A Blind-Monk?

[Nightfall]

Well it doesn't hurt to say it.

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

lol, unfortunetly, I think there is a player in our group who would most likely ask a blind character for a spot check. she sometimes DMs a campaign, but she's that kind of DM that after 2 minutes of campaign, makes you consider cutting your throat with a spoon. she must be the worst DM to ever walk the face of earth.

Oh, and when she's a PC? hehe, just to give you guys an idea. She once jumped into a barrel of wine, that was placed on a oxcart. She thought it would take her to the castle...the wine, as well as the other barrels with food, was headed to a storage-room for the upcoming festival. She RAN through a very old wooden bridge, she was lucky since the ninja has good reflexes, and managed to avoid a nasty fall into the river and one hell of a ride down the waterfall.
But one of the bet ones is this one. The whole party, fighting several zombies, she was a cleric of mishakal (we use the dragonlance gods), and...instead of using a healing spell, or disrupt undead, she used....she used....*sigh*....Light on the zombie....

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

As far as the lawful thing - nothing particularly wrong with a lawful character who is driven to vegeance, just so long as he does so in a fairly lawful manner. Look at it this way: The destruction of your temple was a crime, and you are going to bring the people who destroyed it to justice.

what if the monk followed a non-killing line of teachings? would that mean he would lose the lawful thing since he would want to kill the people who did that?

 

[Storyteller01]

what if the monk followed a non-killing line of teachings? would that mean he would lose the lawful thing since he would want to kill the people who did that?

There are different types of revenge. If someone destroyed your temple for cash/political backing/blahblah, you could work to take that from them. You could work to expose their crimes no one knew, or remove them from power if it was a public atrocity (they seem to happen quite a bit...).


Or, if the person needing to be thwacked is a lackey, you can manipulate events so that his boss kills him for you...

 

[FalcWP]

I think manipulating things so the person is dead through your actions would be in a definite grey area (as would beating them into submission, then letting party members finish them off).

Notice that I said you would be bringing people to justice, rather than killing them. As has been mentioned, causing them to lose their ill-gotten gains would be a form of justice. Another method would be subdual damage, then slapping some manacles on them and marching them to a lawful court that you or your monastic tradition would respect for a trial. A monk is, normally, quite wise - you would realize that you have a biased opinion about the matter, and are ill-suited to actually dispense justice in this matter, but you still want to see it served.

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

hmm. that sounds good. the story would go something like this. a terrorist group was settled in a small village. being a threat to one of the Lords of the Southern Continent, the Lord organized a massive attack to detroy the group. in the process the village was almost completely destroyed. My monk's temple would be detroyed and he would become blind during the battle. The leader of the terrorists managed to escape. the monk, would look for revenge over the Lord that organized the attack.
However, we'll try to find a way to make him join forces with the party, since they are working for that Lord.


Another possible reason for the temple to be destroyed, would be: The temple didn't follow any of the known gods, and was considered a pagan temple. so, the major temples decided to put an end to it.

 

[Storyteller01]

I think manipulating things so the person is dead through your actions would be in a definite grey area (as would beating them into submission, then letting party members finish them off).

Depends. Lawful Evil characters wouldn't have a problem with it. Though they'd probably do it for reasons other than not wanting to kill...

 

[FalcWP]

Depends. Lawful Evil characters wouldn't have a problem with it. Though they'd probably do it for reasons other than not wanting to kill...

Probably. But the question wasn't if it was Good or Evil (which doesn't matter to a monk), but Lawful or Chaotic. In this case, it sounds as if the particular monastic order is against killing - it would form one tenet of their beliefs. Causing any killings would probably strain that belief system. Breaking such a belief would probably be enough of a departure from the monk's path to cost him his abilities.

Now, some monks might justify their actions as serving the greater portion of their belief system (for instance, justice). These monks would not have to be Lawful Evil. For instance, a Lawful Good monk who believes that the death of these lackeys will serve the purpose of law, but is unwilling to directly take their lives, might seek to manipulate events to cause their deaths. A Lawful Neutral monk might feel that justice demands their death. A Lawful Evil monk might feel that the quickest path to his personal vengeance is by having the lackeys killed. They might all use the same methods to achieve the same results, but their actions are dictated by different motives.

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

and does that mean that he would only stop getting those abilities like imunity to poison, or the furry of blows too?

 

[FrostedMini1337]

What? Monks never lose abilities, and changing what equates to his religion isn't breaking his monk reqs either.