Do we really need Monks?

[Umbran]

Need? No, we don't need monks. But then, very little in RPGs is about need. It's all about want, about what's fun for particular people. If having monks around doiesn't suit you as a DM, and none of the players care, then you can ditch them and have a perfectly fine game.

But then, the same can probably said for any given character class. You can have a game without fighters, or clerics, and still have a great game. So there's not much need for anything specifically.

 

[BryonD]

For some reason the default monk is an asian stereotype (right down to the name, which suggests Shaolin monks).

Err, you do realize that "monk" is an english word for, um, monk.
As in, the various Christian MONKS who live in scattered monstaries through much of Europe.

I completely agree that the class concepts are 100% asian based. But that old 100% Western European name isn't really part of it.

Personally, I find dropping D&D monks into a quasi-western Europe setting to be way easy to rationalize.

There were plenty of monks is actual western Europe. But nothing about them makes them interesting for an action oriented game (RP arguments here will be patted politely on the head and smiled at).

European monks (at least the stereotypical ones that a cliche driven game would base off of) follow a simple non-excitement oriented life dedicated to a specific monotheistic philosophy. Take this stereotype, yank out the core deity and replace with any standard D&D polythiesm and you turn the entire concept on its head. Do that to a western Europe monk and I don't know what you would get, but I know you wouldn't remotely get anything that is a close to a western Europe monk. It would be much closer to an eastern monk. Enough so that it works for me.

Bottom line: Traditional European Monk - Yaweh + Heironeous = D&D Monk.
The precision of this formula is well within expected margin of error.

 

[IronWolf]

As a DM I tended to look at monks as not quite fitting in with my idea of a fantasy world. On one occasion though there was a player that wanted to play one and I had not *good* reason to say no. While still not a big fan of monks, he did a good job fitting in with the setting. He tended to play more of a "zen" monk, just into the simple ways of life and content to battle for good with his hands and mind rather than large steel weapons. Overall it worked out fine.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Err, you do realize that "monk" is an english word for, um, monk.
As in, the various Christian MONKS who live in scattered monstaries through much of Europe.

Ummm...yes. Yes I do. Because that's really, really obvious.

But as far as Christian monks go, how many of them jump around kicking people in the head? The association of the name "monk" with "person who kicks butt" is something peculiar to certain asian schools of thought and practice. Christian monks didn't punch people much at all (unless you count self-flagellation). Asian monks sometimes do. The Shaolin school, in particular, is not only the most well known group of martial-artist monks, but is probably the inspiration for calling the D&D monk a monk, seeing as how they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Christian monks.

So when I say that the name "monk" is an asian concept, it becomes clear what I mean as soon as you notice that the class does not involve people who do a lot of sitting around praying in habits, but rather punching people a lot and focusing their ki. But I had assumed that this would be completely obvious to anyone who happened to read the thread. Apparently, I was mistaken.

To clarify, what I meant was that by calling the class "monk," it obviously refers to an Asian-style monk because Christian monks don't do the D&D monk shtick. So the name itself carries that far-East baggage that people have a problem with.

 

[BryonD]

Ummm...yes. Yes I do. Because that's really, really obvious.

<snipped all the irrellevant/redundant stuff>

Dude,
Establishing the point I acknowledged right away doesn't change the matter.

Monk is a western european term. It is secondarily applied to eastern groups when speaking in english because of the similarities.

To suggest that the name monk automatically implies martial arts and other eastern aspects in itself is silly. (or should I say awkward?)

If your claim that the name itself suggests shaolin is correct, then you should be able to establish that without any reference to the actual abilities of the class. Which you, of course, can not do. That you tried to establish your point about the name itself, alone, by talking instead about the various abilities of the class suggests that perhaps you simply do not understand the implication of the words you used.

The name monk itself means nothing more than a male member of a disciplined religious order. It doesn't infer any kind of eastern monk one drop more than it infers western monks.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Y'know, until the 60's and 70's had the martial arts craze there wasn't a lot of awareness of the 133t n1nJ4. Most people draw from the Kung Fu tv series (David Carridine as asian?!?) for their inspiration. Probably so did Gygax et. al.

Truth was there were european martial arts. Matter of fact, every major culture had some form of martial arts. Ever heard of greco-roman wrestling?

Outside of the Asian world, martial arts just means "beat people up efficiently." Matter of fact, that's what it first meant in Asia as well until a very ritualistic society codified it and, like their tea, ritualized it. Even in Asia you were a pretty poor martial artist if you couldn't beat people up efficiently. The main difference is that most of asia was under a social structure where the peasants were virtually unarmed and were in a metal poor situation. Those "exotic weapons" were the farming implements they had at hand. A nunchuka is a variant of a farming flail, just as a european flail is and the kama is a sickle. Dollars to donuts there was a european "Farm Fu" that just didn't get any historical attention because the nobles didn't want the peasants to know about it and use it against them.

The surviving european martial arts were weapon heavy and focused on using the weapon six ways from sunday. I'd wager an 8th century englishman with a quarterstaff would be a match for a comparable asian staff weilder. The two-handed sword was weilded as "big freakin' sword," in a spear stance with the hand ahead of the quillons, like an axe with the blade as the pole and the quillons the head, etc. Punches, kicks, headbutts and using your armor and horse as a weapon were the norm. In asia weapons were the domain of a select few. Europe had far more armsmen even if most only had access to only a few weapons.

In a world of Arcane Archers, dwarven defenders, and the like is it such a stretch to see a person who's learned a set regime of combat maneuvers using native weapons? Dim-door and the like are freaky but feh, arcane archers fire teleporting arrows and rangers talk to animals.

 

[dcollins]

Most people draw from the Kung Fu tv series (David Carridine as asian?!?) for their inspiration. Probably so did Gygax et. al.

In 1st Ed. Oriental Adventures, Preface p. 3, Gygax writes that it was the book series "The Destroyer".

 

[Darkness]

Ever heard of greco-roman wrestling?

Or Pankration.

 

[maddman75]

I find that getting the notion that "martial arts" are a necessarily Oriental thing out of your head tends to make accepting monks in a campaign much, much easier.

After all, why is it that only someone born in an Asiatic culture can learn to hit things real hard?

BECASE ASIA HAS JAPAN AND JAPAN HAS NINJAS, NOT WUSSY NITES THAT HAV OT WEAR ARMER!11!! NINJAS HAVE REAL ULTIMATE POWER, AND THAT"S WHY D&D HAS TEH MONK!!

 

[fusangite]

D&D is not designed for historical adventuring. It is oriented towards fantasy/mythic adventuring. Thus, in most D&D stories, people are adventuring in a mythic past. Regardless of whatever cases people might find of unarmed fighters in European history, there is no presence of such individulas in European myth or mythic histories. For this reason, monks are inappropriate for most D&D settings because most D&D settings are grounded in a shared mythic European past.

As for the idea of whether D&D is modeling European or Asian monks, this is made pretty clear by the weapon proficiencies. While lacking proficiency in the weapons one might expect Greco-Roman wrestlers or what have you to possess, they are endowed with proficiencies with nunchaku and the like. And they throw shurikens.

I too am opposed to their inclusion in the core rules; without any other classes based on Asian myth, the monks are too weird and isolated. Now, if the core rules included oriental dragons, a five-element system or some other Asian class, I would happily reconsider my position.