Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2107639" data-attributes="member: 7240">Are we having the same conversation? Every single poster on this thread agrees that it was an Olympic sport and an important recreational passtime in the Hellenistic world. Nobody is disputing this historical fact. But does this mean there should be D&amp;D classes based on discus throwing, marathon running, etc.? Of course not! I mean WOTC will stoop to anything in creating as prestige class but I have yet find &quot;Discus Thrower&quot; as a PrC. And your point is...? People translate words every day. You just did it yourself. Why are you using the term &quot;Shaolin monk&quot;? Because you don't know an Asian word for monk. Which is fine. Neither do I. If calling these individuals &quot;monks&quot; is a &quot;bad translation&quot; then why are you doing so? I think &quot;monk&quot; is a perfectly adequate translation. Just as &quot;cleric&quot; is a perfectly adequate translation for the Chinese word for priest. Or &quot;fighter&quot; is a perfectly adequate translation for the Chinese word for &quot;warrior.&quot; 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? We know what warriors who saw Hercules and Prometheus as patrons were like. They were, unsurprisingly, totally unlike Shaolin monks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 2107639, member: 7240"] Are we having the same conversation? Every single poster on this thread agrees that it was an Olympic sport and an important recreational passtime in the Hellenistic world. Nobody is disputing this historical fact. But does this mean there should be D&D classes based on discus throwing, marathon running, etc.? Of course not! I mean WOTC will stoop to anything in creating as prestige class but I have yet find "Discus Thrower" as a PrC. And your point is...? People translate words every day. You just did it yourself. Why are you using the term "Shaolin monk"? Because you don't know an Asian word for monk. Which is fine. Neither do I. If calling these individuals "monks" is a "bad translation" then why are you doing so? I think "monk" is a perfectly adequate translation. Just as "cleric" is a perfectly adequate translation for the Chinese word for priest. Or "fighter" is a perfectly adequate translation for the Chinese word for "warrior." 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? We know what warriors who saw Hercules and Prometheus as patrons were like. They were, unsurprisingly, totally unlike Shaolin monks. [/QUOTE]

Verification