Paladin.. monk?

[Seeten]

Here is my biggest question:

Why arent you all playing with only the classes that fit THE setting your game is set in?

For instance, our DM started our game set in Stephen R Donaldson's "The Land" which has no Gods and No Clerics. It does have a strong martial arts tradition, where the MA's are identical to the monk class(read the books for more info, rumor says they are good) but clerics dont exist. Thus, I have a monk, and no one has a cleric. Since the opening, we've been through a "Seizure" and ended up in a standard D&D world. Now, Clerics exist and we could make one, if we needed to make a new character, but the new world has no monk analog,so unless you apprentice to my character, you cant be one.

I just dont understand why you'd allow a character that doesnt have a place in the setting at all, or why people feel forced to include monks in their game if they dont fit.

Nor do I understand why people want to play in "12th-16th century Europe" instead of a real fantasy world, or how it can still be 12th to 16th century europe once dwarves elves and halflings are applied to it.

But, to each their own?

 

[Mad Mac]

The PHB Monk is a pretty good approximation of Eastern Myths, yes, with the exception of it's lack of weapon prowess. Even in mythology, there is no concept of the unarmed martial art master who sucks with weapons. Some rare heroes might prefer unarmed fighting (In the same way someone prefers the spear or 3-section staff) but that doesn't mean he doesn't know his way around a good blade. I brought this up because you kept coming back to the "But that doesn't work because they use weapons or armor when they can." As does the archtypal Monk/Martial Arts Master, which is why I pointed it out.

Some martial art styles and techniques are going to be hampered by armor, yes, but if you aren't marching off to war, no one walks around with armor anyway. If you are, you use a weapon. You could say much the same about Samurai, during battle everyone one wears heavy armor and most "duels" are armored wrestling matches with daggers. On the street, no one has armor, and the first solid strike with a Katana yields a win.

And that's really where the PHB Monk starts to make sense. He's not a knight, or a soldier, he's a wandering, aesthetic, mystic. He also makes an excellent spy or assassin.(And the Shaolin often were just that) He has absolutely no reason to burden himself down with armor or heavy weapons, which would only draw unneeded attention and suspiscion towards himself anyway. His training in unarmed techniques is enough to defend himself against bandits or street fighters. It's a sensible approach both in myth and history, but seems a bit out of place in D&D where you have bands of adventurers roaming around armed to the teeth.

 

[Krieg]

Fusangite, the problem as I see it is a matter of perception. As I mentioned in my initial post the PHB IMO makes a huge mistake in the terminology used to describe the monk. The PHB monk as described unfortunately comes loaded with preconceptions that can be difficult to get past.

Whether you want to admit it or not a master pankrationist in the heroic age could be modeled with the monk, as could the lightly armoured, shield leaping, spear catching Fianna of Celtic mythology or a specialist (and crowd favorite) gladiator. The "Pyrrhic Dance" described by Greek historian seems to imply at least some of the enhanced movement abilities associated with the monk.

The fact that western martial tradition is (at least on the surface) primarily weapons based does nothing to lessen the monks potential use. Multiclassing easily covers the problem. Instead of a 10th level monk pankrationist you have a 5th/5th Fighter/Monk who while not as accomplished a swordsman as his fellows is still capable of holding his own in a phalanx. This also helps dimish the higher level monkish abilities that give some more problems with suspension of disbelief.

Instead of thinking of the monk as a pseudo-shao lin priest slumming with the barbarians...look at the class as a package of abilities that can help model some of the western mythological abilities that the fighter fails to duplicate.

If we are really going to eliminate the monk because of historical accuracy...then virtually all of the other classes would quickly follow it into oblivion.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I have presented my players with monks and clerics being of the same faith and visually indistinguishable. The land is monotheistic and they both perform their task in different ways: one acts as a source of miracles and guidance to the people while the other tackle a more personal aspect of their theology. I have also got them generally paired up and outside of prepared combat you don't know which is what.

I also have them with various vows of silence, servitude, poverty, non-violence etc just to shake the players perceptions. One player is actually trying to save an imprisoned acolyte from the gallows (for 'treason') just because he wouldn't hurt them during the previous 'fight' (oh, and he is obviously a good man and was morally in the right).

 

[fusangite]

I just dont understand why you'd allow a character that doesnt have a place in the setting at all, or why people feel forced to include monks in their game if they dont fit.

I'm with you here.

Nor do I understand why people want to play in "12th-16th century Europe" instead of a real fantasy world, or how it can still be 12th to 16th century europe once dwarves elves and halflings are applied to it.

I don't think anyone actually wants that. However, wanting that is an accusation commonly leveled at me.

Whether you want to admit it or not a master pankrationist in the heroic age could be modeled with the monk...

Krieg, you're a difficult person to argue with because you don't demonstrate why my arguments are wrong. You just reassert positions that I have already demonstrated to be incorrect. Also, you're now arguing that to make the monk fit you should force the character to multiclass. Wouldn't it be easier to just design a prestige class or core class that met your needs and actually fit with your setting? I don't really comprehend why you are starting with an a priori assumption that every class in the core must be included in every campaign. Also, you continue to refuse to answer the question I keep asking; so I'll ask it again: why is it so important to demonstrate that the Monk archetype exists in the Western tradition?

