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

[Celebrim]

So you agree? The words Friar and Monk are used interchangeably.

I could reply to this at length but it wouldn't be worth it.

I suppose you are going to passionately argue with me that the Anglo-Saxon hero Robin Hood doesn't use a longbow, he uses a 'Saracen Bow' (that actually looks more than a 3rd century Hun horse bow) and fights with scimitars (logically because he's defending Saracen culture from the invading Normans) and everyone knows this. He launches himself over walls with a catapult and stops the Sheriff of Nottingham's plot to become king. He's an agent of Celtic paganism. That's Robin Hood. That's what it is all about. That makes you an authority.

I won't argue with you any more. It makes me too sad to think that someone from Sherwood believes he's an authority on Robin Hood because everyone has seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights and the wealth of other post 1990's presentations and everyone knows that is what Robin Hood is about and all that other stuff you've never heard of just isn't relevant. You've just burned the Library of Alexandria for me.

Friar Tuck was once a swordsman who wore a cervelliere to cover his bald pate. I thought everyone knew this. I guess not.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, I think I was strongly influenced in the very early 80's by reading a lot of Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books. In that series, you had the Cords - pretty much by the D&D books Monks in a decidedly Faux-European setting. At the time, it seemed to make perfect sense that D&D would have monks too. Didn't bother me in the least back then and doesn't bother me now.

The idea that my Faux-Europe can't have Cords just doesn't sit all that well with me. Those guys were WAY too cool and served as the inspiration for one of my longest running characters - an AD&D monk. Is it historical? Who cares? Good grief, D&D is about as historically accurate as Doctor Who or an average History Channel documentary. I feel zero need to limit myself to trying to emulate history in a system that has absolutely nothing to do with history.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I tend to make my monks a secret order that trains like the Shao Lin temple of China. They "appear" to be normal monks. They instead are a secret society that serves some greater cause. They are often spies in the high courts of the world. Their grandmaster is thought to be a mastermind who is secretly manipulating half the thrones in the world. These monks always appear as normal monks and thus they get access to areas that are not available to a heavily trained and armored knight. When you need poisoning or knife work, the monk is often a capable agent. If you want the secrets to the Kings defense of the city, then perhaps a monk can find that too.

This is actually very close to the default way that 13th Age envisions monks: they are either assassins or resistance fighters (although not necessarily spies, but who knows?).

 

[TwoSix]

Friar Tuck was once a swordsman who wore a cervelliere to cover his bald pate. I thought everyone knew this. I guess not.

I've never seen Friar Tuck hold a sword. And Ivanhoe is a terribly misogynistic title.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I could reply to this at length but it wouldn't be worth it.

I suppose you are going to passionately argue with me that the Anglo-Saxon hero Robin Hood doesn't use a longbow, he uses a 'Saracen Bow' (that actually looks more than a 3rd century Hun horse bow) and fights with scimitars (logically because he's defending Saracen culture from the invading Normans) and everyone knows this. He launches himself over walls with a catapult and stops the Sheriff of Nottingham's plot to become king. He's an agent of Celtic paganism. That's Robin Hood. That's what it is all about. That makes you an authority.

Can you explain why it is you (hilariously incorrectly) think I would think this? It seems like a bunch of random nonsense to me.

I won't argue with you any more. It makes me too sad to think that someone from Sherwood believes he's an authority on Robin Hood because everyone has seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights and the wealth of other post 1990's presentations and everyone knows that is what Robin Hood is about and all that other stuff you've never heard of just isn't relevant. You've just burned the Library of Alexandria for me.

Is this a joke? Tell me this is a joke. It's too sad otherwise. I'm not an "authority", I'm presenting my experience and beliefs, which apparently horrify you.

Friar Tuck was once a swordsman who wore a cervelliere to cover his bald pate. I thought everyone knew this. I guess not.

What people think "everyone knows" never ceases to amaze me.

 

[SkidAce]

Meh, I think I was strongly influenced in the very early 80's by reading a lot of Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books. In that series, you had the Cords - pretty much by the D&D books Monks in a decidedly Faux-European setting. At the time, it seemed to make perfect sense that D&D would have monks too. Didn't bother me in the least back then and doesn't bother me now.

The idea that my Faux-Europe can't have Cords just doesn't sit all that well with me. Those guys were WAY too cool and served as the inspiration for one of my longest running characters - an AD&D monk. Is it historical? Who cares? Good grief, D&D is about as historically accurate as Doctor Who or an average History Channel documentary. I feel zero need to limit myself to trying to emulate history in a system that has absolutely nothing to do with history.

Can't xp you again for now...

But this is exactly how I look at my monks also, and the Thomas covenant books were the inspiration....

...for a lot of things in my world.

 

[billd91]

Is this a joke? Tell me this is a joke. It's too sad otherwise. I'm not an "authority", I'm presenting my experience and beliefs, which apparently horrify you.

