Paladin.. monk?

[fusangite]

And isn't the creation of a D&D campaign an exercise in creating NEW literature and myth, that while using elements from established literature, myth, and real-world example OWES NOTHING to them in terms of needing to follow the strictures responsible for their creation.

Well, first of all, we cannot unilaterally create myth; the creation of myth is a largely unintentional societal process. But yes, one can use RPGs to create stories that are a decisive break with all literary and mythological traditions. But that's actually a very very very hard thing to do when one is writing literature. And D&D is less than ideally suited for that; while some core classes reference generic transcultural archetypes, others reference very specifically Western things.

D&D would therefore have to have a lot of its core classes ripped out or significantly modified in order to achieve this, starting with the Barbarian. Certainly, the D20 system can detatch itself from the West but D&D, as written, is strongly western-flavoured.

What I really cannot conceive of is a game that references nothing; this violates my understanding both of how human memory works and of how RPG players tend to understand the world in which their character is situated. However, there are nevertheless some good examples of game worlds that are not referencing Europe primarily but instead really breaking with Western tradition. Barsoomcore's Barsoom world here is an excellent example but in order to make a world that doesn't call up for people all these associations with European tradition, many monsters were removed and a number of changes were made to the rules. D&D's European heritage is something from which one can escape; but this escape is not exactly enabled by the core rules as written.

Now, if you were to confront me with the following problem: what kind of world could I design in which the monk would not be out of place, my response would be: any of the following:
1. A highly cosmopolitan world that is kind of a fantasy genre recapitulation of Hollywood-style pop culture literature and film.
2. A world that was essentially monocultural but a monoculture based on taking modern cultures in roughly equal proportions and stuffing them in a mixmaster.
3. An Oriental world.
4. A "Pacific Rim" kind of world where the dominant culture was sort of a Hong Kong/San Francisco/Tokyo/Vancouver fairly equal fusion of Asian and Western elements.

And I'm just a tad confused so maybe a restatement of elementary position would be useful to more people than just myself.

What options 2-4 have in common is they need more Oriental material than the core rules provide. And that's been the point I have reiterated again and again on this thread. The monk cannot fit culturally with the current level of support provided for it in the core rules. We need to either drop the monk from the core and consign him to an Oriental Adventures book or we need to take more Oriental monsters, classes and pre-modern science and place them in the core rules. I don't care which. But the way we are currently resourced under the core rules, every attempt to make world type 2-4 turns into world type 1.

So, yep there are certainly conditions in which the monk can feel out of place. What ARE those conditions? In my opinion one of the biggest such conditions is when there is an insistence that monks be considered genuinely oriental and that the campaign in which they appear be patterned specifically after some given literary, mythical or real-world basis which produced the INSPIRATION for the D&D monk.

But it's not just "inspired by" Oriental archetypes. It references them. You have to change the text of the core rules to stop it doing so. So, yes I agree with you. If the monk is played the way it is described in the core rules, it's usually out of place because the description in the core leaves people absolutely no doubt that this is an Oriental character class.

Now if that isn't your assertion then I've misread/misunderstood. My contention is simply that there isn't much of a legitimate argument that monks as written inherently "don't fit/don't belong" in D&D. Their very inclusion as part of the Core Rules defeats that. They ARE part of D&D.

This is an absurd argument. D&D rules are rules. They are not Scripture. While one can make the argument that if something is in the Bible it can't be inconsistent with the Bible, one can't make that argument about the three D&D core books. Of course D&D has the capacity for internal inconsistency; resolving inconsistencies in the text is one of the reasons why we get new editions of the game periodically. So, of course, like any other system, D&D has the capacity to have parts that are inconsistent.

You don't have to include them in any/all campaigns any more than you have to include paladins, spells above 5th level, alignments or even Humans(!). But by virtue of their mere presence it is effectively asserted that they most certainly CAN be included in campaigns without needing to explain in any depth how or why.

Only if you maintain your above assumption that the rules are some kind of holy writ that cannot be flawed.

Can you demonstrate that it DOESN'T? And why would you need to prove it one way or another?

You were asserting that the D&D monk references ascetics generally; I was asserting that it doesn't. That's why I asked you to show one or more ways that the monk class is more congruent with an non-Oriental ascetic than with an Oriental one.

What IS it that you say the D&D monk is? Does it belong in D&D and if not, why not?

Forgive me if this makes me cranky. I wish you could just read what I've already posted on this thread instead of demanding that I restate my position again; I get the feeling this discussion is a war of attrition where I'll eventually be forced to slink off because I'm so fatigued from repeating myself. But here goes:

The three core books provide sufficient resources to play certain kinds of settings. They provide sufficient resources, with the core classes they provide, the monsters they stat, the basic universe they describe to play in a modernist generic European fantasy world. In order to play in an Asian fantasy world, one must create a bunch of core classes, prestige classes, new weapon proficiency lists, monsters, etc. or purchase separate material describing them.

