Do we really need Monks?

[Mad Mac]

So, no other class has proficiency with the following East Asian weapons: Kama, Nunchaku, Sai, Siangham and Shuriken. The monk, on the other hand, lacks proficiency with every specifically European weapon. No other class uses a magical power called ki and yet the monk's magical powers come from ki. Is it just a coincidence that all of the words I have just used to describe the monk are in an Asian language and that these Asian things are not used by any other character class?

I never said the Monk was paticularly well designed. Nonetheless, lets look at the evidence.

1. The Iconic Monk is decidedly non-asian.

2. The Monk is proffecient with the club, crossbow, dagger, handaxe, javelin, and sling. The Monk is admittingly not proffecient with maces, flails, and swords. They are also not proffecient with axes, spears. polearms, or heavy melee weapons of any type, whether asian or european. Nor are they proffecient in Bows, a popular weapon even in asian nations.

In general, the Monk seems to focus on light, easily-concealed weapons, or those that could be passed off as tools. The Crossbow is a notable exception, but can be used by basically any class, due to ease of use.

The eastern weapons availible for the Monk are also (aside from the ones added in 3.5) decidingly non-optimal. (ie crap) It is with these suckiest of all weapons that the Monk is allowed to flurry. This strikes me as a poorly considered balance decision, more than anything. The Exotic status of these weapons is also stupid and poorly considered.

Still, because there is no default asian culture in the core rules, these weapons are presented as being primarily Monk weapons, rather than imports from somewhere else.

3. "Ki". Yes, Ki is a Japanese word. We have established already, however, that monks are not japanese by default. So why is Ki added to the description? IMO, because it establishes the mysticism of monks, and justifies their superhuman abilities without catagorizing them as Wizards or Priests.

Ki is actually utilized by a couple of Prc's, including the 3.0 Weapon Master and the 3.5 Kensai. Again, it's a convenient justification to allow non-magical classes to pull off superhuman stuff. It can easily be substituted by any other source of power, because there are no mechanics actually associated with ki. Ki is pure fluff.

4. The Class description is built entirely around their monastic lifestyle, with no reference to any outside culture. Essentially, it tells us that monks are different because of the traditions, philosophy, and discipline instilled in them by the monastaries they were raised in.

Getting back to your actual question, no, it's not coincidence, it is in fact homage. What it decidedly is not is an attempt to define the monk as a strictly asian instituition. D&D is divorced from historical reality, and in the D&D mythos, the Monk is a path anyone can embark on. Simple as that.

 

[Remathilis]

Just because the creators of Greyhawk think the monk fits in their setting does not mean it does. It just results in Greyhawk being a flawed setting. The fact is that the monk's prominence is one of the things that makes the setting unattractive because the setting ends up feeling culturally incoherent.

WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, your little homebrew is better than the works of Gygax, Greenwood and Baker because you don't mix Couatls, Monks and Scimitars in with your "Euro" elements? RIIIGGHHTT...

Every version of D&D beyond the original white books have had monks. Even Basic D&D had monks, they were called mystics. Does that make Greyhawk, Realms, Eberron, Mystara, Scarred Lands, Kalamar, and countless other settings "flawed"? Can I buy you a shovel?

Your arguement boils down to this (and forgive me for being too simplistic.

1.) D&D emulates much of Western/Euro Myth. (True).
2.) Monks, as the PH see them, are not Western/Euro. (True).
3.) Therefore, Monks should not be in the PH (Debateable, as shown).

No one will argue 1 and 2, but to make the logical conclusion of 3 is fallacy. D&D emulates much not directly western in myth, as much has been pointed out.

Options, not restrictions. If you don't like monks and ogre-magi. More power to you. Remove them. Just don't tell me what should or shouldn't be core.

 

[fusangite]

I never said the Monk was paticularly well designed. Nonetheless, lets look at the evidence.

Ok... I'm ready for the evidence.

1. The Iconic Monk is decidedly non-asian.

I think you need to brush up on what evidence is. I believe the above is what is referred to as "opinion."

2. The Monk is proffecient with the club, crossbow, dagger, handaxe, javelin, and sling.

Excepting the crossbow, can you name a culture in Eurasia, Africa or the Americas that did not have these things? Universal does non-Asian. The fact that some Asian weapons were weapons that were so universal as to be used practically everywhere does not make these weapons non-Asian.

3. "Ki". Yes, Ki is a Japanese word. We have established already, however, that monks are not japanese by default. So why is Ki added to the description? IMO, because it establishes the mysticism of monks, and justifies their superhuman abilities without catagorizing them as Wizards or Priests.

Does it not seem odd to you that no non-European words are used to describe the magic used by Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Wizards and Sorcerors and that only Oriental words are used to describe the magic used by Monks? Is that just a coincidence?

