I hate monks

I agree with the general idea that monk, the name, makes us think of Asian influences especially when you take into account what the class mechanics are all about, but as a class I like it. If for nothing else but the fact that it is not like any of the other classes. Sure you can dress up a fighter or rogue and make them like the monk, but the unorthodox nature of the monk is what makes it so fascinating a class. I think that changing the name would detract from the class in that this class is all about inner strength. It is this inner focus that gives the lawful designation. Why is it that everyone thinks that lawful means only following the laws of the land? Lawful is also considered to be some moral or other form of "code of honor," but no one remembers then when they think about being lawful.

Monk should stay because it adds that much needed change of pace for a character that breaks your weapon, puts you on your back and breaks your face in.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Personally, I'd be happier with an unarmed combatant class.

So would I.

Don't get me wrong- I love monks. I have no hate for any of the Core classes in particular. I would just rather see the monk relegated to Oriental Adventures, and available to players in those campaigns in which "East meets West."

But an unarmed combat specialist, stripped of the terminologies of Eastern Philosophies, would better model barroom brawlers, street thugs, "ghost warriors," capoira masters, commandoes, assassins, and all of those other primarily unarmed/lightly armed warriors who have little or no connection to mysticism or religions, etc.
 

With all due respect, your experience is not gospel, at least to me.

Oh no, of course not, i would never presume to present it as such. I'm not even sure which side of the question I'm on, The only thing I was basing out of my own experiencewas that i've seen a lot of people take the monk out.

That having been said, I understand why, but it's hard to explain why because it's mainly a gut reaction to the style and feel of the monk. Some people like the melting pot feel, and that's fine I'm not arguing to take the monk out of the book, some on the thread may be, but I'm not. It just seems some people are saying "why wouldn't you want the monk? that's cultural bias." I'm just trying to say "Yes, it is, and there's nothing wrong with that."

Smackfish
 
Last edited:

Li Shenron said:
As iwatt says, it's an archetype which just never had a place in western literature (before D&D).

Monastic orders were actually fairly common in Medieval Europe, both in real life and in literature. That said, I agree that the new Monk core class steps away from the European Monk core class of AD&D 1e and more towards the later Eastern Monk of Oriental Adventures - you don't see to many cloistered Franciscan brother deflecting arrows with their bare hands ;)

My least favorite core class is still the Cleric, though - the manner in which they acquire spells (and, indeed, their nature as a crusading warrior) is very unbecoming priests in most fiction (fantasy or historical) that I've ever read. The Cleric really bugs me to no end and is one of the three primary reasons that D&D 3x isn't my default fantasy system of choice.
 

ruleslawyer said:
About the closest you get in fantasy that Gygax would have read is the Donaldson Bloodguard, but they don't have the ki stuff going on.

Funnily enough, when I read this thread, the Bloodguard were the first thing that popped into my head. Of course, the monks in my world are basically bloodguard, so that helps I suppose. Sure, there is a certain oriental flavor to the 3E monks, mostly stemming from their weapon choices, but why would anyone ever use monk weapons? Looking at the monk abilities side by side with the abilities of the bloodguard they seem much closer.

From wikipedia:

The Haruchai are a hardy race of warriors living in the Westron Mountains, west of the Land. The Haruchai shun the use of weapons or magic, taking pride in their own physical prowess and the purity of their service, which is never given lightly. Outwardly stoic, even emotionless, it is revealed on several different occasions in the book series that the Haruchai are a deeply extravagant race, capable of swearing a lifetime’s worth of service if sufficiently emotionally moved. The first of these commitments comes when an army of 500 Haruchai marches into the Land, some 2000 years before Covenant’s coming to the Land. The Lords of the Land, and especially Kevin Landwaster, do not meet the Haruchai in battle, lest the noble Haruchai be destroyed by the Lords' Earthpower. Instead, the Lords give the Haruchai precious gifts. The wonders of the Land, and the compassion and wisdom of its Lords, move the Haruchai to swear the Vow, an oath to protect the Lords. The Vow, sworn as it is, causes these 500 Haruchai to become the Bloodguard; functionally immortal, not growing old, never sleeping, and permanently cut off from their former families in the Westron Mountains.

The bloodguard are almost point for point DnD monks. They break incoming arrows, are imune to disease and poison (and aging for that matter), use no weapons, and are about as lawful as you can get.
 

I think our problem lies in a dual nature.

