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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 2121655" data-attributes="member: 13654">And isn't the creation of a D&D campaign an exercise in creating NEW literature and myth, that while using elements from established literature, myth, and real-world example OWES NOTHING to them in terms of needing to follow the strictures responsible for their creation.So, yep there are certainly conditions in which the monk can feel out of place.  What ARE those conditions?  In my opinion one of the biggest such conditions is when there is an insistence that monks be considered genuinely oriental and that the campaign in which they appear be patterned specifically after some given literary, mythical or real-world basis which produced the INSPIRATION for the D&D monk.  That's what I see being advocated.  That monks have no business in D&D because they must be looked upon (for example) as if they were Shaolin, but then are not provided the same seeds that created the Shaolin.  Or that because monks DON'T fully resemble Ninjas they need to be modified until they do and then inserted into a distinctly Medieval Japanese-inspired setting before they "fit" D&D.Now if that isn't your assertion then I've misread/misunderstood.  My contention is simply that there isn't much of a legitimate argument that monks as written inherently "don't fit/don't belong" in D&D.  Their very inclusion as part of the Core Rules defeats that.  They ARE part of D&D.  You don't have to include them in any/all campaigns any more than you have to include paladins, spells above 5th level, alignments or even Humans(!).  But by virtue of their mere presence it is effectively asserted that they most certainly CAN be included in campaigns without needing to explain in any depth how or why.Can you demonstrate that it DOESN'T?  And why would you need to prove it one way or another?And I'm just a tad confused so maybe a restatement of elementary position would be useful to more people than just myself.  What IS it that you say the D&D monk is?  Does it belong in D&D and if not, why not?Where they are FROM is irrelevant.  They are now, and were then, included as a character class in a campaign setting that is quasi-European.But the game has had plenty of revision to it since Gygax ceased to have close control of it.  Perhaps because of Gary's initial intention of the Monk as an Oriental outsider in a European setting it was removed in 2nd Edition rules.  And then it was reintroduced in several different forms in supplementary rules for 2E.  It's inclusion as an element of 3E Core Rules wasn't because the newest vision of a general D&D campaign needed an Oriental outsider was it?  I think the reintroduction in 2E and then part of the Core in 3E was almost solely because people enjoyed playing the class and wanted them back.  But however Gary may have envisioned them for Greyhawk there are no rules now for how/why they should be included in D&D in general.  They just are.  I don't understand any insistence that that is insufficient for general purposes.I too like worlds that feel real and desire self-consistency just as much as you I am quite certain.  My campaigns are clearly less complex and literate than your own, but I have long advocated self-consistency and a certain amount of "reality" for a campaign world as laudable goals for everyone.  But I enjoy inserting monks as defined in D&D into my game worlds without making them Oriental outsiders.  That doesn't make my standards for running my campaign any lower than yours.My inclusion of monks into the general campaign world only needs to maintain SELF-consistency.  It needs to be reasonable and justified in the world which I create and it is.  The way in which I commonly achieve this is by centering the campaign on a very cosmopolitan city or nation, or simply positing a much closer positioning of the relevant cultures.Again, I wonder if a restatement of basic position isn't in order.  I thought we were discussing the monk's place in D&D in general and that your vision of the monk is one which, if you will, carries a lot more baggage than I personally would attach to it.Since my own campaigns contain nothing really resembling Franciscan friars, Ninjas, Shaolin, etc., there is nothing to stand in the way of D&D monks standing in for any and all of them as needed/desired.  Thus for my purposes at least there's never been anything wrong with the fitting of monks into D&D.</blockquote>

Verification