the core rules.

 

[BronzeDragon]

Not in middle ages Europe. Spontaneous healing would be a nearly certain guarantee that you would be assumed to have entered into a deal with the devil.

Christ did not live in middle ages Europe. By the middles ages it was accpeted in the official religion that Christ was god. It was not accpeted that anyone else was god. So the only way for anyone else to heal would be through the devil.

Your quote (paraphrased) was that if a D&D style monk appeared in your world (even though he can't) he would be <killed in a non-specific way>>.

So I now go back to asking what about those abilities would get you killed when the fireballing, polymorphing wizard next dorr is fine?

Let's go part by part here, as jack the Ripper would like to say.

Spontaneous healing was one of the things that got you sanctified. Indeed, it was probably the only supernatural ability that was considered beneficial.

Yeah, Christ did not live in the middle-ages, but he sure was the Paragon of the civilization. If you could behave like Christ, there was a good chance you were a prophet or even the second coming. It was accepted that saints and prophets had extraordinary abilities that common people lacked. Indeed, that is the onyl thing that got them sanctified.

So one saint had the strength and ability to defeat the dragon that threatened Paris, another had the ability to heal anyone with the plague by mere touch (this in the late middle-ages), so on, so forth.

Let's for a second assume a D&D monk got teleported or plane-shifted or whatever into my campaign world. Would he die instantly? Probably not. But in the long run, his strange abilities (remember, wizardry is also considered strange, but is at least something people have heard about, sometimes even come into contact with), his differing world views and the very fact that he becomes an extraplanar creature would mean death to him.

And again, just to reiterate a position I thought I had made clear at first. Wizardry is not easily accepted in my world. It is treated as something of an aberration by most common people, who would feel very conflicted about a wizard saving their lives. Does he have something to do with the Abyss? Does he really mean good?

But again, wizards are not permanently persecuted in my world. It's just that, sometimes, the fervor of the witch hunters becomes greater than normal.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Just 2 posts ago you said they do gain personal power. Which is it?????

The way I interpreted his statement of "they are NOT about gaining personal power" is not that they CAN'T gain personal power, but that it isn't a central aspect of their being which is what you seem to be emphasizing. So this is how I see the argument:

1) Clerics can gain personal power
2) It's not what they are about.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: Emphasized "You" instead of "Seem" which added a whole new meaning to the sentence that I didn't intend. Far to confrontational, instead of illuminating.

 

[BronzeDragon]

I agree about the L20 cloistered cleric.

But the powers that a cleric gains are purely about getting more ability to make magical changes occur. Which completely contradicts your initial comment that clerics are not about gaining personal power.

In the real world you (more or less) would be correct. But when you try to impose this view on the D&D mechanics, it does not work to try and sya that it must be this way.

Look, we can debate your world all day. I really don't care how you want to run it. But as long as you insist that eastern modeled monks do not fit in a western world with magic and interactive gods added to it, I will insist that you are trying to impose a narrow-minded view on the game.

Let's do it again. Clerics are not ABOUT gaining personal power. It is NOT their main vision and desire in life.

They DO gain it, but it is rather incidental than devised. When they got out adventuring, they are not seeking the "ability to cast higher-level miracles (divine spells if you wish)".

Let me ask you this. If I was going to play in your campaign (where, I suppose, there exists a state of freedom of choice unbounded by any limits), and chose to play an elephant-riding, ankus-toting, green-skinned pigmy man, would you let me?

If the answer is not, I believe you are trying to impose a narrow-minded view to your game. Which would be, BTW, VERY sensible from your part.

What I am trying to say is that I try to maintain the coherence of my campaign world by not allowing the monk class to exist.

 

[BronzeDragon]

The way I interpreted his statement of "they are NOT about gaining personal power" is not that they CAN'T gain personal power, but that it isn't a central aspect of their being which is what you seem to be emphasizing. So this is how I see the argument:

1) Clerics can gain personal power
2) It's not what they are about.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: Emphasized "You" instead of "Seem" which added a whole new meaning to the sentence that I didn't intend. Far to confrontational, instead of illuminating.

That's it. It's exactly what I meant.

 

[BronzeDragon]

Fine. And all I am saying is that these restrictions prevent "full freedom of interpretation." If you don't want full freedom of interpretation, fine. But don't claim you allow it, when you don't.

It is not as ifd you are dis-allowing a house rule. You are tearing 3 pages out of the core rules.

Uh, you are confusing "freedom of interpretation" with "freedom of choice for character class".

I do allow the first, but not the last.

If a player wants to play an angst-ridden druid, whose only desire is to slay those who defile the forests, fine.

If he wants to play a monk (cleric) who desires to go out and see the world, fine. If he wants to play a monk (class), no dice.

So what if I am tearing the core rules apart? They are my rules, if I understood everything said in the PHB and DMG right the first time around.