There are those who dislike mixing their traditional, westernised fantasy with the eastern variant.

This is fine. I personally prefer restriction to propagation.

Those who prefer their non-melting pot ideas probably have a particular feel that their campaign is trying to emulate, which adding high-kicking cliff-dancing wire-fu shaolin priests to would be harmful.

I feel this way for my Midnight campaign. I really wouldn't like wire-fu, cheap philosophy, or pseudo asian backgrounds in a land that simply doesn't support it. In my campaign there is a defender, and she kicks orcs around. She doesn't have the pseudo-magical abilities and enlightenment stuff that your average monk does. She's a determined resistance fighter that simply has certain abilities to disarm and neutralise opponents over sheer damage. Thats it.

So thats all good. Sometimes things simply hurt the campaign by their mere existence. A melting-pot style game tends to be more supportive of all types, (Or at least bad anime stereotypes propagated by adolescent-minded GM's...) and when done well can integrate these ideas well together. It's only too easy to play such a game without proper treatment of it, in my opinion; such games only too quickly devolve into the previously mentioned bad stereotypes.

Our second problem lies on the nature of blatant acceptance of class abilities and fragrance. Our monk smells like Asia and thats a fact. It's not exactly well done Asia at that, but thats how it is. It's certainly possible to change the idea and work abilities for oneself, but a lot of players see the class and go "Kung foo master! yeah!".

In a game that I played in, I amazed a younger player by playing a "Monk" - a tonsured, going-to-flab monk with western monastic flavor. My class was Paladin. He was playing the average kung-fu master and immediately challenged me to a dual, assuming I also played a monk-class with a fascination with kung-fu.

Taking this individual as a general idea is a leap, but in this case the majority of monks that have been played (Or other classes for that matter) tend to define their characters by their class. Individuals do differently; as a general rule, most will play characters named Wong Fei-Hung.

The reasons for contention over the monk is basically that 1. they don't truly fit with our basic setting as they are due to their class and abilities names, not their actual function. Their pseudo magical abilities bypass the S+S duality between physicality (Warriors, theives) and mentality (Mages, intellectuals.) For the monk to fit, extra elements must be added - generally a spiritual and internalised dimension that fits neither of the previous two categories. Fantasy fiction, especially S+S, tends to see excessive spirituality as a waste of time, if not leading into some form of cult. In itself, western fantasy assumes spirituality does not give external power, which is one of the key notions of the monk. It would easily allow a mage to cast a spell to float down a cliff, or a warrior to have trained so well as to seem like it, or for a trick, but rarely will it assume a combination of meditation, spiritual force, and training to allow our monk to rapidly punch a wall to go down slowly. Western fantasy would even prefer divine providence over inner strength as realised in reality through meditation and training.

People don't like the monk because it subconciously forces them to change their internalised hero-myth to one not normally in their culture, to integrate other culture's fantasy. In this respect, change to incorporate other peoples likes and dislikes is neither good nor bad. People like what they like; you are not more enlightened because you prefer other things.



2. People don't like the standard monk because of it's funky abilities. It's not very good at anything; in effect, the GM tends to have a monk-solution to allow the player to do something. The Fighter is better at fighting, the Thief at sneaking, and the pseudo-magic the monk possesses tends to be much more internal than external, effecting little. Again, the GM must make special allowences for our spiritual monk. People also don't like it because it has a spiritual element, which is unfortunate for those who don't want that.

3. Briefly mentioned before, the Monk in standard fantasy is non-upgradable. Unlike our christmas tree fighters or mages, Monks tend to rely on their own bodies. This makes them even weaker than before in a standard D+D game.



*Blinks* I went on forever.

Anyway, if people are after a nifty monk-like with no eastern flavor at all, the Survivor in Thieves World is rather nice for a low magic item game. The Defender is also nice from Midnight.

I like hand-to-hand fighters. I just don't want shinto/shaolin priests messing with my english kuh-ni-cgh-ts.
 

Monks: I don't like the name too, with its either Christian monasticism or Shaolin connotations. But I agree that the class makes for great Haruchai, Dragon-cultists, and what not. I also much agree with a previous poster about the clunky names for the D&D core classes (Barbarian should be Berserker, Cleric should be Crusader, etc.).

