Paladin.. monk?

[Storyteller01]

Let's not forget how most martail arts improved over time. Most saw the greatest and most rapid improvements after those with a higher education and monetary resources broke down the principles of the art.

*Okinawan principles tended to stem from military applications that survived Japanese annexation.

*Monisatries (both in europe and asia) held a considerable amount of knowledge. Monks were the few literate individuals in both cultures. Both types of monks were also among the few individuals to practice higher mathematics. The applications of this knowlegde greatly improved a monks martial prowess.

*European fencing and other martial applications saw major improvements after the introduction of perspective and geometery. The construction of the Master's Cirle is heavily based on human anatomy and proportion.

*Groups of ninja have there origins traced back to samurai loyal to their lord. Samurai = Noble birth (usually anyway)

While many martial arts were not created or studied by the higher social classes (monks/nobles), those that made the greatest advances or had the greatest impact on history were improved by these same classes (how many stories of Japanese peasant pikeman do you read about?).



Let's face it, your typical street fighter (practical experience) doesn't stand much of a chance against an experienced Spec Ops soldier (who's fighting style is the result of detailed record keeping, anatomical study, scientific break down, and just plain old experience in a number of lethal situations).

Even in today's world, those books or resources that can truely aid a martial arts practitioner are not easily found, or cheap. Anatomical studies for chi' na experts cost in the hundreds of dollars per book. Old swordmanship manuals cost in the hundreds to thousands if they're sold at all, and you still have to translate them. None of these resources are available on the internet or the open market. Why would training in the past, where information was even harder to record and maintain, be any different?

Did the peasantry learn to fight? Yep
Did they learn the tactics that could win a major battle on their own? Nope. There were generally (not always) someone with access to a greater amount of info and resources (military, books, etc).

general rant over...


As for the monk in D&D; agreed, it's heavily based on asian mythology and focus. Still, it's plausible that 'European' style charaters or cultures , provided that magic was viewed in the proper light, could have developed the same manner of magic use. Wizards (dependant on your take on the matter) are also the product of intense study and meditations.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Ducking through the flames to get here, I think my analysis of the situation is this: the problem with the monk class in a lot of games is that people tend to toss archetypes from radically different backgrounds and cultures together in a kind of comic-book superhero crossover issue style without addressing the philosophies and cultures behind the classes or providing a convincing alternative. The paladin and the monk, as the most philosophically and religiously defined classes in the Player's Handbook are the cases where this is the most obvious and that is why you have "paladin" threads and "monk" threads.

If a setting incorporated not only the monk class, but some of the Taoist principles (not necessarily as game-world physics, but as a belief system/culture in conflict with the other belief systems and cultures of the world), I think it might successfully integrate the monk class into a D&D that included paladins and barbarians. However, doing so could demand explanations or why the implicit theories of realities presented by all sides of the conflict seem to work. Such a setting would not, of course be closely modelled on any historical or mythic setting, but it could be a convincing setting in its own right.

 

[fusangite]

EB,

We are on exactly the same page here. A pleasure to agree with you sir.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Ducking through the flames to get here, I think my analysis of the situation is this: the problem with the monk class in a lot of games is that people tend to toss archetypes from radically different backgrounds and cultures together in a kind of comic-book superhero crossover issue style without addressing the philosophies and cultures behind the classes or providing a convincing alternative. The paladin and the monk, as the most philosophically and religiously defined classes in the Player's Handbook are the cases where this is the most obvious and that is why you have "paladin" threads and "monk" threads.

I guess my problem with this argument is that I think the 'comic-book superhero crossover issue' style is the one that is uniquely appropriate to DnD. Fusangite and I have run at logger-heads before over this and I suspect we will again, repeatedly. And I can't say that on some level I don't love him for it. As wrong as I may find the idea of the necessity of coherent ideological backing the discrete results of that premise are well informed and very interesting. He studies religion professionally, I study rhetoric, he has to sell philosophy for a living, and I, professionally, can never buy it - though I will admire it and steal if it if its just lying there.

The Monk and Paladin certainly do represent some sort of, ahem, false problem and some form of increased conceptual flexibility would solve it. I don't think you can get rid of them as they both represent the only DnD representation of some extremely powerful fantasy archetypes, but I do think that it wouldn't be any skin off of anyone's neck for people to have a number of options. True of the bard as well.

The Druid escapes simply based on how insanely flexible and weird the class is in the first place. As might the cleric. The Barbarian gets saved because its so freakin simple in both mechanics and flavor that its safe, based exclusively off of dark age Vikings? Please. Probably true of the Rogue as well.

On a side note, I think the fighter gets way way way too much credit for being a generic hero builder. Feats are nice, but the class is still too specific to really represent the claims that people throw out there for it. It's not a bad class, but I see just as many problems building Hercules and Beowulf out of the fighter class as I do with the Monk.

Please note, as well, that my defense of the Monk as appropriate to DnD should not be interpreted as a whole hearted approbation. As a class it certainly has quirks above and beyond how well it 'fits.'

