Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 2117085" data-attributes="member: 6533">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification