Paladin.. monk?

[Brennin Magalus]

What?

Very sharp, hong. I don't think I would have caught the funny without your "what?"

 

[Mad Mac]

There is actually some back-up in the 3.0 DMG(Don't have the new one) for a "Marco Polo" approach to Monks. I quote, "The tradition of monk training started in distant lands but now has become common enough so that local people can go off to monasteries and learn the spiritual and martial arts."

This is, of course, typical core rules fluff, assuming a sort of Greyhawk-lite setting. If you use a published campaign setting, they'll have their own explanation. If you use homebrew, you need to create your own. And if you're looking for an easy way out, either the "Marco Polo" or "You aren't from around here" approach is a reasonable way to go. (Unless your campaign setting is utterly unlike the real world in its stiffling mono-cultural conformity.)

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You know, it's odd but for me, the Western "monk" is the stronger archtype. i.e. the brown-robed, tonsured "Friar Tuck" image of a monk. The line of brown-robed and hooded individuals chanting in unison as they walk into the chapel -type "monk."

This type of monk certainly fits into a Western medieval fantasy setting, like a duck to water.

The issue comes up when we look at the Monk class, which emphasizes Eastern flavor in the names and descriptions of its special powers. "Ki" techniques..."Tongue of the Sun and Moon" etc. etc. Reading the class description, someone is bound to (and intended to) get the the feeling that the class is based on the Eastern "Shao-lin" monk archtype.

The solution here, for me as a DM, is to make it clear to the players that there is a very real distinction between in-game terminology and meta-game terminology. If I introduce a PC or NPC as a "warrior" that doesn't mean he has levels in the Warrior Class. If I describe a man as a "powerful looking fighter" that doesn't mean he has levels in the Fighter Class. He could be anything from a Barbarian to a Ranger to a Bladesinger, to a Bard.

Naturally, smart players will figure out a character's actual class levels by observing their abilities, which is perfectly fine. But I warn them not to assume an individual's abilities based on the names of classes, which are simply too general to put any stock into when referred to in-character.

So the key for your game is to make this distinction to the other player. Explain to him (or ask the DM to explain to him,) that when he was introduced as a monk, it was a decription of how he fits into the game world--as a brown-robed pilgrim who appears to have come from a monastery. Not necessarily that he's a member of the monk class. And that he (your character) has no Asian/Shao-lin trappings whatsoever.

Regarding the other PC...well, it's up to the DM to determine if a "Shao-lin"-type monk is appropriate for his game. Since he is actually playing the Monk class, an Asian-themed monk certainly fits with his class abilities, and with a bit of finangling can be explained away as a foreigner in a distant land, story-wise. Though it's also certainly possible to play the Monk-class and re-flavor it to resemble a tonsured-monk that's trained in unarmed combat as well, such as a Knight Templar or other monastic-knight order. This is something that that individual player would need to work out (or has worked out) with the DM.

 

[fusangite]

You know, it's odd but for me, the Western "monk" is the stronger archtype. i.e. the brown-robed, tonsured "Friar Tuck" image of a monk. The line of brown-robed and hooded individuals chanting in unison as they walk into the chapel -type "monk."

I agree that Friar Tuck is the closest thing we have to the monk archetype -- unarmoured, staff-wielding and quite an ass-kicker. He would be my starting point too if I tried to harmonize western-style setting with the monk class. That stated, if I were told to just build Friar Tuck using D&D rules, I would probably start with a fighter and not a monk.

The issue comes up when we look at the Monk class, which emphasizes Eastern flavor in the names and descriptions of its special powers. "Ki" techniques..."Tongue of the Sun and Moon" etc. etc. Reading the class description, someone is bound to (and intended to) get the the feeling that the class is based on the Eastern "Shao-lin" monk archtype.