In other words, the core books provide sufficient resources to start a campaign but they do not provide sufficient resources to start a campaign in which the monk belongs. So, there is a problem with the core rules in that they do not provide sufficient support for one of the classes they describe. For instance, Asian monsters comprise less than 10% of the Monster Manual; Asian classes comprise less than 10% of the Players' Handbook; all Asian weapons are listed as Exotic; the core has four elements: Earth/Air/Water/Fire and one must go to supplementary materials to find support for the Earth/Fire/Water/Metal/Wood system.

There are two possible solutions to this problem: put all the Asian stuff in supplementary material or jack up the portion of Asian classes, monsters, etc. to a minimum of 25% of the core. Then if a GM wants to design a world where the monk fits in, he has the resources to do so.

But however Gary may have envisioned them for Greyhawk there are no rules now for how/why they should be included in D&D in general. They just are. I don't understand any insistence that that is insufficient for general purposes.

Unlike some threads, I'm really not alone here. Most people who have posted to recent monk threads have the same problem I do. And as I explained above, and what people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that I'm not saying the monk can't fit in D&D; what I am saying is that the monk doesn't belong in the core as it is presently structured.

My inclusion of monks into the general campaign world only needs to maintain SELF-consistency. It needs to be reasonable and justified in the world which I create and it is.

I'm not saying that this is not possible; I am saying that unless one wants to represent a highly modern world in medieval drag, the core rules don't give one sufficient resources to insert monks.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Now, if you were to confront me with the following problem: what kind of world could I design in which the monk would not be out of place, my response would be: any of the following:
1. A highly cosmopolitan world that is kind of a fantasy genre recapitulation of Hollywood-style pop culture literature and film.

Ah! And I would argue this is in fact where we are with DnD as we have it. Though I think that DnD is in fact a larger recapitulation than Hollywood has yet acheived. Were I to assign a literary genre to DnD it would certainly be closer to a Mennipean Satire than a novel. There is a European base, but I think it is merely the lettuce to DnD's tossed salad. Certainly it is possible to pick out the other vegetables and artfully arrange what remains, And in any tossed salad there are going to be plenty of people who want to do just that, but it strikes me as silly to complain to the chef and other patrons about the tomatoes being in there in the first place.

On the other hand, it's perfectly appropriate to complain that the tomatoes aren't all that great in their own right.

In other words, the core books provide sufficient resources to start a campaign but they do not provide sufficient resources to start a campaign in which the monk belongs. So, there is a problem with the core rules in that they do not provide sufficient support for one of the classes they describe. For instance, Asian monsters comprise less than 10% of the Monster Manual; Asian classes comprise less than 10% of the Players' Handbook; all Asian weapons are listed as Exotic; the core has four elements: Earth/Air/Water/Fire and one must go to supplementary materials to find support for the Earth/Fire/Water/Metal/Wood system.

I obviously I have some limited disagreement with this on a number of levels, but I would point out that I think that a significant portion of the feats, enough that I might claim a majority, are in fact probably closer to Asian fantasy tropes than Western ones and the majority of Asian weapons are in fact not listed as exotic. A spear is a spear is a spear. In fact it may be a strike against your argument that there aren't more, say, Celtic weapons. On the face of it the DnD verse does appear to have a significant 'Asian' cultural element.

Overall, though, I agree with you that this has been covered in the thread already. Just don't know that I would say that the core books are actually sufficient. You as player or DM have to bring to the table either through purchase or homebrew an embarassing amount of supplemental material.

Regardless, perfection! I'm going back to erase my prior post and we can now discuss the real dynamics of paladins as archetypes in western fantasy till we reach book length and can all put our names on a collection.

 

[fusangite]

but I would point out that I think that a significant portion of the feats, enough that I might claim a majority, are in fact probably closer to Asian fantasy tropes than Western ones

You know, I had never thought of that. But the moment you say it it makes perfect sense. That's a really interesting observation I'll have to mull over; I think we can associate it with all kinds of Asiatic fighting styles making it into Western fantasy movies these days as well. Food for thought.

On the face of it the DnD verse does appear to have a significant 'Asian' cultural element.

I think it is interesting the the distinctively 3E things -- ie. the skills and feats system have far more of those elements than the older sections of the game like the spells, classes, etc.

Unfortunately, class archetypes tend to overwhelm the interestingly cosmopolitan skill and feat systems when it comes to the feel of the game over all.

Anyway, I'm sure we can find some other poor unsuspecting thread that we can seize control of and force in an academic occult direction now.