On a very very side note, wouldn't it be true that any discrete organization that includes a member of the higher classes, or more than one in a fortunate society, is already overrepresenting the upper classes and underrepresenting the under classes? Just asking cause, you know, when you make up, largely by definition, somewhere around 1% of the population you tend to skew things wherever you go. I mean I get a group of 10 guys together and one of them once was the apprentice house servant to the fourth son of the local count and suddenly my other nine guys are underrepresented?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

To reply to the original post, and it's apropos to this conversation as well.

It doesn't so much seem like that was trouble with the Monk class as with the problem inherent in the game of everyone participating in the game more or less equally, but not everyone preparing for it or listening to other peoples contributions at the same level.

For me, one of the advantages of the monk class is that it has an easy and good hook as an idea for an adventuring character, but I can't deny that one of the problems with easy hooks is that it makes people think they can pay less attention.

The paladin as Monk build does sound like a pretty dang cool character.

 

[Dirigible]

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

Drunken Irish boxing?

 

[fusangite]

He studies religion professionally, I study rhetoric, he has to sell philosophy for a living, and I, professionally, can never buy it - though I will admire it and steal if it if its just lying there.

What kind of rhetoric? Burkean rhetoric or Aristotelian rhetoric? I used to be a professional rhetor but I have only done amateur work as a rhetorician.

Good take on the various classes. However, I'm even picky about the druid; he usually gets thrown out and replaced with Green Ronin's shaman in most D&D settings I do.

On a very very side note, wouldn't it be true that any discrete organization that includes a member of the higher classes, or more than one in a fortunate society, is already overrepresenting the upper classes and underrepresenting the under classes? Just asking cause, you know, when you make up, largely by definition, somewhere around 1% of the population you tend to skew things wherever you go. I mean I get a group of 10 guys together and one of them once was the apprentice house servant to the fourth son of the local count and suddenly my other nine guys are underrepresented?

Obviously, I'm talking about more significant over-representation.

 

[S'mon]

The Haruchai & Immortal Bloodguard in the Thomas Covenant novels are a cool non-oriental "Monk" (in the D&D sense) group of dedicated unarmed martial artists.

My campaign is Tekumel-influenced and it includes eg Monks of Ksarul in a generally fairly medieval European sword & sorcery setting, as well as Shaolin-style Simcists and the Guardians of the Heavenly Mountains, wuxia-style female warrior-monks. There's also the Order of Horus who are mostly multiclassed Monk-Paladins...

 

[Toll Carom]

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

It sure is. Check out the monks section from The Players Guide to Monks and Paladins for the Scarred Lands. One of its chief objectives is to de-Orientalize the class.

--
CAS

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

What kind of rhetoric? Burkean rhetoric or Aristotelian rhetoric? I used to be a professional rhetor but I have only done amateur work as a rhetorician.

Well, A.) I'm not certain that I would call myself either a rhetor or a rhetorician at this point, though given my druthers and some semantic lattitude I would probably go with rhetorician. I like soft 'c's.
B.) I don't know that most people who study it in my area would really consider themselves as having to be either Burkean or Aristotelian. Of the two, however, Aristotle is considered more or less essential where Burke is more often a brilliant curiousity. Rhetoricians live in any number of scattered communities throughout the academy, however, so I'm certain there are different predilictions elsewhere. Personally, I find Aristotle to be a fine source of clarity, but he's not my favorite. I think Burke has an interesting central thesis, but he carries it to far and gives me the, perhaps unsubstantiated, feeling that he's based in the American and modern situation almost to a fault.

Good take on the various classes. However, I'm even picky about the druid; he usually gets thrown out and replaced with Green Ronin's shaman in most D&D settings I do.

I'm not familiar with that shaman, and I couldn't throw out the druid, though I admire your integrity in doing so, he's too iconic and cool in his own right.

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.

To express in those terms for the Monk, I would say that the Monk fits nicely into the Magic man category. Monks, in terms of raw ability, make me think of early early Superman, Robin Goodfellow, Peter Pan, or even that Athletic guy in the Blue suit who shows up on that insane Nickolodean show with the puppets and people in rubber wigs. The athletic simpletons of the world who wander about and do great things without the usual formality. Sadly, it has the same problem as the Druid in terms of the summoner in that while it is a very bad ass class in its own right it fits the larger archetype only so well.

The one way in which it does fit it perfectly is that the Monk's abilities do have so little explanation. Magic men don't have any explanations except their own weirdness or the occasional small piece of equipment that doesn't really have any explanations either. The oriental flavoring just makes it A.) more bad ass B.) more confusing C.) Less like a children's story which is problematic in its own right D.) a tad more cosmopolitan.

Plus when I play a monk my DM normally lets me use the Oriental Adventures book which is totally awesome.

On a completely and utterly tangential note: Have you seen the preview material for Weapons of the Gods, Fusangite? It strikes me as a game that fits your aesthetic for ascetics very nicely, though if you peruse the EOS press forums you will note that I have already begun adapting it to Homer and George RR Martin so my own Kitchen Sink of Throwing In Kind +1 insanity can probably never be stopped.