I hate monks

[Mouseferatu]

Flaming does not occur on this board. Check yourself.

The problem, ForceUser, is that you're insulting an awfully broad group of people with your conclusions. I enjoy playing in games that are influenced by specific cultures. I grew up with Medieval fantasy and legend, and that's often what I gravitate toward. In those settings, I remove or vastly change the monk.

I have played in Asian-themed games, or games that had a mix of cultures, multiple times, and I've enjoyed them. Given my druthers, though, the archetypes and images of Western fantasy simply appeal to me more. That doesn't mean I think they're "better," and I'm starting to take offense at the notion that because the monk doesn't appeal to me for many of my campaigns, it means I'm a snob or somehow anti-Asian.

 

[ForceUser]

Excuse me, but i am not a "Euro-Purist" by any measure - simply, i want historical actuality in my games, as close as a fantasy game can get.

Tell me, when you're striving for that historical actuality, do you allow magic? Medusas? Centaurs? Gorgons? (Greek critters, not Western European.) Do paladins and druids exist in the same campaign world? If so, there goes historical accuracy--the timeframes are a few hundred years apart. For that matter, do you allow plate armor with chainmail? Because chain preceded plate by a few hundred years. Don't fool yourself regarding the historical accuracy of your games. If you're running D&D, it ain't historically accurate by any stretch of the definition.

 

[ForceUser]

The problem, ForceUser, is that you're insulting an awfully broad group of people with your conclusions.

I think you missed my earlier comment--I'm not arguing that everyone should include everything from core rules in their homebrews. Do what floats your boat. The point I am refuting is the assertion made in this thread that the monk does not belong in the core rules. That's ethnocentric BS. And that is all I am refuting.

 

[Elephant]

You know, I keep forgetting that Dannyalcatraz is a lawyer by trade and loves to argue--hell, it's his profession.

Danny, you're throwing an encyclopedia of information at us as though it is relevant. It's a smokescreen--tricks and mirrors, logos as red herring. There's as much a reason to include the monk in D&D--Asian or otherwise--as there is any other class. D&D is not Eurocentric just because it was designed by a bunch of white Americans. Default D&D is what it is, like it or loathe it (cue diaglo). What bugs me is that Euro-purists insist on bumping the monk from their D&D games because the class as written pays homage to Asian culture. Those same Euro-purists, I guarantee, aren't gunning for historicity in other areas of their campaigns. They're Euro-snobs.

My previous silly comments aside, your repeated focus on/criticism of Eurocentrism is starting to sting. No one likes being called a snob, Euro- or otherwise.

 

[Ranger REG]

What do people think went on in medieval European monasteries anyway!?

See Cadfael.

Again, you emphasize eurocentric too much. But being haoles, that's your nature.

 

[Elephant]

Tell me, when you're striving for that historical actuality, do you allow magic? Medusas? Centaurs? Gorgons? (Greek critters, not Western European.) Do paladins and druids exist in the same campaign world? If so, there goes historical accuracy--the timeframes are a few hundred years apart. For that matter, do you allow plate armor with chainmail? Because chain preceded plate by a few hundred years. Don't fool yourself regarding the historical accuracy of your games. If you're running D&D, it ain't historically accurate by any stretch of the definition.

Most of that stuff comes from European sources ... though some of them are a few centuries - or millennia - apart, they're from the same general geographic region, influenced by many of the same cultural precursors. The monk is not.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the monk is the element that removes historical accuracy from D&D. The claim is, the monk does not fit with the otherwise-prevalent theme of European sources. Not Roman sources, not Greek sources, not British sources, European sources. That's still a pretty broad category.

 

[ForceUser]

My previous silly comments aside, your repeated focus on/criticism of Eurocentrism is starting to sting. No one likes being called a snob, Euro- or otherwise.

I'll take back the snob comment--snobbery is intentional, which I don't honestly think this is. Ethnocentrism, in it's mildest form, manifests as a healthy pride in one's heritage; at it's worst, you get racism. Let me be clear: I'm not calling anyone a racist. I don't think most of the folks arguing against the inclusion of the monk in core D&D are even aware of what's driving this desire for "purity." That's why I'm pointing it out. There should be room for other cultures in the core rules. We are a multicultural world, the United States is a multicultural nation, and this is without a doubt a multicultural hobby. So why the insistence on keeping to some outdated notion of "European purity" in core D&D?

 

[Elephant]

I'll take back the snob comment--snobbery is intentional, which I don't honestly think this is. Ethnocentrism, in it's mildest form, manifests as a healthy pride in one's heritage; at it's worst, you get racism. Let me be clear: I'm not calling anyone a racist. I don't think most of the folks arguing against the inclusion of the monk in core D&D are even aware of what's driving this desire for "purity." That's why I'm pointing it out. There should be room for other cultures in the core rules. We are a multicultural world, the United States is a multicultural nation, and this is without a doubt a multicultural hobby. So why the insistence on keeping to some outdated notion of "European purity" in core D&D?

Because I like European historical culture and mythology, and I dislike Asian culture and mythology. That's all.

 

[ForceUser]

Because I like European historical culture and mythology, and I dislike Asian culture and mythology. That's all.

That's fine for your game. Not for core rules.

 

[Nyaricus]

Tell me, when you're striving for that historical actuality, do you allow magic? Medusas? Centaurs? Gorgons? (Greek critters, not Western European.) Do paladins and druids exist in the same campaign world? If so, there goes historical accuracy--the timeframes are a few hundred years apart. For that matter, do you allow plate armor with chainmail? Because chain preceded plate by a few hundred years. Don't fool yourself regarding the historical accuracy of your games. If you're running D&D, it ain't historically accurate by any stretch of the definition.

Excuse me, but i am not a "Euro-Purist" by any measure - simply, i want historical actuality in my games, as close as a fantasy game can get.

Bolding done by myself. Now, what implies a fantasy game? Definition according to Houghton MIfflin Canadian Dictionary of Fantasy is - The realm of vivid imagination, reverie, depiction, illusion, and the like; the natural conjurings of mental invention and association; the visonary world; make-believe. Bolding by me again. a game is self explanitory. Now, what can we make of this all?

I was trying to say that, in my fantasy games - full of "real" mythology, folklore and religions - that i try to depict historical acurracy. My campaign is set in approx 1050 AD and its arms and armours are appropriate with that time period. You won't find gorgons in my "germanic" lands, nore will frost giants suddenly invade my "medditerranian" lands. It wouldn't work. My world is based upon the assumption that "what would a fantasy world look ike if all those myths, legends and folklore tales were true - what if those monsters and such were real?

But also, i draw from Tolkien - so i have Orcs and Hobbits and Trolls that turn to stone if the sun touches their skin, etc etc.

My world blends many things - but keeps them in context. There are no other planes to travel to (well, this is a bit of a misnomer [such as the fey realms and places spirirts go to after death, etc] but letsnot split too many hairs here). The thing is that the monk just doen't fit in with any of the other base classes - and thus instead of being the exception he is the rule.

A few people i know, includeing close family members, can be and are rascist in one form or another. I try my best to be open-minded - but the fact is that a Shaolin Monk is a bad fit for an unmistakenably European-inspired game. That is not being rascist or Eurocentric, rather that is being frank about the fact that Europe and Asia are two very different places which have their own cultures. The fact is the monk is a bad fit for D&D core.



So, yes, IMC, all of those things are true.