 

[Henry Hankovich]

Look...when you get right down to it, lots of the character classes in D&D are based on relatively arbitrary archetypes, rather than common historical or mythical/cultural figures. There's no "Western European" tradition of "the guy who runs through the woods with an animal companion, fighting with two swords." There are certainly woodsman/ranger archetypes--but the Ranger class has a lot of features, such as two-weapon-fighting and divine spellcasting--that mark it as an construct of modern fiction, rather than some historical figure.

The same goes for the Druid, only more so. It's basically a late-20th-century agglutinate of Amerindian and Aboriginal "noble savages," mythical shapeshifters, and environmentalist versions of 'pagan' or 'Wiccan' religions. It's a character class that is completely unrecognizable outside of contemporary fantasy-fiction.

For that matter, even the "eastern kung-fu monk" archetype that the D&D Monk class dwas so heavily upon, is a 20th century creation, rather than a historical 'reality.' That is to say, while the Eastern martial arts themselves have a very long history, and have their own mythologies and philosophies, the D&D Monk is based more on cheeseball 1970s kung-fu movies, than on some sort of 'historical' concept of martial arts. Frankly, combat in the Far Eastern world was much the same as everywhere else--wars consisted of people with armor, swords, spears, and bows and arrows smashing into each other, rather than monks in orange robes leaping around spinning staffs over their heads.

So in short--nearly all "thematic" elements of D&D stem not from any sort of coherent historical or mythical "tradition," but instead are completely modern creations, screwball combinations of mythology, movies, pulp SF/fantasy and Tolkein, comic books, and the infinite variations of modern, non-Christian occultism. Once you embrace that the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue, and all those other classes, don't stem from any 'tradition' deeper than a bunch of stoner kids playing games in their basement, the problem of the "Eastern" versus "Western" monk is pretty much pointless.

And confusions regarding terminology, I would argue, stem more from unimaginative roleplaying than anything else. After all, the original meaning of "cleric" refers simply to priests or other religious leaders. In-game, it's rather silly to assume that all holy-warriors will refer to each other and themselves as simply "Clerics," as opposed to priests, "Warriors of [deity]," Templars, Brother/Sisterhoods, or whatever.

It seems to me that the confrontation described in the original post, was more a problem of poor or unimaginative roleplaying (perhaps more on the other, unarmed-fighter "monk's" part, rather than the paladin's player).

On a different note: There are a few interesting paladin/monk archetypes that can be played. The FRCS has the "Broken Ones," which are Paladin/Monks of Ilmater. Which make sense, since holy warriors of a self-sacrificing, commoner deity would probably revere a tradition of fighting with hands and feet, and simple 'peasant' weapons.

Also, there's an interesting character in a (non D&D) fantasy book, Return of the Blue Moon, by the name of Jericho Lament. He's basically a self-appointed herald of "God," who goes around punishing "sinners" with his bare hands and a walking staff. His incredible strength and skill, of course, he attributes to divine grace. I've always thought that would make an interesting way of playing a D&D monk, monk/cleric, or monk/paladin...

 

[fusangite]

Look...when you get right down to it, lots of the character classes in D&D are based on relatively arbitrary archetypes, rather than common historical or mythical/cultural figures. There's no "Western European" tradition of "the guy who runs through the woods with an animal companion, fighting with two swords."

I agree. But this is just part of what makes the Ranger class a silly failure. The two-fisted wildernazi is hardly compelling.

There are certainly woodsman/ranger archetypes--but the Ranger class has a lot of features, such as two-weapon-fighting and divine spellcasting--that mark it as an construct of modern fiction, rather than some historical figure.

If that, even.

The same goes for the Druid, only more so. It's basically a late-20th-century agglutinate of Amerindian and Aboriginal "noble savages," mythical shapeshifters, and environmentalist versions of 'pagan' or 'Wiccan' religions. It's a character class that is completely unrecognizable outside of contemporary fantasy-fiction.

Archetypes are always being comprehended through the time in which they appear. I agree that modern ideas of "nature" and the silly associations with neo-paganism and some kind of transcultural natural holy man are the way that we are comprehending this archetype but what makes it an archetype is that we can trace its various forms back hundreds or thousands of years. In this way, the druid is quite different from the ranger in that it is a modern expression of an existing archetype rather than an incoherent and now severely distorted homage to one character in an admittedly important fantasy novel.

 

[Henry Hankovich]

I agree that modern ideas of "nature" and the silly associations with neo-paganism and some kind of transcultural natural holy man are the way that we are comprehending this archetype but what makes it an archetype is that we can trace its various forms back hundreds or thousands of years. In this way, the druid is quite different from the ranger in that it is a modern expression of an existing archetype rather than an incoherent and now severely distorted homage to one character in an admittedly important fantasy novel.

True. But the problem is, the "existing archetypes" we're talking about don't stem from any one tradition or culture. They represent modern stereotypes of figures that emerged thousands of years apart, on completely different continents. The Druid is a mishmash of Amerindian "medicine men" and prehistoric European cults...which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, except that some gamers found it convenient and interesting to mash them together.

