Now this i can answer, but before i do, let me make the caveat that I'm not arguing that the monk should not be in the PHB, or even in my game with some changed flavor. I can however see the point that's trying to be made in opposition to the above quoted text, and it's pretty simple: Some people don't want a melting pot. They want generic western fantasy to be generic western fantasy, and the monk doesn't feel western, it feels eastern. Is this cultural bias? possibly, and if it is, so what? Noone's saying they don't like eastern fantasy, it's just that some people want to play one or the other, and not mix the two.
I understand, I just don't think it's really a justified complaint. Because D&D *isn't* European. It doesn't try to be. It doesn't want to be. To try and say that it is, it was, it's mostly, is just really missing the point. D&D doesn't want to just be European. D&D *wants* to mix the two. And many, many others while it's at it. And add it's own spice. Maybe people don't want that, but I think it's awfully haughty to assume that because you like to keep them seperate that they should be that way.
What if I AM running a historically based campaign? What then?
Fine. You can make it Western. The Monk is hardly one of the "core four" classes that every party needs. More power to you. But that doesn't mean that the D&D core books need to cater to your needs just because you think that the potential fun of history books trumps the potential fun of being a Monk. And I can't say that I agree with that. That doesn't interest *me* at all, and I'm willing to wager it doesn't really impress most people who think fantasy monks are cool. "Mostly western with Monks" interests me. In part because it forces me to use creativity to design my world rather than just falling back on a few Western fantasy gospels.
Europe: The Goofy Accent isn't a game I want to play. Knights and druids and chromatic dragons and cthonian horrors and ninja and pirates and monkeys and halflings are the game I want to play.
You can run a historical campaign. But I think D&D would be hurt if it tried to cater to that need to the exclusion of something cool, like the Monk.
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.
To be fair, if you think the most popular roleplaying game in the world should cater first and foremost to medieval European archetypes and images to the exclusion of other cultural or genre concepts then, yeah, you obviously do think they're "better." More worthy of more time and more effeort. Otherwise, it's just a matter of preference and ain't no thing. I'm not saying you particularly thing either way, just saying statements to the effect of "D&D is/should be European, axe the intruder!" are obviously on the "I Heart European Fantasy" side of the aisle.
I don't think that the core game is so rigidly European-inspired any longer, nor should it be going forward. The token Asian-flavored class is a good start, but there needs to be more multiculturalism in the core rules in 4E. If there is enough demand for a straight Euro-flavored campaign supplement, then hey, let 'em publish Occidental Adventures.
Quoted for ubertruth. Core D&D should be flexible and general. Options, not restrictions. It would be better served by a geographical supplement focusing on Europe than on trying to make the PHB an exclusive club that only chalkies can get into.