Looks to me like, in this previous post, you're making a direct appeal to authority:

But not for "fighting with a longsword in a steel cap". I mean, I don't want to get all "appeal to authority" on you, but as a British person growing up with constant exposure to the Robin Hood legend (my mum is from around there), via many media, one thing I never think of Friar Tuck being "known for" among either the general public or gamers is a "fighting with a Longsword and a steel cap".

If you're not trying to claim some kind of authority about how people see Robin Hood, then I'm not sure why you mention being British or your mother being from near Sherwood. You may say that you don't want to get all "appeal to authority" but that's exactly what you did. You made as clear an appeal to authority as I've seen.

By the way, Friar Tuck as a swordsman? Oh yeah. I'm familiar with that. So if you think you can state "objectively" that you know what Friar Tuck is known for in the US, you might be mistaken.

 

[Celebrim]

Can you explain why it is you (hilariously incorrectly) think I would think this? It seems like a bunch of random nonsense to me.

Well it seems like a bunch of (nonrandom) nonsense to me to as well, but since you have portrayed yourself as an authority on Robin Hood in the popular media, I thought at least the allusions to popular media would have made sense to you. Now you claim not to recognize Robin Hood as traditionally presented either in the period from 16th century to the 19th, or in the period from 1800 to about 1980, and the period beginning about 1987 to the present appears to be random nonsense to you. Exactly what wealth of portrayals of Robin Hood are you familiar with that you definitively know what everyone knows? What is this constant exposure of which you speak? If your view of Robin Hood isn't covered by the 'random nonsense' I alluded to, and its not covered by the classical literature or movies, what is it actually influenced by?

Is this a joke? Tell me this is a joke.

I have little or no sense of humor in the usual sense of that term.

I'm not an "authority"

Wait? What? Didn't you launch into this with...

On what planet is this true? Because I think I can state objectively that, here, on Earth, in the UK and USA, Friar Tuck is...I mean, I don't want to get all "appeal to authority" on you, but as a British person growing up with constant exposure to the Robin Hood legend (my mum is from around there)...I'm not trying to harsh your groove, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this.

Sounds like an authoritarian position to me. You can objectively state your belief as a fact without citation or reference to anything but your own experience. You don't want to get all appeal to authority, but you are going to anyway because its just so unavoidable. On what planet is that not an assertion of authority in this matter?

I'm presenting my experience and beliefs, which apparently horrify you.

At this point I'm no longer convinced you have experience and beliefs, which I find to be rather much a relief. But I am now genuinely curious about what in the world you are seeing in your head when you say you are steeped in the legend.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well it seems like a bunch of (nonrandom) nonsense to me to as well, but since you have portrayed yourself as an authority on Robin Hood in the popular media, I thought at least the allusions to popular media would have made sense to you. Now you claim not to recognize Robin Hood as traditionally presented either in the period from 16th century to the 19th, or in the period from 1800 to about 1980, and the period beginning about 1987 to the present appears to be random nonsense to you. Exactly what wealth of portrayals of Robin Hood are you familiar with that you definitively know what everyone knows? What is this constant exposure of which you speak? If your view of Robin Hood isn't covered by the 'random nonsense' I alluded to, and its not covered by the classical literature or movies, what is it actually influenced by?

Celebrim, you made specific assertions about what I you think I think. That's extremely rude, so you can apologise for that for starters, if you want a detailed answer. I recognise most of the individual elements and their sources, but the way you've randomly strung them together is bizarre and nonsensical to the point where I'm wondering what you're even thinking. That's what I'm saying. If you can't understand that, you are not trying very hard.

I have little or no sense of humor in the usual sense of that term.

Indeed, and that's very problematic for you, I can see. I feel rather bad for you.

If you're not trying to claim some kind of authority about how people see Robin Hood, then I'm not sure why you mention being British or your mother being from near Sherwood. You may say that you don't want to get all "appeal to authority" but that's exactly what you did. You made as clear an appeal to authority as I've seen.

Can you explain, then, billd, how one is supposed to give a context to explain one's experiences, without people flying into a fury about it being "an appeal to authority"? These are my experience, my background, take it for what it's worth, is what I'm saying. You want to place zero value on it, go for it. You want to place a ton, go for it.

By the way, Friar Tuck as a swordsman? Oh yeah. I'm familiar with that. So if you think you can state "objectively" that you know what Friar Tuck is known for in the US, you might be mistaken.

I haven't claimed any "objective" knowledge, afaik. If you want to infer that everything not preferences or suffixed with "IMO" is a claim of objective truth, let me know, please, so I can add you to my ignore list, because I literally never going to engage with someone who wants to play that game ever again!

In the end, it's my belief that is is a generation-gap thing. I'm pretty sure you guys are what, 5-15 years older than me? Older? I'm 36. People over a certain age may have different ideas about Friar Tuck, but if so, they've not communicated them much.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??

My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk. Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point. This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone. If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."

Yep. Having a historical debate about Friar Tuck.

That said, if you want to see the Western archetype of holy men fighting (which includes monks), there are two classes which deal with it: The Cleric and the Paladin. It was the source of those classes, and both of them actually tend to come from the same origin.

The Monk class is based on Eastern monks because the West doesn't seem to carry the same association.