But you see, it's not just the flavour language -- it's the abilities of the class and the basic premise. There are no popular stories in the West about people being more lethal without weapons than with them, and certainly no idea that through study and discipline, one can better develop this capacity. Even in the case of Friar Tuck, nobody would assume he could kill people better with his bare hands than with his staff. This stems from the fact the the West has a different theory of the body than the East -- that the relationship between the body and metaphyisics changes when you cross the Adriatic Sea. And certainly nobody would buy the idea that as Friar Tuck became more powerful, he would eventually become lighter and lighter, allowing him to control his falls or run faster than any non-magical person.

The solution here, for me as a DM, is to make it clear to the players that there is a very real distinction between in-game terminology and meta-game terminology. If I introduce a PC or NPC as a "warrior" that doesn't mean he has levels in the Warrior Class. If I describe a man as a "powerful looking fighter" that doesn't mean he has levels in the Fighter Class. He could be anything from a Barbarian to a Ranger to a Bladesinger, to a Bard.

I think your approach is a good one -- and one that I've seen work. Personally, I do the same, although I supplement it by also harmonizing class names with the terminology of my world.

Naturally, smart players will figure out a character's actual class levels by observing their abilities, which is perfectly fine. But I warn them not to assume an individual's abilities based on the names of classes, which are simply too general to put any stock into when referred to in-character. So the key for your game is to make this distinction to the other player. Explain to him (or ask the DM to explain to him,) that when he was introduced as a monk, it was a decription of how he fits into the game world--as a brown-robed pilgrim who appears to have come from a monastery. Not necessarily that he's a member of the monk class. And that he (your character) has no Asian/Shao-lin trappings whatsoever.

I'm with you on the solution to this particular problem 100%, whatever differences of opinion we might have about the genre compatibility of the class itself.

Regarding the other PC...well, it's up to the DM to determine if a "Shao-lin"-type monk is appropriate for his game. Since he is actually playing the Monk class, an Asian-themed monk certainly fits with his class abilities, and with a bit of finangling can be explained away as a foreigner in a distant land, story-wise.

This does seem to be the most efficient solution to the particular problem with which we've been presented.

Though it's also certainly possible to play the Monk-class and re-flavor it to resemble a tonsured-monk that's trained in unarmed combat as well, such as a Knight Templar or other monastic-knight order.

Aren't the Knights Templar far closer to Paladins than to monks? Who ever heard of a Templar who eschewed armour and didn't use a sword? And who ever heard of a mendicant friar being known for his incredible speed?

Guys, I just have to say: why is it so important to everyone that European tradition already contain every heroic archetype we think is cool? I personally find it refreshing that our culture has taken to Asian heroic archetypes so readily that they have eclipsed many of our own. Hopefully, we'll eventually warm to the rest of Asian fantasy just as much so that we can actually start building settings in which these guys belong.

 

[D+1]

The class is unsuitable for a European style fantasy game because there is no European fantasy archetype to which it corresponds.

Oh come on, it's fantasy. Everything corresponds when you accept that the entire foundation upon which you're building is rooted in UNreality. You can accept dragons, orcs, mind flayers, and beholders in this FANTASY world, but NOT humans with epicanthic folds and a Buddhist philosophy (because clearly that was never found in Europe...)?

Monks will always be Asian because there is nothing in Western tradition upon which to base the class.

Strangely enough I tend to think of monks looking and acting a LOT more like Obi-wan Kenobi or a fit, fighting, ass-kicking Friar Tuck, NOT Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan or Chow Yun Fat. It could not be more irrelevant that there is no "Western" tradition of monks in the vein of ninjas or shaolin because (apparantly it requires repeating) it's fantasy. At least in proper fantasy that I'm familiar with (where one actually uses the imagination) it is emininently feasible and perhaps even desireable to plunk a shaolin monk right smack dab in the middle of Camelot as a knight of the round table, or pit ninjas against vikings, or samurai fighting against Saruman and Sauron without batting an eyelash.

But the West lacks a specialist unarmed fighter.

Which perhaps is why we import monks into D&D.

A centurion who went to the gymnasium on the weekend to wrestle still preferred to have a gladius. Hercules and Beowulf, though highly competent at unarmed fighting were more proficient with weapons than without.

