I hate monks

[fusangite]

Imperialus,

I don’t understand your reply to my comments on your thought experiment involving medieval peasants. You appear to be replying with arguments that just make my case more strongly. The case I am making, if you’d care to look more closely at my post, is that lacking a standing army it made no sense for feudal lords to expend resources on keeping peasants disarmed as (a) they lacked the personnel to do so and (b) deliberately making their peasants even more vulnerable to raiding was crazy.

That sounds like it could be a neat idea for a particular game world but that doesn't make it a legitimate core class.

any less legitimate than a wizard school or order or paladins?

Yes. Core classes refer to archetypes in fantasy stories. Paladins and wizards do that. Your idea, cute as it is, does not.

I find the idea that core D&D should be limited to european flavored medieval legends to be... odd, to say the least.

This is a straw man argument. Nobody is making that argument. What we are debating is what constitutes the best, most logical, most coherent way to present non-European elements in the game.

Pankaration is far more than wrestling - it involved punches, kicks, throws, locks, and so on. It was wrestling with boxing and foot techniques thrown in for good measure. It is probably more strength based than the standard D&D monk, but a grappling monk would model this sort of practitioner fairly well.

Again, I reiterate: it does not make sense to build a class around something that is exclusively a show sport. I don’t see this as any more legitimate a basis for a core class than discus throwing.

I don't think Core D&D should try to fit a certain theme.

In an Occidental-flavored theme, yes, the monk would be odd. But I don't think Core D&D is, or should be, or would benefit from being, Western-themed.

But these things are separate questions. I may well agree that core D&D should not be Western-themed but should, instead, strive to be generic the way D20 Modern is. But just because you want core D&D to be a particular thing is no reason to pretend it already is that thing. D&D, as it presently stands, is occidental in its core rules. I could make arguments either way as to whether this is a good idea, as evidenced in my other posts but, in my view, you do a disservice to those seeking genuinely culturally neutral core rules by pretending that the current core meets that standard.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't think Core D&D should try to fit a certain theme.

Amen! Hallelujah!

Core D&D should focus on including cool classes. Screw theme. Theme is for campaign settings (like OA). Not for the Core.

Damn Right! Screw Theme and screw Others who think D&D is a eurocentric* game.

* I had another word for it, but I'd be labeled a racist.

 

[fusangite]

Ranger REG,

I'm starting to think you guys are not misinterpreting the opposing arguments but are deliberately misrepresenting them. Either that, or you literally have no idea what the word "should" means.

Let's suppose you live in a house with vinyl siding but you want to live in a house with wooden siding. The solution is to take the vinyl siding off your house and replace it with wooden siding. It is not to claim that the vinyl covering your house is actually wood and to denounce everybody who simply observes that it is vinyl as a wood-hater.

I understand that you want D&D to be truly culturally generic instead of being European-flavoured. It seems to me that the rational way to achieve that goal is to change D&D so it actually is culturally generic. Your solution seems to be to claim that D&D is already culturally generic and accuse everyone who accurately describes of being a Western triumphalist.

 

[Ranger REG]

Ranger REG,

I'm starting to think you guys are not misinterpreting the opposing arguments but are deliberately misrepresenting them. Either that, or you literally have no idea what the word "should" means.

"Should" is not in my vocabulary when it comes to D&D trappings unless it's about game mechanics.

Let's suppose you live in a house with vinyl siding but you want to live in a house with wooden siding. The solution is to take the vinyl siding off your house and replace it with wooden siding. It is not to claim that the vinyl covering your house is actually wood and to denounce everybody who simply observes that it is vinyl as a wood-hater.

What you do in YOUR game (i.e., "house") is your business. What you want is to tell every homeowners what their home "should" be. In this case, you want to get rid of a lawn gnome called a monk.

Your solution seems to be to claim that D&D is already culturally generic and accuse everyone who accurately describes of being a Western triumphalist.

A triumphalist. So you noticed that, too.

 

[Imret]

Denying that the PHB has a theme does not make that theme go away. The simple fact of it is that the core classes, equipment, skill list, and (to a lesser degree) monster manual represent, by and large, occidental concepts. Mounted knights in plate, wizards with spellbooks and a staff, clerics in chain armor with maces; even their vampires, dragons, and elementals are all European-inspired as compared to oriental. Classes come out in Oriental Adventures and are replaced by others. The monk is the only core class proficient by default in the handful of asian weapons in the PHB.

I don't really know how much clearer it can be; and yet, it seems like the only counter argument to "The monk doesn't fit well the other core classes" is "Yes it does! Stop telling me how to play!".

I'm guessing this is an "agree to disagree" sort of situation; it is nice to be right, though.

 

[Jackelope King]

I don't really know how much clearer it can be; and yet, it seems like the only counter argument to "The monk doesn't fit well the other core classes" is "Yes it does! Stop telling me how to play!".

I'm guessing this is an "agree to disagree" sort of situation; it is nice to be right, though.

The only way to counter an entirely subjective argument is with another entirely subjective argument.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, I reiterate: it does not make sense to build a class around something that is exclusively a show sport. I don’t see this as any more legitimate a basis for a core class than discus throwing.

Actually, as I understand it, Pankration was fairly brutal...those locks and grapples were mere precursors to the breaks and dislocations that were to follow.

What you do in YOUR game (i.e., "house") is your business. What you want is to tell every homeowners what their home "should" be. In this case, you want to get rid of a lawn gnome called a monk.

I disagree- what he's doing is being descriptive of the actual, not normative, state of the game.

The D&D core rules are decidedly Eurocentric, with certain archetypes thrown in that could be described as acultural...and ONE Asian themed class. For some people, its the limburger cheese in their Ice cream sundae- it disrupts the flavor.

Perhaps, in the fictional (at this point) 4th Edition, the PHB will be either 1) Bigger and more inclusive or 2) Broken down into a group of smaller books, more conceptually united- pehaps "Occidental Adventurers," "Oriental Adventurers," "Psionic Adventurers," and so forth with the universal stuff included in one book (Feats, Skills, Spells, combat rules...).

Denying that the PHB has a theme does not make that theme go away.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Imret]

The only way to counter an entirely subjective argument is with another entirely subjective argument.

Do feel free to examine my earlier argument re: weapons of asian origin in the PHB/class changes in OA for the "meat" of my position.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I think the criticism of the Monk's presentation in the PHB is valid. I'd much prefer that the class be shown as a natural part of the "default setting", rather than as a mysterious visitor from the "inscrutable east". There's no good reason that the nunchakus and such should be exotic weapons.

The argument I can't buy is that the class in of itself breaks the "medieval european flavor" of the game. The default assumption that polytheism is a vital and dominant theological force breaks the verisimilitude in that reguard more that the odd kung-fu Monk ever could.