Paladin.. monk?

[Chimera]

Why be a Monk or why be a Fighter? Your decision as the average Joe in a D&D world.

Ok, so you want to be a fighter.

It will cost you a lot of money for your equipment. Weapons and armor are not cheap and they have to be maintained. Some people might not like you owning them or walking around with them all the time. Armor can be hot (or cold) and quite heavy to walk around in all the time.

Sure, once you're the Epic Hero (tm), you'll know every weapon like your own self. You'll be able to wade into 100 Orcs and slaughter the bunch. You'll be able to place an arrow between the eyes of a flea at 100 yards. You will be a Terror in Steel and Blades. You'll be able to jump chasms and climb cliffs in full plate and ride a mount like it's part of you.

But you'll be very dependent on your equipment. You also won't know much more than how to fight, ride, climb and jump. Your entire life will revolve around those few elements. And that Wizard? You'll still be extremely vulnerable to his spells.

Why be a Monk?

For starters, you can be poor and not have to worry about buying all that neat (and expensive) stuff. Maybe you won't be quite as good as the fighter against those 100 Orcs, but you'll still be darned good. (Remember, this isn't the real world, it's the D&D world!) You can jump and climb better than that fighter, but that's not all. You can talk to people (diplomacy), sense what they're up to (sense motive), you're stealthy (hide and move silent) and can detect stealthy opponents (spot and listen). You can learn how to tumble like an acrobat, walk across ice or ropes, perform like a Bard, know a bit about magic and religion (Knowledge skills), learn to craft things or learn a profession just like anyone else. On top of that, you laugh at the Wizard's spells, unlike if you had become a fighter. You can dodge spells and traps like the best of them (high reflex save) and shirk off physical things (high Con save) just as good as the fighter. You are much more highly skilled in so many areas and much more able to survive on your own.

So...

You're poor Joe peasant and you've got these two options in front of you. Look at it from the vantage point of your present situation and your desire to live.

Does it seem to you (like it seems to me) that becoming a Monk is a desirable option? Can you see how this training might well be valued in a D&D world?

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

It's not that they didn't have an impact so much as one culture's acceptance of violence over the others. There were many occurances where teaching martial techniques in European was forbidden by law, and dueling was (in some areas) as barbarous as whoring (this didn't stop the nobles from doing either, but hey...). This forbiddance wasn't limited to peasantry; in fact, it targeted noble youth to prevent the 'corruption of their state of mind'. It wasn't until the Renaissance that martial training in Europe really shined, but even at that time learning to kill was met with mixed approval.

Training with the bow was also noted in some texts as the perview of the peasantry in Europe. While nobility did learn the use of the bow as well as sword and lance, the peasants used the bow on a regular basis: they hunted for their food. Why train hundreds of archers when you can conscript peasants who already know how to use the weapon? Who would admit that being a peasant gives an advantage over a noble?

On the asian outlook, even Confusious carried a sword, and the sword is considered one of several holy symbols depending on the religion involved.

European history tends to document who did what, but not generally how. No one wanted to know how the other guy died. It was enough that the victor survived.

There's also a theory that softer martial arts were developed by monks and professional nobility (samurai and such) as their experience with combat improved. Harder styles were designed to teach peasants and other footsoldiers the essentials as quickily as possible. They had a life expectancy of 0, and you wanted them to do as much damage as possible before they went down. Those in either group who survived passed on their knowledge.


My two cents: It's probably better that the monk be introduced with other asian themed classes. Let's face it, most of the reasons given as to why a monk exists in a European world can be used for Samurai, Wu Jen, Ninja, etc (anyone ever see the Western where a cowboy traveled with a samurai out to retrieve/deliver a family blade?).

 

[fusangite]

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.

Please identify one single poster to this thread who has taken the above position.

You offer a highly simplistic theory articulating the view that state regulation of weapon possession was the main reason martial arts were developed in the East. This just isn't supported. While the Chinese imperial state was more effective at this form of regulation and it might have been a minor factor, your argument just doesn't cohere if you posit this kind of effective state regulation as the main reason Qi Gong or Tai Chi developed.

First of all, the people who were trained in martial arts over time were often individuals of considerable social rank who had both the right and ability to obtain whatever weapon they wanted. Secondly, most martial artists, as Mad Mac points out, were proficient with weapons and indeed, part of their martial arts training entailed learning how to use various types of weapons.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the reason Chinese martial arts developed had to do with the fact that Chinese philosophy and religion view asceticism, physics and the body radically differently than European philosophy and religion. The underlying philosophies of these arts were not compatible with European worldviews. You're not going to develop a chi-based art if your theory of physics is antithetical to chi.

So, I don't buy your theory of causation for Eastern martial arts.

