D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 monk...lawful = disciplined?

[Ashtagon]

Actually, the original D&D monk was written to fill a specific role within the Greyhawk campaign setting, where they were typically senior members within the social order of the Scarlet Brotherhood. It had as much to do with real-life monks (of any variety) as the D&D cleric did with any historical cleric (D&D clerics were originally written to be an anti-vampire class, not for any supposed resemblance to a RL cleric).

 

[Dandu]

Really, restricting Monk to lawful characters makes no sense at all. The Wu Dan monks were pretty lawful, but the Shao Lin have more of a NG rep, and Zen tends to gravitate toward Chaos (IMO).

Zen does not emphasize Chaos as DnD describes it.

 

[Philosopher]

Actually, the original D&D monk was written to fill a specific role within the Greyhawk campaign setting, where they were typically senior members within the social order of the Scarlet Brotherhood. It had as much to do with real-life monks (of any variety) as the D&D cleric did with any historical cleric (D&D clerics were originally written to be an anti-vampire class, not for any supposed resemblance to a RL cleric).

According to my books here, the monk first appeared in Blackmoor, not in Greyhawk.

In any case, you're right about the origin of the cleric, and I suspect a similar story for the monk. It's also worth noting that monks at that time were mostly Lawful, but could be Neutral or Chaotic.

 

[rusty2667]

Never try to use real life as an absolute basis for how D&D frames things

Granted, there are too many grey areas in real life circumstances for the alignment system to perfectly frame them. I just wanted to give a sense of what I meant by using a simple example.

Tellng the truth and keeping their word are both examples of being disciplined.

I think that these characteristics can be products of leading a disciplined lyfestyle, but do not define what discipline is. IMO, discipline has more to do with personal willpower rather than a social/ethical outlook.

Really, alignments make no sense at all. The game would be better off without them.__________________

I have similar thoughts myself, but alignment is built into the game mechanics and the ideas behind the alignment system can possibly lead into some interesting story hooks/scenarios.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have similar thoughts myself, but alignment is built into the game mechanics and the ideas behind the alignment system can possibly lead into some interesting story hooks/scenarios.

Oh, I don't mind the _ideas_ behind the alignment system. Using them as a general guideline might help you to come up with a couple of interesting personality traits and motivations for pcs or monsters. These can possibly lead to even more interesting story hooks/scenarios

 

[pawsplay]

Really, alignments make no sense at all. The game would be better off without them.

Some games would be better off without them.

 

[pawsplay]

Zen does not emphasize Chaos as DnD describes it.

I find it difficult to describe cutting off someone else's finger as anything other than an arbitrary action, except insofar as it suited the master's intention to enlighten someone. Hopefully I have not offended any real world Zen practioners thus far; with that in mind, I would like to backtrack to the gaming aspect. If I were to write a CG or CN outlook practiced by a sect of D&D monks, I would definitely find Zen/Chan proverbs and approaches a useful resource. It's fallacious to describe a real world outlook as being a certin alignment (even assuming you aren't simply mistaken about that philosophy), but I think insofar as Chaotic alignments relate to anything in the real world, I would view Chaotic religionists as possibly espousing a Zen-like approach, and monks as obvious archetypes for such a religion.

 

[Dandu]

And what is a Zen-like approach?

 

[pawsplay]

And what is a Zen-like approach?

If you are traveling down a road, and you meet the Buddha, you must kill the Buddha.

 

[Dandu]

But why must you do so?