The PHB Monk is a pretty good approximation of Eastern Myths, yes, with the exception of it's lack of weapon prowess.

I'm happy to concede this point; the way I handle that problem, on the rare occasions I use the class, is by applying the unarmed damage progression to all weapons with which the monk has proficiency. I'm also in accord with the other things you say in your post.

 

[fusangite]

To refine the discussion somewhat - An interesting point was that the players handbook has a character class that it does not internally support with it's european-fantasy style.

I make this point every time monks come up as an issue but it usually gets lots in the shuffle. I'm glad someone noticed.

You see, my point is that the PHB needs either more Asian stuff or less Asian stuff -- I don't care which. The problem is that the current amount is insufficient to do credit to a setting in which the monk could fit.

 

[Chimera]

I make this point every time monks come up as an issue but it usually gets lots in the shuffle. I'm glad someone noticed.

You see, my point is that the PHB needs either more Asian stuff or less Asian stuff -- I don't care which. The problem is that the current amount is insufficient to do credit to a setting in which the monk could fit.

Quoting you here, fusangite, but this response is not directed at you.

Like in the 4e thread where people talk about how they wish certain arguments would just go away, I wish this one would. Don't like Monks, don't play one. Don't think they make sense, don't play one, don't allow them in your game.

Some people seem overly hung up on "European flavor" to D&D. As someone else said, once you start throwing all these other races into it, that sort of doesn't make sense. Sure, there are some similarities, but these have more to do with the various settings and the minds of the players than of necessity.

I like Monks. They make sense in my setting. If they don't in yours, then disallow them.

But please, place this entire argument in the same discard stack as the overdone "X is Broken" and "4E is coming" garbage.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I like Monks. They make sense in my setting. If they don't in yours, then disallow them.

But please, place this entire argument in the same discard stack as the overdone "X is Broken" and "4E is coming" garbage.

Every discussion on these boards could be ended with a single line:

"Rule 0."

But then, the entire purpose of a messageboard is the discussion of various opinions.

So I ask you, then, why if you have no problem with monks and consider discussions about their viability and place in the PH/various campaigns to be garbage, you felt the need to post in such a discussion in the first place?

 

[Chimera]

So I ask you, then, why if you have no problem with monks and consider discussions about their viability and place in the PH/various campaigns to be garbage, you felt the need to post in such a discussion in the first place?

Because it always seems to boil down to the argument that Monks are Asian (and ONLY Asian) and D&D is European (and ONLY European) and therefore Monks have no place in D&D.

Despite any and all arguments to the contrary.

So yes, this is a discussion board. But when parties come into the discussion hell bent on insisting that the above position holds true despite what anyone says, then it isn't a discussion, is it?

In which case I ask why you have a problem with my position and not with theirs.

 

[Chimera]

Let me go a bit in-depth here about History and the Martial Arts.

Many (but not all) of the Eastern Martial Arts were developed in secret, or in closed groups, in societies where the average Joe was not allowed to own weapons.

There were Western Martial Arts (Greek, Egyptian, etc), but these aren't widely known in modern circles and didn't seem to have much of an impact on our history.

So why didn't the Eastern Martial Arts spread to the west? Perhaps the same reason why their philosopy, religion and arts did not.

Commerce wise, a lot of materials past from east to west. Silks and spices being tops on the list. These were almost entirely carried by middle men (Turks and Arabs) via the Indian Ocean and the Silk Road. They passed from one middle man to the next along the way until they reached the markets in the west, where they were traded for gold and silver. NOT for Western goods, which were of no basic value in the east. Hence, East and West were isolated from each other by distance and a host of middle men who had no interest in allowing either end to cut them out of the deal. (Which brings us to the Portugese and so forth, but we'll leave that out of the equation.)

In the East, there were more developed and larger scale Empires and nations with more restrictive governements. The average peasant could not own weapons. Hence the Martial Arts were more valuable.

European travelers did come (read Marco Polo - there were many other Euros there when he arrived), but due to the nature of the governments and cultures, they were seldom granted permission to return home. Or they were killed outright due to xenophobia (modern day racism) on the part of the locals. And even if they tried to return West, it was a long way through dangerous territory in an era when a simple infection could kill you.

In the West, basically anybody who could come up with the money could own weapons. In some nations and cultures, you had to. Every adult male was part of the army and could be conscripted at any time. Hence, unarmed Martial Arts had no real value. Why learn to fight without weapons when the King/Chief expects you to practice with your bow on a regular basis?

Ok, so now we come to a D&D world.

How did the Martial Arts develop in your setting? If there were no insular, restrictive societies where one could not own a weapon, how did they develop? Was it a tough, warrior society where learning to fight even without a weapon was a highly valued skill? Was it an oppresive regime where only a certain class could train as warriors? Was it a sexist society where women (or men) were not allowed to be warriors? Was it a poor land where no one could afford weapons or where iron was exceedingly rare?

That's something you have to consider for your own setting.

And then consider how they would spread. My next post here will deal with the hows and whys of that in a D&D world.