So why is it a problem for a campaign setting to potentially provide an answer to questions like - if Bruce Lee fought Hercules over the hand of Cleopatra in marriage, who would win?

Only in Asian theories of magic does the eschewing of weapons and armour make one a better unarmed fighter. For this reason, the monk class will always be Asian and always be magical.

Well my understanding of Asian magical theory is clearly lacking. I have NEVER thought of monks as magical. I have always thought of them as achieving their abilities through intense physical and mental training, not magic.

This point to a basic underlying truth here that we all basically know: people with thick armour and big sharp metal weapons will always be better at killing people than people without those things, barring some kind of magical agency.

Well I would say "extra-normal enhancement" or something similar rather than "magical agency" but I would otherwise agree with that.

 

[D+1]

Now, there's no monks in this particular medieval brand of world, though there are skilled unarmed fighters (With the class Monk. Their powers are divine in origin.)

The guy, thinking he has to be asian, spouts peaceful buddhist philosophy and acts as if he has an asian accent. He's confused why my character (A "Monk") has so much charisma and diplomacy. We finally get into combat, and starts acting all wacky japanese about death before dishonour and so on.

Note - I shall repeat, this world is heavily medieval. Monks are treated differently. He's told this repeatedly. Still, the guy acts asian. He's confused why I'm called a 'Monk'.

Well it's not the monk class, it's the player that is the problem. It shouldn't be that difficult to wrap ones head around the notion of a non-Asian, non-Buddhist monk, but I can understand why it nonetheless IS a problem for some people.

So. Here's the question - Is the Monk really suitable for a standard Fantasy game?

As much as any other class. Frankly, I find Gnomes far less suitable for my D&D games than anything else.

The deal, however, is that IF a DM is going to run a campaign where Asian-oriented monks are NOT acceptible, then it's up to the DM to first ascertain that all players are willing and capable of playing within such restrictions. Then they need to explain those restrictions clearly and carefully rather than just assume everyone at the table is on the same page. Then if it turns out that someone can't wrap their brain around it and play it "correctly", to have decided ahead of time how to deal with it. That way you don't get players who have to have it repeatedly explained to them why their Asian, Buddhist monk doesn't FIT the game setting, generating complaints.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I've a new character that I'm quite keen on. He's a level 1 paladin - but he dresses in plain brown robes, has a tonsured head and hides his broadsword and shield, preferring the simpler life of a pilgrim. most of his skills lie in diplomacy and Perform: Song.

At any rate, I was introduced and described as a "Monk". Fair enough - I was from a monastery after all.

First meeting with the other player characters, I'm immediately challenged to a test of skill in combat with another character - this time the class "Monk". Now, there's no monks in this particular medieval brand of world, though there are skilled unarmed fighters (With the class Monk. Their powers are divine in origin.)

The guy, thinking he has to be asian, spouts peaceful buddhist philosophy and acts as if he has an asian accent. He's confused why my character (A "Monk") has so much charisma and diplomacy. We finally get into combat, and starts acting all wacky japanese about death before dishonour and so on.

Note - I shall repeat, this world is heavily medieval. Monks are treated differently. He's told this repeatedly. Still, the guy acts asian. He's confused why I'm called a 'Monk'.

*sigh*.

What is it with this Monk class? I've read some things about people trying to make it more western in flavor - but no matter what, any monk that plays in our games tends to have asian ideas and philosophies.

So. Here's the question - Is the Monk really suitable for a standard Fantasy game?

I like that Paladin idea...but I'm interested in how he has a broadsword in 3e! Does he also wear ring mail?

IMO, yes it is, since there were martial arts traditions in Rome similar to the ones everyone thinks of when someone says "martial arts."

The player of that monk isn't suited for a Euro-centric Fantasy game, though.

The class is unsuitable for a European style fantasy game because there is no European fantasy archetype to which it corresponds.