Ki is actually utilized by a couple of Prc's, including the 3.0 Weapon Master and the 3.5 Kensai.

Kensai... hmmmm... I wonder what ethnicity that word might be.

Again, it's a convenient justification to allow non-magical classes to pull off superhuman stuff. It can easily be substituted by any other source of power, because there are no mechanics actually associated with ki. Ki is pure fluff.

So, why do you suppose for this text that you see as exclusively flavour would they employ the only instance of a non-English word in the magic system in the entire core rules?

4. The Class description is built entirely around their monastic lifestyle, with no reference to any outside culture.

Well, we know one thing about the outside cultures: they produce monks who train in unarmed martial arts. Now, what sort of cultures might those be?

Essentially, it tells us that monks are different because of the traditions, philosophy, and discipline instilled in them by the monastaries they were raised in.

Yes. And only one particular set of cultures have monastic institutions with those values.

Getting back to your actual question, no, it's not coincidence, it is in fact homage.

Yes. And in this case, the form of the homage is direct representation. Your use of the term "homage" here is a little perplexing.

hom·age n. Special honor or respect shown or expressed publicly.

homage n : respectful deference

You see, the term homage speaks to the motive behind a particular work not to the actual nature of the act itself. I'm happy to acknowledge that the Monk is an homage to everything from Shaolin monks to ninja assassins.

What it decidedly is not is an attempt to define the monk as a strictly asian instituition.

I don't care what the writers of the rules thought they were trying to do or what they intended to do, I'm interested in what the rules ended up saying.

D&D is divorced from historical reality, and in the D&D mythos, the Monk is a path anyone can embark on. Simple as that.

I thought the point of 3.xE was to create a game system that could accommodate people with other more diverse mythoi; in general, I think it has been successful in that enterprise.

And yes, I agree that D&D is divorced from historical reality. What it is not divorced from is myth and that's what I have been talking about throughout this thread.

 

[fusangite]

So, your little homebrew is better than the works of Gygax, Greenwood and Baker because you don't mix Couatls, Monks and Scimitars in with your "Euro" elements? RIIIGGHHTT...

Fortunately, D&D doesn't have an objective standard of "better." Gary Gygax is responsible for an absolute revolution how people think about narrative, about games, about many many things. The invention of D&D is on my list of the great achievements of the 20th century. But that doesn't mean that everything Gary ever wrote is great. Is Tomb of Horrors a great module by today's standards? No. It's not like we're dealing with the Bible here.

Every version of D&D beyond the original white books have had monks.

Yep. Frankly, I think that is the one and only real reason that they remained in the core after WOTC took over.

1.) D&D emulates much of Western/Euro Myth. (True).
2.) Monks, as the PH see them, are not Western/Euro. (True).
3.) Therefore, Monks should not be in the PH (Debateable, as shown).

You missed the second half of (3): or more Oriental material should be added to the core so that the monk can function.

If you don't like monks and ogre-magi. More power to you. Remove them. Just don't tell me what should or shouldn't be core.

You have offered only one reason that they should stay in the core: precedent. Your argument is that because D&D's founder used monks and because they have appeared in previous editions that it would ruin people's fun if they were removed now.

By this argument, nothing should be removed from the core ever for fear that people have become attached to it. This is a terrible attitude; D&D should be free to evolve and consign some things from the core to supplementary material. If D&D can only add feature over time, the game will simply peter out under the weight of constant net additions.

 

[Mad Mac]

think you need to brush up on what evidence is. I believe the above is what is referred to as "opinion."

*Takes a second look at Ember* Yeah, she's Japanese...

Excepting the crossbow, can you name a culture in Eurasia, Africa or the Americas that did not have these things? Universal does non-Asian. The fact that some Asian weapons were weapons that were so universal as to be used practically everywhere does not make these weapons non-Asian.

A heroic effort in missing the point! Pat yourself on the back. But tell me, what "exclusively european" weapons would be appropriate to add to the monks list of simple tools? Blades and metal bashing instruments aren't foreign to asia, but the monk doesn't use them either.

Does it not seem odd to you that no non-European words are used to describe the magic used by Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Wizards and Sorcerors and that only Oriental words are used to describe the magic used by Monks? Is that just a coincidence?

Want to suggest a few? Something that doesn't involve sucking up to a diety, arcane might, or hugging trees? Europe was monotheistic. Everything was either "divine", or "witchcraft". D&D is polytheistic, making non-exclusive mysticism more appropriate. If you want to talk out of place by D&D assumptions, look at the Crusader Cleric and Shining Paladin.

Kensai... hmmmm... I wonder what ethnicity that word might be.

Not familiar with the class, gotcha. (Pssst, the iconic Kensai is a blond Knight)

So, why do you suppose for this text that you see as exclusively flavour would they employ the only instance of a non-English word in the magic system in the entire core rules?