That stated, I have no problem with your view that people should make sure that monks in their campaign make sense if they choose to include them. But your view that monks are caused by some kind of premodern version of gun control that could be effected by the Chinese empire is highly simplistic and ignores far more significant factors.

 

[sword-dancer]

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.
?

1 A Knight or serving Brother of the Fighting Orders, Templars, Hospitalitiers-Johanniters, Teutonic Order or the Sword brothers, would also be called a Monk, because, that`s what they were, Monks.
Monks with a few exceptions of the regularities of the benedictens and so on to not to hinder their duties in waragainst the heathens.

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

depends on what you call standard Fantasy?
in a classic european medieval setting No, but elsewhrer why not?

 

[Kuld]

http://ejmas.com/jwma/jwmamission.htm

A wee bit of occidental martial arts.

 

[HeavyG]

Sodomy was also a very popular recreational activity amongst this very same group and it didn't produce any heroic archetypes either.

*crumples his notes for the Radiant Sodomite PrCl and throws them in the trash can*

 

[Chimera]

Please identify one single poster to this thread who has taken the above position.

Why do we have to claim this archetype is transcultural? Can't we just admire this Asian archetype for what it is and employ it when appropriate?

Dude, let's not get snippy here or ignore the long history of this argument within D&D.

The basic argument has always been that D&D is based on European world-styles and that Monks are based on Asian culture.

You offer a highly simplistic theory articulating the view that state regulation of weapon possession was the main reason martial arts were developed in the East. This just isn't supported. While the Chinese imperial state was more effective at this form of regulation and it might have been a minor factor

Not just China, Bud. Take a look at Okinawa and Japan.

First of all, the people who were trained in martial arts over time were often individuals of considerable social rank who had both the right and ability to obtain whatever weapon they wanted.

Flat out not true.

Secondly, most martial artists, as Mad Mac points out, were proficient with weapons and indeed, part of their martial arts training entailed learning how to use various types of weapons.

Has little or nothing to do with the argument.

Even though it is true. You learn to fight with EVERYTHING.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the reason Chinese martial arts developed had to do with the fact that Chinese philosophy and religion view asceticism, physics and the body radically differently than European philosophy and religion. The underlying philosophies of these arts were not compatible with European worldviews. You're not going to develop a chi-based art if your theory of physics is antithetical to chi.

Disagree, to an extent. Combat is combat. Learning to strike and fight effectively isn't necessarily based on one's philosophy, though it can be guided by it.

Besides, the notion of Chi isn't necessarily inherent in ALL Martial Arts.

So, I don't buy your theory of causation for Eastern martial arts.

That stated, I have no problem with your view that people should make sure that monks in their campaign make sense if they choose to include them. But your view that monks are caused by some kind of premodern version of gun control that could be effected by the Chinese empire is highly simplistic and ignores far more significant factors.

Straw Man.

Simplistic because of space and time requirements. I'm not about to give a full lecture about the origins of Martial Arts on a discussion board. Not my job, not my time, not necessary.

 

[Storyteller01]

Mental note: Add 'sodomy' to the list of 'things best left out of threads' list...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Although it is much later than medieval, 18th Centurn (?) Savate (french kick boxing) and the similar Jeu Marsailles could both be considered genuine occidental martial arts. The history of them is apparently difficult to determine (some consider the latter to have been picked up by sailors who had been trading in the far east and been exposed to oriental martial arts, for instance the former is apparently considered to have developed from basic streetfighting).

Could be used as an interesting basis for westernised martial arts (although as Fusangite and others have said, the PHB monk comes will a whole range of mystical baggage - oops, I mean class features - which is difficult to fit into that origin!)

Cheers

 

[fusangite]

The basic argument has always been that D&D is based on European world-styles and that Monks are based on Asian culture.

Perhaps, instead of responding to what "the basic argument has always been" you should look at responding to the actual specific arguments being made by the people whom you are debating right now.

First of all, the people who were trained in martial arts over time were often individuals of considerable social rank who had both the right and ability to obtain whatever weapon they wanted.

Flat out not true.

Could you please offer some evidence here? My understanding from everything I've read is that ascetic orders whether in Europe, East Asia or Central Asia under-represented peasants and over-represented people of higher rank to quite a considerable degree.

Disagree, to an extent. Combat is combat. Learning to strike and fight effectively isn't necessarily based on one's philosophy, though it can be guided by it.

You are ignoring the fact that the monk is a magical unarmed fighter. The class would not be worth taking if the monk did not have superhuman abilities. This is why the European tradition lacks the monk archetype: medieval and ancient European theories of magic don't produce it.

Now perhaps one could design a class that was just a mundane unarmed fighter rather than a magical one. But we're debating the Monk class. So, the philosophy/theory of magic is front and centre in this discussion.