Monks will always be Asian because there is nothing in Western tradition upon which to base the class. There were western monks and friars who would correspond nicely to unarmoured clerics. But the West lacks a specialist unarmed fighter. People have cast about desperately for European examples of such things but they end up falling apart because there is just no tradition of any type of European fighter being more effective when they eschew armour and weapons than when they use them -- and that's what the monk class models. A centurion who went to the gymnasium on the weekend to wrestle still preferred to have a gladius. Hercules and Beowulf, though highly competent at unarmed fighting were more proficient with weapons than without.

Only in Asian theories of magic does the eschewing of weapons and armour make one a better unarmed fighter. For this reason, the monk class will always be Asian and always be magical. This point to a basic underlying truth here that we all basically know: people with thick armour and big sharp metal weapons will always be better at killing people than people without those things, barring some kind of magical agency.

Um, gee...
No Western archetypes? Not that people know much about, no...

http://www.tibetankungfu.com/pankration.htm

Heres a nifty webside that made me put monks back in my game. Well, that and ruling that they use Adept-like magic for their higher level abilities.

 

[TanisFrey]

The class is unsuitable for a European style fantasy game because there is no European fantasy archetype to which it corresponds.

Monks will always be Asian because there is nothing in Western tradition upon which to base the class. There were western monks and friars who would correspond nicely to unarmoured clerics. But the West lacks a specialist unarmed fighter. People have cast about desperately for European examples of such things but they end up falling apart because there is just no tradition of any type of European fighter being more effective when they eschew armour and weapons than when they use them -- and that's what the monk class models. A centurion who went to the gymnasium on the weekend to wrestle still preferred to have a gladius. Hercules and Beowulf, though highly competent at unarmed fighting were more proficient with weapons than without.

Acient Greece and Rome had three, YES THREE, types of unarmed fighters. Boxers, Wrestle and a third that was extremeil brutial combationa of the first 2. I cannot remember its name right now. There are several famus olimpic battels recorded that survive to today. One is a boxing match were the winner throug not a single punch. He was so good at avioding his opponet that the opponet gave up after 5 hours of the fight not landing a single blow.

 

[fusangite]

TanisFrey,

I'm not articulating that people didn't study unarmed fighting or engaging in contests thereof in the Greco-Roman world. So why are you trotting out evidence that this very obvious thing happened when I acknowledge and draw attention to it in my own posts?

Unarmed wrestling was a big leisure activity for educated affluent men in the Greco-Roman world. But it produced no heroic archetypes. There are all kinds of popular recreational activities that don't produce heroic archetypes. Sodomy was also a very popular recreational activity amongst this very same group and it didn't produce any heroic archetypes either.

Oh come on, it's fantasy. Everything corresponds when you accept that the entire foundation upon which you're building is rooted in UNreality.

Well, bring on the lightbulb-eater character class then. If you think that the fantasy genre encompasses everything that is "not reality," I don't think we have enough in common to continue the discussion.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Acient Greece and Rome had three, YES THREE, types of unarmed fighters. Boxers, Wrestle and a third that was extremeil brutial combationa of the first 2. I cannot remember its name right now. There are several famus olimpic battels recorded that survive to today. One is a boxing match were the winner throug not a single punch. He was so good at avioding his opponet that the opponet gave up after 5 hours of the fight not landing a single blow.

Sure, but I'm guessing all three types would have been handily chopped to pieces by the Roman Legionnaires, which was a part of fusangite's point. That Western unarmed combatants are generally considered inferior to their armed opponents, whereas Eastern culture has a tradition of unarmed combatants which can transcend their armed adversaries. The monk as written is patterned on that Eastern wuxia philosophy, where an unarmed combatant develops mystical powers that allow him to do greater-than-weapon damage with his bare hands, move faster than the eye, and eventually transcend mortality altogether.

It isn't that there weren't unarmed combatants in the Western medieval world. It's that they weren't effective, they aren't archtypes of the period, and they aren't represented in the D&D monk class.

Oh come on, it's fantasy. Everything corresponds when you accept that the entire foundation upon which you're building is rooted in UNreality. You can accept dragons, orcs, mind flayers, and beholders in this FANTASY world, but NOT humans with epicanthic folds and a Buddhist philosophy (because clearly that was never found in Europe...)?