Which, frankly, is much the same situation that the Monk comes from. It's not as though it emerges from some pure "Eastern tradition" that is alien to the D&D setting, any more than Cheyenne medicine men, Jewish golems, Norse underground-folk, or Tolkein-esque Robin Hoods are, themselves. So bitching about how the Monk "doesn't fit" in D&D, any more than these others, is frankly rather silly.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I would like a good shaman, I think that in terms of larger fantasy archetypes DnD is missing a dedicated summoner or spirit dealer. The Sha'ir in Arabian Adventures filled that out nicely, if quirkilly, in 2e, but I've yet to see its equivalent since. The Druid certainly doesn't do it.

Dr S, have you had a look at the Greenbond from Arcana Unearthed (or now presumably Arcana Evolved)? Although it isn't strictly a spirit summoner/binder/dealer he does make an interesting druid substitute

Preview is here

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_MHB1_preview_greenbond

Their verbal components are invocations to the spirits, but more significantly they have a number of powers which enable them to interact with a spirit world surrounding all things

Percipience (Su): Starting at 6th level, greenbonds can see
and hear nature spirits otherwise imperceptible to mortals
(unless a spirit wishes to show itself). The character finds
this ability disconcerting at first, because it makes him realize
how pervasive spirits are: They are everywhere, all the time—
although only rarely do they pay attention to the actions of
mortals. Greenbonds sometimes become alerted to danger
when the nature spirits of an area are upset or absent.

and

Speak With Spirits (Su): The 8th-level and higher greenbond
can speak with the spirit of a tree, a brook, the air, or
any other part of nature that he touches...

Cheers

 

[fusangite]

It's not as though it emerges from some pure "Eastern tradition" that is alien to the D&D setting, any more than Cheyenne medicine men, Jewish golems, Norse underground-folk, or Tolkein-esque Robin Hoods are, themselves. So bitching about how the Monk "doesn't fit" in D&D, any more than these others, is frankly rather silly.

So, Cheyenne medicine men excepted, you listed a series of medieval European mythological references and then stated that somehow they were equally as "out of place" in European fantasy tradition as a Shaolin monk. Sorry but the fact that one can make the case that various things are, to a greater or lesser degree, out of place in D&D does not make them all equally out of place; it makes them out of place to a greater or lesser degree. Like it or not, there is a much much shorter distance between Parzifal and a Norse dark elf or Jewish golem than there is between Parzifal and a Shaolin monk.

Golems, dark elves, Robin Hood and the various sources that Tolkien used to construct his world were all parts of medieval Europe; monks running up walls weren't. Because of D&D's evident relationship with faux medieval fantasy, it is necessary to treat monks differently than these other things. Is it necessary to drum them out of the game? No. Is it necessary to make certain accommodations or be more sensitized to certain possible inconsistencies? Yes.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Unfortunately, class archetypes tend to overwhelm the interestingly cosmopolitan skill and feat systems when it comes to the feel of the game over all.

Anyway, I'm sure we can find some other poor unsuspecting thread that we can seize control of and force in an academic occult direction now.

I certainly hope so, interestingly, however, the class archetype system does get picked up, in some sense, by most games that do do a distinctly Asian flavor.

I feel it's somewhat unfair of me to bring in Weapons of the Gods again as my counterpoint, but it's a pretty perfect example in this case.

In that game you have three basic classes/archetypes: courtier, scholar, and warrior. And actually it is that basic class system, and theway it runs magic, that makes me most excited about it as a game for simulating romantic chivalric literature. Though until I began discussing it with you I hadn't really discovered the fact that in my own hand I'm specifically focusing on those elements of that tradition that, while they may be very Christian in flavor, are distinctly divorced from the Christ moment you described earlier, because in those cases the relationship between courtier, scholar, and warrior is perfect for describing how those relationships work in Arthurian, Homeric, or even George RR Martins chivalric works.

The point to our conversation at hand is that the actual kung fu element of the game is very bound in the choosing of feats. The class features are far more basic and pervasive than they are defining of action. As a result I wonder if, among the Monk's other strange qualities, it gets a low score because it really ties the kung fu - which if you take my 'light as the dew' translation into 'leaping about' then I translate 'kung fu'='virture powered bad assitude' - to a single class track.

Though in looking at it, in most Kung Fu based games you might as well define Kung Fu techniques as a sub-class system rather than feat based.

Oriental adventures did something to releave that burden but it doesn't change the fact that Monk is still a very very narrow view of that archetype even from an Oriental perspective. Note that the first change made to the monk was to give it free feat choice.

Well, it's interesting discussion and I certainly didn't mean to make anyone feel like it was a war of attrition, I was just having a hard time finding the right point to anchor the argument I wanted to make on.