Paladin.. monk?

[Mad Mac]

Have to agree that Noble types certainly weren't the ones leading the development of martial arts, generally. Ju-Jitsu is the native art of japan, and has a long, murky, history that predates the importation of buhdism.

Okinowan Karate incorporated assorted tools and farm implements, not swords and bows. (Karate was not considered a "true" Japanese martial art for a long, long, time)

The Shaolin Kung-fu tradition is widely considered a blend of the grueling "training exercises" developed to keep the Monks in shape, and the accumulated experience of combat veterans, who retired to monastaries in large numbers.

Claiming philosophy as the driving factor behind martial arts development is widely off base, imo.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I like the fact that the D&D monk is included in the core rules - it may not be entirely in line with the pseudo-medieval "European" baseline of D&D, but that's a good thing. It lets players and DMs know that there's more to D&D than just, as one poster put it, 12th century Germany.

The barbarian doesn't fit into 12th century Germany either, of course, but that's a tangent.

In my ideal world, the Third Edition core rules would be more explicit about the fact that D&D is not restricted to the ideas and trappings of medieval Europe - I'm not saying that even more of the "dungeonpunk" aesthetic would be necessary, but I would look favourably on the inclusion of anything which broadens the palette, so to speak, of D&D. After all, the sum total of its inspirations is not exactly Tolkien and the Chronicles of Holinshed. Vance, Lovecraft, Howard, Leiber - how many of the names on that list were writing about medieval Europe or even a close analogue?

That's what I thought. More diversity! I suppose I'm with those who would rather see more Oriental and non-medieval-European elements represented in the core game.

 

[Chimera]

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.

You know, I very much dislike it when people offer no proof for their own positions, but on the other hand insist that I provide proof and cite for everything I say. You've taken a number of positions that I could easily demand cite and proof for, but that would only serve to derail the conversation into cites and proofs of minor points.

Let's just say that we disagree and move on.

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.

Not ignoring it at all. In fact it is the very basis of my argument that the class would be appealing to Joe Peasant, as in the previous post of giving a choice between learning to be a Fighter or learning to be a Monk.

Once this "knowledge" became available to places beyond where it developed (wherever and for whatever reason, let's move past that), it would be quite attractive to many people (myself for one!). It is not hard for me to imagine that this class skill would swiftly establish itself in quite a few cultures.

Just as you and I (well, 'I' at least, I don't know about you) learn the Martial Arts when we've no real reason to be using them.

This is why the European tradition lacks the monk archetype: medieval and ancient European theories of magic don't produce it.

Ah, but again, that's based on D&D = Europe. When you add in the cultures of other races (especially long living or deeply wierd ones), existance of Magic and Psionics, it seems very unlikely to me that the culture of the average D&D world (even the "European styled" part of it) would look or think anything like the proto-typical Medeival European Culture.

In other words, it seems to me that the whole notion that "D&D = prototypical Euro culture" is based on a very incomplete and entirely superficial idea that doesn't take a huge number of alternate influences into view.

 

[fusangite]

Claiming philosophy as the driving factor behind martial arts development is widely off base, imo.

Remember, we're talking about the D&D monk class not about mundane, non-magical practitioners of martial arts. This class is derived from literary and mythological archetypes that are all premised on Taoist physics. The expectation that monks would be able to perform certain superhuman feats -- abilities high level monks can perform in the rules comes from Asian theories of physics.

Have to agree that Noble types certainly weren't the ones leading the development of martial arts.

Once again, there is this refrain to the idea that the Monk class represents people other than it says it represents. Ascetics were the people who fused metaphysical theories, Taoist physics and the combat styles of which you speak. The Monk class is the whole package -- it isn't trying to or succeeding at depicting peasant practitioners of unarmed fighting styles. The class depicts an ascetic who is master of formal, metaphysical martial arts not a part-time practitioner of innovative unarmed fighting styles.

People seem to want to defend a class that models a trans-cultural unarmed, unarmoured non-magical fighting man. Unfortunately, that's not what the monk class is.

 

[Kuld]

R.A. Salvatore wrote about a monk in his novels. Danica was her name I think. He did quite a good job fitting her in and she was a primary character that did not appear to be foreign.

I dunno, I have a monk in my group, but he is from our "Asia" equivalent. It was his choice; I would've accepted it either way.

 

[fusangite]

You've taken a number of positions that I could easily demand cite and proof for, but that would only serve to derail the conversation into cites and proofs of minor points.