This is a strawman argument. Yes, of course, a DM can create a world that incorporates anything and everything in a hodgepodge of elements under the blanket explanation that "it's fantasy" and be done with it.

However, the fact that anything can exist in an "unreality" doesn't mean that everything should or must. Many DMs aim for a campaign setting with a certain degree of internal consistancy, some of them by patterning their world after a certain real-world time period and location. In the case of the OP, it seems the DM has decided to aim for a medieval European setting, at least as a base upon which to build. Therefore, there will be elements that won't fit in the campaign. An Asian/Shao-lin monk is certainly something that a DM might decide doesn't fit regularly into his Western medieval campaign, since such individuals didn't roam Western Europe.

As I stated before, it wouldn't be too difficult to insert a Quai Chang Kane -type "wandering Asian monk" into such a campaign, but that is a matter of DM's preroggative and player negotiation.

At least in proper fantasy that I'm familiar with (where one actually uses the imagination) it is emininently feasible and perhaps even desireable to plunk a shaolin monk right smack dab in the middle of Camelot as a knight of the round table, or pit ninjas against vikings, or samurai fighting against Saruman and Sauron without batting an eyelash.

I'm not sure what "proper fantasy" you're referencing, but to me "proper" fantasy has a bit more consistancy than merely throwing elements of a dozen different sources together and mixing vigorously. Jedi fighting Vikings fighting Samurai fighting Saruman can work in the proper venue (Planescape comes to mind, or Dragonstar, though I've never actually used that setting,) but it's certainly not the only "proper" fantasy. And it's certainly not the only type of campaign that uses the imagination. Indeed, I'd assert that it takes less imagination to simply throw every possible fictional character/concept into a single campaign, than to generate a cohesive, believable world that only embraces elements consistant with the campaign's nature.

Even in the case of Friar Tuck, nobody would assume he could kill people better with his bare hands than with his staff. This stems from the fact the the West has a different theory of the body than the East -- that the relationship between the body and metaphyisics changes when you cross the Adriatic Sea. And certainly nobody would buy the idea that as Friar Tuck became more powerful, he would eventually become lighter and lighter, allowing him to control his falls or run faster than any non-magical person.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post, but I agree with you here. The Monk class as written definitely embraces the Eastern concept of unarmed combat, both in the flavor text, and the abilities themselves.

Aren't the Knights Templar far closer to Paladins than to monks? Who ever heard of a Templar who eschewed armour and didn't use a sword? And who ever heard of a mendicant friar being known for his incredible speed?

Well, I did mention that you'd have to rework some things. From what I understand, the Knights Templar were very much Western-style monks most of the time, living apart, wearing the brown robes, etc. Though they did fight with sword and shield. So the Knight Templar example itself would be a better fit for the OP's paladin, as you point out.

But I do think it possible to create a similar order, based on unarmed combat and speed, that could also present itself as a tonsured monk that would fit more cleanly into a Western european setting. Basically, I'm suggesting that one need not bar the Monk class from a Western european setting, if a player truly has his heart set on the class abilities. You merely need to rework the flavor to fit into the setting.

Guys, I just have to say: why is it so important to everyone that European tradition already contain every heroic archetype we think is cool? I personally find it refreshing that our culture has taken to Asian heroic archetypes so readily that they have eclipsed many of our own. Hopefully, we'll eventually warm to the rest of Asian fantasy just as much so that we can actually start building settings in which these guys belong.

I don't particularly find it important that every archtype fit into every game. Indeed, I don't assume that in my own campaign. But I am the sort of DM who tries to give the players as much freedom to play what they wish as possible. So whenever I have a player who comes to me with a concept that's inspired him, I want to give him the chance to play that, if possible. At that point, we come down to the nitty-gritty of the player getting to play what he wants, while at the same time fitting into my campaign smoothly. That's where my suggestions are coming from. An attempt to provide ways for the player to play his Monk class, while at the same time not invalidate the DM's chosen campaign world.