Anyway, I thought I should post here this (found on the Internet):

A Brief History of Pankration

The Greek race is certainly well-known for its athletic and military achievements in the PreChristian era. In truth, we must credit them for both the word "athlete" and the ideal it expresses. It was also the Greek soldier who would represent the standard for the rest of the world to follow for centuries. The contribution of the Greeks to the evolution of the martial arts, as we presently know them, is now certainly evident. Fighting systems that have originated in both Eastern and Western parts of the world may indeed be linked to this ancient combat form.

Over 2000 years ago, the ancient Greeks had developed a brutal, all-out combat form which they named Pankration (pronounced pan/cray/shun or pan-crat-ee-on depending on the dialect). The term is derived from the Greek adjectives pan and kratos and is translated to mean "all powers" or "all-encompassing." First introduced into the Olympic Games of 648 B.C., pankration would soon become the most popular and most demanding of all athletic events. It integrated every physical and mental resource - hands and feet, mind and spirit - in the closest simulation of no-holds-barred competitive fighting that any culture has ever allowed. Only biting and gouging were prohibited. Anything else went, although the tough Spartan contingent allowed these, too, in their local athletic festivals. The techniques included a murderous mixture of Hellenic boxing and wrestling: hook and uppercut punches, full-powered kicks, elbowing and kneeing, joint locks, as well as numerous submission chokeholds.

Kicking was an essential part of pankration, especially rising kicks to the groin or stomach, and powerful leg sweeps meant to take an opponent off his feet. Kicks above the belt were used sparingly, with blows aimed to the head or face only when one's adversary was on the ground and too weakened to block or catch the attacker's foot. Due to this unique tactic alone, some combative experts credit pankration as the first comprehensive unarmed fighting system on record.

Pankration bouts were extremely brutal and sometimes life-threatening to the competitors. Rules were minimal in number. In addition, there were no weight divisions and no time limits. The fighting arena or "ring" was no more than twelve to fourteen-feet square to encourage close-quarter action. Referees were armed with stout rods or switches to enforce the rules against biting and gouging. The rules, however, were often broken by some participants who, realizing they were outclassed by a heavier and stronger foe, would resort to such measures to escape being seriously maimed. The contest itself continued uninterrupted until one of the combatants either surrendered, suffered unconsciousness, or, of course, was killed.

Although knockouts were common, most pankration battles were decided on the ground where both striking and submission techniques would freely come into play. Pankratiasts were highly-skilled grapplers and were extremely effective in applying a variety of takedowns, chokes, and punishing joint locks. Strangulation was most feared during ground combat, and was the leading cause of death in matches. A fighter would immediately raise his arm in defeat once his opponent's forearm had secured a firm grip across the windpipe or carotid artery.

The feats of the ancient pankratiasts became legendary in the annals of Greek athletics. Stories abound of past champions and masters who were considered invincible beings. Arrichion, Dioxxipus, and Polydamos are among the most highly-recognized names, their accomplishments defying the odds by besting multiple armed opponents in life-and-death combat, and battling and killing lions when human competition was no longer a feasible challenge. It is also theorized that the famed strongman Hercules was the first Olympic victor in pankration. Exhibitions of superhuman strength were frequently witnessed by the awe-struck Greek people. Practitioners displayed the power of pneuma (Gr. inner energy) by breaking stones and planks with their bare fists and driving their hardened feet through forged war shields.

The Romans would later adopt pankration into their particular athletic contests, but their modifications would degrade it to a mere blood sport. The fighters were now armed with the dreaded caestus, a weighted and spiked glove which reigned blows with deadly results. In Rome it was not unusual for such public brutality, as it was the rule rather than the exception, to quench the spectator's thirst for gore. This alteration, however, diminished the skill and aesthetic value that the Greek race had come to admire in their athletes. Rarely, if ever, did a true Greek pankratiast participate in the savage gladiatorial arenas of Rome, even though the were often tempted by higher purses and positions within the powerful Roman empire.

Pankration was basic to the majority of the Greek warriors who served under Alexander the Great during his invasion of India in 326 B.C. Many authorities now contend that this dispersal of pankration techniques throughout the subcontinent laid the foundation for countless Asian martial arts which evolved soon thereafter, including Chinese kung fu, Okinawan karate, and Japanese jiujitsu. This theory has been the subject of a raging controversy for the past twenty years.
 

A-hA! I've found it!

Here, I have taken the monk and renamed it Pankrationist. I also renamed the class abilities that had too much shaolin flavor.

