The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Nergal Pendragon]

No. The earliest surviving written records of Robin Hood come from the 13th century - but only as the occasional reference here and there. The stories were spread by word of mouth, and then written about later as poems and verse (15th century and after), before becoming formalised as written stories much later - 19th century or so.

And sorry, you are mistaken about the Knights Templar. They were not just fighting men that happened to hang around a monastery. They were, by definition, an order of monks that were fully ordained by the Church. Some of them, in fact didn’t have any martial training either.

I'm referring to the actual written versions of the tales; those are 1400s and later. Not the references to them.

And I'm not wrong about the Knights Templar. I was wrong for not challenging you on calling them a monastic order; I looked it up and it turns out they weren't. They were a military order. You can read about military orders in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order

In short, no, they were not monks. They actually were military men who happened to hang around monasteries. Because it was their job. And they were not even the only people who did it.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm referring to the actual written versions of the tales; those are 1400s and later. Not the references to them. So, yes, what I wrote is correct and what you wrote agrees with it.

And, no, I'm not wrong about the Knights Templar. I was wrong for not challenging you on calling them a monastic order; I looked it up and it turns out they weren't. They were a Christian military order. You can read about military orders in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order

In short, no, they were not monks. They actually were military men who happened to hang around monasteries. Because it was their job. And they were not even the only people who did it.

And you can find out more about them by reading more sources, rather than just flicking around on google for something that you think supports you. Look, here’s a few that took me all of 4 seconds to find too:

http://historymedren.about.com/od/templars/p/templars.htm
http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/Knights-Templar.php
http://www.lordsandladies.org/knights-templar.htm

They were a militaristic, monastic order, m’kay.

And have you read the poems that were written from the 1400s? They’re aren’t exactly Robin Hood as you might remember…

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

And you can find out more about them by reading more sources, rather than just flicking around on google for something that you think supports you. Look, here’s a few that took me all of 4 seconds to find too:

http://historymedren.about.com/od/templars/p/templars.htm
http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/Knights-Templar.php
http://www.lordsandladies.org/knights-templar.htm

They were a militaristic, monastic order, m’kay.

And have you read the poems that were written from the 1400s? They’re aren’t exactly Robin Hood as you might remember…

Your second link refers to them as being secular knights. The other two do not in any way refer to them being priests, and all three note them for their wealth and military power while speaking almost nothing about them having any sort of religious basis beyond who gave them authority. So, all of the evidence from your own links shows them to be a secular order of fighters who operated with the authority of the Church backing them. And since monks are religious by nature, that automatically rules them out.

And, yes, I have read some of the early ones. Friar Tuck was notable for having been a former monk in many of those early tales.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Your second link refers to them as being secular knights. The other two do not in any way refer to them being priests, and all three note them for their wealth and military power while speaking almost nothing about them having any sort of religious basis beyond who gave them authority. So, all of the evidence from your own links shows them to be a secular order of fighters who operated with the authority of the Church backing them. And since monks are religious by nature, that automatically rules them out.

And, yes, I have read some of the early ones. Friar Tuck was notable for having been a former monk in many of those early tales.

Read them again, and get back to me. Possibly add a wikipedia search for ‘monk’ too.

 

[Hussar]

As a player, seeing a DM with a shopping list of banned stuff does set off alarm bells in my heed. If the DM is, in my view, micromanaging the campaign to this degree, it's a sign that my playstyle will likely conflict and I should be asking a lot more questions before joining the group.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Read them again, and get back to me. Possibly add a wikipedia search for ‘monk’ too.

This is going to be fun.

Okay, first, the Wikipedia article you mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk#Western_Christianity

Here's an important quote that relates to what you said about Friar Tuck:

Within western monasticism, it is important to differentiate between monks and friars. Monks generally live a contemplative life of prayer confined within a monastery while friars usually engage in an active ministry of service to the outside community.

However, note also that it differentiates between two levels of monkhood: Ordained priests and lay brothers. And, back around the time the Templars existed, that difference was extremely important.

How important? Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_brother

Basically, lay brothers were servants; in the eyes of the Church, they pretty much were not true monks. Only the ordained monks could perform what were considered the most important religious services.

Now, what does your second source have to say?

The Knights Templar were a monastic military order formed at the end of the First Crusade with the mandate of protecting Christian pilgrims on route to the Holy Land. Never before had a group of secular knights banded together and taken monastic vows. In this sense they were the first of the Warrior Monks.

​Note that the only source you have for them being a monastic military order also refers to them as being secular knights. And while the others do say they took monastic vows, they don't say the Templars actually acted like monks. They don't even refer to the Templars as being lay brothers. So, other than their oath and that they tended to reside in monasteries, there's nothing within the texts that actually refers to them acting in any way like monks. They don't even act like lay brothers.

So, there is the problem. You don't actually have anything showing they were monks; only items saying they took monastic vows and calling them Warrior Monks. Plus, the very evidence you requested further disproves that Friar Tuck is an example of a monk.

Now, to go back to my original point: All of this has to do with the idea of monks being based on Eastern principals because the Western monks typically were not known for fighting.

 

[WayneLigon]

As the thread says. What are your banned/restricted races and classes? For the most part I allow any class or race into the game that was in the 3.5 PHB/PFRPG with the exception of the monk.

All other things being equal, all non-PHB material is on a case-by-case basis unless I have something very specific in mind or someone makes a very convincing arguement.

I will not be having Dragonborn in any new D&D game because I don't think they are very thematic, and I hate 'monster races' in general. I especially despise lizard- or insect-based PC races.

In pretty much any homebrew game I do, I don't allow people to multiclass divine and arcane casting classes, and I try very hard not to think about the Bard.

(I've always said I would someday just get rid of the cleric as a casting class, and now it looks like that day may be here: I'm thinking I might well be able to chunk the cleric and not destroy the normal balance of the game. At the same time, I generally enjoy playing a cleric and I'm just so used to the class that it's unlikely to overcome my natural laziness as far as re-writing large chunks of rules goes.)

 

[TrippyHippy]

This is going to be fun.

No. It’s not. People can read through the links or whatever they want on the subject from this day on. You may wish to review some of my previous posts, for example, as I am well aware of the difference between Monks and Friars. But I’m not going to engage in endlessly revolving pseudo-history debates with you any more.

Monks are in as a Class in 5E, and can be justified from both East and West cultures. Last I’m going to say on the matter.

 

[The Human Target]

I remember when Friar Tuck used a sai to knock out Prince John with a furry of blows and escaped by slow falling down the side of the tower.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

No. It’s not. People can read through the links or whatever they want on the subject from this day on. You may wish to review some of my previous posts, for example, as I am well aware of the difference between Monks and Friars. But I’m not going to engage in endlessly revolving pseudo-history debates with you any more.

Monks are in as a Class in 5E, and can be justified from both East and West cultures. Last I’m going to say on the matter.

That does not mean you are correct.

Pick up The Templars: The Secret History Revealed by Barbara Frale. In it, she discusses how the Pope had forbade priests, and all monks, from going into combat or spilling blood. She also argues the Templars were not monks because of that and the fact true monk orders had ordained priests in charge.

If you're wondering who she is, read this info about her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frale

So there is no Western origin for it because the monks were forbidden from fighting. And that is established historical fact.

Admittedly, I could have said this in my first posting... but I wanted to have a fun conversation, not a contest in who's right.