Cuz it works. And they didn't expect people like you to get their knickers in a twist over a simple japanese word. And honestly, "Chi" would be more appropriate anyway, if they were going for the Shaolin thing. A lot of people say "Ki" is psionic. It works. We also have Prc's that allow the Monk to specialize in weilding Arcane, Divine, or Psionic power.

Well, we know one thing about the outside cultures: they produce monks who train in unarmed martial arts. Now, what sort of cultures might those be?

Those darn, crafty, asians. Always sneaking into campaign settings where they don't exist and training monks. Or, and this is just a crazy theory I'm throwing out here, its assumed the highly-magical, polytheistic, non-historical D&D cultures produce monks who train in martial arts, who aren't asian. Just a thought.

I thought the point of 3.xE was to create a game system that could accommodate people with other more diverse mythoi; in general, I think it has been successful in that enterprise.

And yes, I agree that D&D is divorced from historical reality. What it is not divorced from is myth and that's what I have been talking about throughout this thread.

You're absolutely right. Intellect Devourers and rust monsters feature prominently in myth. Mythical Druids lived in Medievel times with Rennasaince technology and destroy mythical Norse frost giants with classical greek elementals, and are closely associated with mythical rangers, who specialize in two-weapon fighting or archery, and fight alongside Pure hearted Catholic Paladins in shining armor as they smite Catholic Crusader Clerics who serve polytheistic gods, while Sorcerers cruise around on a magical floating disk and hurl magic missles at Nordic Skalds who prance around with a rapier and lute fighting an Ogre Magic from Japanese mythology who is being grappled by a Mesoamerican god.

But Man! Just try and throw in a character vaugely based on Chinese Mythology, and my versimilitude is Gone!

 

[fusangite]

Sorry Mac,

If you are unable to admit that the Monk class is obviously Asian at this point, another clip and quote response from me won't help. Apparently, in your universe, a club is easily concealed and a dart is not; a crossbow looks like a tool but a heavy pick doesn't. And European myth doesn't mention or include stories about people who believe in Zeus, Odin, etc.

We're done here.

 

[Mad Mac]

I'm the stubborness Champ! Bwa Ha HA HA!

But seriously, my point regarding the Asian nature of the Monk was that, in 3rd edition, a concious design choice was made, so that the Monk would not be potrayed as Asian. Thats why 3rd edition depicts Monks of assorted races and nationalities, and makes no reference to monks coming from "far away lands". The Monk has a certain asian flavor, but it not, by the RAW, an class developed by asians.

As for clubs vs darts and picks...

The club barely qualifies as a weapon. It's assumed you can scavenge yourself a servicible club almost anywhere. As a weapon of oppourtunity, it fits the monk quite well. No monk would actually choose to use a club over a staff or nunchuku, if they had a choice.

Darts are appropriate weapon for monks, as are a number of other weapons, IMO. It's not like I'm the one who wrote the class...

As for Picks, I can see the a justification from the "tool" angle. If you were trying to pass yourself off as some sort of miner, anyway. It is, however, a martial weapon, and Monks aren't generally proffecient with martial weapons. Just the hand-axe, right?

I could argue the details of any classes weapon proffeciencies. That doesn't invalidate the design theory behind them, though.

As for the Crossbow, every class can use the crossbow, no matter how feeble their martial skills. The only exception is the Druid, who is stuck with the sling. (Crossbows are too mechanical maybe? *shrug*)

 

[ErikSalaan]

To paraphrase:

fusangite: "We need more asian myth in D&D to have it be more acceptable." His arguement is a good one. In 4e, they should just make it easier for a Fighter to take Unarmed skills and no armor and be competitive with a Fighter with a sword. It'll be easier to fit the concept of the monk in. Unless they decide to add Kappa, Oni and other asian myth and keep the monk.

Mac: "Monks fit fine now because the entire D&D universe is culturally different." This is also a good arguement. Currently, I don't think anyone has a problem with fitting them in IF THEY CHOOSE TO. They're just as wacky as any other class in terms of realism. Even the basic Fighter can crazy things by 10th level that only ancient mythic characters could even dream of... Taking on 32 orcs with Great Cleave and a Long Sword is no less realistic than a monk defeating an armored knight in battle.

You guys are arguing 2 different points. So chill.

 

[Mad Mac]

Chill?

But I was having fun. Ahhh...

Seriously though, I have no problem with making hand to hand combat easier for other classes.(I'd love to play an unarmed barbarian) Can't object to more asian mythology, either.

I just don't like people picking on one of my favorite classes because they don't think it fits in their game. They're my monks, and you can't have em!

 

[fusangite]

If people are interested, Gary Gygax gives an opinion on how monks were originally played when they became a core class in the Q&A thread that has restarted. http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=104817&page=5