Pankrationist

Weapon Proficiency: A weapon by any other name... Just change the name and appearance of the monk weapons, and keep them stats. Staff can remain, kama can become griffon's claw, nunchaku can become Hera's Serpents (remember Hera sent two serpents to kill baby Herakles in his cradle), etc...
Armour Class Bonus: Hunter's Awareness (nod to Atalanta)
Flurry of Blows: Hecatoncheire's Hundred Blows.
Unarmed Strike: Remains the same, lots of Greek heroes killed with their bare hands.
Evasion: This can remain the same, as it's easy to visualize light-armored greek warriors dodging blows (pankrationists have to rely on their fleet feet).
Fast Movement: Like Atalanta the Huntress, pankrationists can outrun even the fastest horses in time.
Still Mind: Faith in Self. Pankration is Total Power, so no mind can be weak, specially if one must endure the warrior-training.
Ki Strike: Once again, it's Total Power. This gets renamed Pankration Strike.
Slow Fall: Greece is as mountainous as it gets. It's easy to say that Pankrationists must learn the way of the mountain goat and be as surefooted as the god Pan.
Purity of Body: This is self-explanatory. In a world where magic exists, seeking the perfectness of the human body can have Purity as a side effect.
Wholeness of Body: Same as Purity.
Diamond Body: Same as Purity.
Abundant Step: Hermes' Blessing. For a short moment, the pankrationist reaches the instant travel of Hermes, god of messengers.
Diamond Soul: Same as Purity.
Quivering Palm: Touch of Clothos. The pankrationist begins to understand the workings of Fate, and can work with the twines of life to kill someone from afar.
Timeless Body: Same as Purity. Several Greek heroes were shown to be formidable even in their old age.
Tongue of Sun and Moon: Tongue of the Children of Gaea. All beings are descended from Gaea, and the pankrationist can link to this primal connection.
Empty Body: Olympian Step. So perfect is the pankrationist's body that it begins to border the divine, including stepping into the realm of the gods.
Perfect Self: Olympian Self. The pankrationist finally reaches Total Power, and his mortal form becomes so perfect that it transcends humanity and becomes divine.
 

ruleslawyer said:
Finally, you're going way outside the traditional mix of D&D's fantasy sources with the monk; Tolkien, Howard, Moorcock, Vance, and Poul Anderson have plenty of characters on whom the various D&D classes could be modeled, except for the monk. About the closest you get in fantasy that Gygax would have read is the Donaldson Bloodguard, but they don't have the ki stuff going on.

I'm reasonably certain the Monk class was originally introduced by Dave Arneson, or possibly one of the Blumes, rather than Gygax. And the class was originally based on the "Destroyer" series of books, featuring Remo Williams and Chiun, master of Sinanju, as assassins working for a special agency in the United States government. Not very medieval, but there you go.

As to why they made it into 3E, Johnathon Tweet has addressed that in a Q&A . An excerpt:

Q: What prompted the decision to welcome the monk back into the fold of core character classes?

A: The monk beats up monsters with her bare hands. She can run, jump, and tumble like nobody’s business. She gains one unique special ability after the other, including the legendary quivering palm. Why wouldn’t we want a character like this in the game?

The previous version of D&D was full of restrictions. You can’t buy a simple healing potion because it’s a magic item. You can’t buy a restoration spell because then you’d be getting away with something. You can’t pick locks unless you’re a thief. You can’t play a monk because they’re not medieval. The new game isn’t like that.

That of course was before 3E was released. I think maybe some folks in this thread are overanalyzing things a bit - the monk was included becase the designers thought it'd be a fun class. If it doesn't fit in your world, then fair enough, but I don't think the class is evidence of some insidious eurocentric plot or race-mixing or any of the other weirdness proposed in this thread.
 

The pankration description above is somebody applying a bunch of cross-cultural wishful thinking to ancient Greece. Yes -- unarmed combat was an art. But this idea of pneuma=chi/ki is just nonsense. Furthermore, in ancient Greece, nobody practiced this form of wrestling as a preferred mode of combat except for display purposes. It was an art you learned for those times when you were un/dis-armed or when people wanted to watch public fights. Finally, the art/movement was not a full-time job or lifestyle except as a public show-sport. Pankration was not the Greek cultural equivalent of medieval Qi-Gong; it was the Greek cultural equivalent of modern boxing.
 

Remove ads

Top