I'm sorry. Perhaps I should have phrased my statement differently: I study religious history professionally. I have read a number of scholarly works discussing monastic and ascetic orders. A number of them asserted that these orders, wherever they were found under-represented people of low social rank and over-represented people of high social rank. I was therefore curious as to where you encountered the view that East Asian ascetic orders did the opposite.

Once this "knowledge" became available to places beyond where it developed (wherever and for whatever reason, let's move past that), it would be quite attractive to many people (myself for one!). It is not hard for me to imagine that this class skill would swiftly establish itself in quite a few cultures.

That's one possibility. It really depends on how the monastic orders are about sharing their secrets.

But I don't really understand why you're even raising this. There could be any number of reasons there are monks in a particular setting. No justification is required as long as the monks are consistent with the setting and fit in.

Ah, but again, that's based on D&D = Europe.

No. It's not. It's just explaining one of the ways that monks are incongruent with a European setting. People seem to think that because I am saying monks don't fit in every setting that I'm really saying they don't fit in any setting. Where do I state that D&D=Europe? I tell you over and over and over again that this is not my position. And you repeatedly accuse me of taking this position anyway. Obviously you are not looking at what my problem with the monk as it stands is and what solution I propose. So I'll just clip and quote what I've already said here:

This is exactly what Gary Gygax had in mind with the original class in 1E, at least according to his recent response to my question on the subject. Monks in original D&D were supposed to be outsiders from outside the European-style area in which the characters were adventuring.

Outsiders from another place certainly have a place in D&D and avoid the many difficulties associated with trying to graft these peculiar guys onto a traditional European fantasy world.

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.

Again, I ask: why is it important to locate the archetype for this class within Western tradition? 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?

Agreed. I don't allow psionics in my campaigns either for precisely the reasons you articulate here. And I think monks should be treated like psionics -- placed outside of the core and consigned to supplementary material that actually provides sufficient support for them. The big problem with the monk is that the PHB doesn't provide sufficient resources to run a proper Asian-themed world and so the monk limps along as a core class that is pigeon-holed, in most game worlds, into being an outsider.

I'm pretty clear on what my position is here: I don't like the fact that the core rules contain a class they don't really support. This problem with the core rules results in the kind of situation the original poster was complaining of arising far more often than it should. I simply try to explain why these problems arise so frequently with monks.

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]

A number of them asserted that these orders, wherever they were found under-represented people of low social rank and over-represented people of high social rank.

Seems entirely likely, just as it was everywhere. The top ranks of the clergy in western Europe tended to be dominated by the second (or lesser) sons of higher ranking families. Those who could not inherit their family wealth went to the church.

It really depends on how the monastic orders are about sharing their secrets.

However, you seem to have an assumption that the Martial Arts only came from aesthetic orders. I disagree.

Where do I state that D&D=Europe? I tell you over and over and over again that this is not my position. And you repeatedly accuse me of taking this position anyway.

Perhaps that's because of your previous statement and the like.

It's just explaining one of the ways that monks are incongruent with a European setting.

Ok, so perhaps I'm reading you backwards.

You state over and over that Monks (as you understand them) only belong in an Asian setting. I disagree, just as I disagree that they are only the product of aesthetic orders. The martial arts of many different areas were passed on within families or to students who sought out the master, or by various other means.

The basis of their secrecy in this training had more to do with legalities, goals and various other things that may or may not apply in a D&D setting.

 

[fusangite]

Chimera,

Just to repeat: the class that is being modeled in the PHB is not a simply a martial artist; it is a martial artist with supernatural powers. Your reasoning is based on the idea that monk=unarmed fighter when in fact monk=monk. I'm not saying, as you suggest, "martial arts only came from ascetic orders"; I'm saying "monks only came from ascetic orders."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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

Basically, your first post in this thread seemed to say to me: "Everyone can use monks in their campaign or not, so discussion about the monk is worthless." It wasn't a position on the discussion at hand, but rather a rant against people discussing monks in general. On a messageboard based on discussing D&D, your post struck me as pointless and counterproductive.

You've sinced joined in the discussion in earnest, and I have nothing but respect for that. Glad to swap opinions with you.

(Although this particular thread has moved into areas in which I have absolutely no familiarity, so I'll be lurking from here on out, I believe. )

 

[Fesperse]

Blackmoor

Funny that no one has mentioned Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, which was released in 1975, and which included the original Monk class. By then, 'Kung Fu' was in its third or fourth season. It's impossible (for me, at least) not to conclude that Kwai Chang Caine was the inspiration for this class. And while I loved the character, I've never found it to be a very compelling addition to D&D. And the newer additions (Drunken Master, for example) are even more out of place. All in my opinion, of course.

Regards,
Steve F.