Tell me about Monks in your world.
- Thread starter Samuel Leming
- Start date
Achan hiArusa
Explorer
The Druid
At any rate, the Druid makes no sense in a medieval world, whether or not the class is authentic. The class died off long before we even got to the technology level of the Middle Ages.
Mind you history does not equal fantasy. Arguing that a fantastic trope should not exist in a given campaign by using historical arguments is absurd. Orcs are not historical, they are fantastical, Dwarves are not historical, they are fantastical, Elves are not historical, they are fantastical. After all it is fantasy and fantastic things can happen. Say 500 years ago a magical mishap occured and a far eastern monestary was deposited on the edge of the kingdom. The voila you have your monks. They have adapted their training (and possibly religion) to the local culture and though initially thought of as strangers, they now fit in.
Frankly, I find it harder to accept renaissance polearms and plate armor along with players who are offended by slavery, who try to institute democracy, and who treat peasant and noble equally than I do with monks in a pseudo-medieval D&D game.
We could also go through the spell list and remove all magic that just doesn't feel appropriate to such a world (and believe me the list is not short, I'll start with Guards and Wards).
At any rate, the Druid makes no sense in a medieval world, whether or not the class is authentic. The class died off long before we even got to the technology level of the Middle Ages.
Mind you history does not equal fantasy. Arguing that a fantastic trope should not exist in a given campaign by using historical arguments is absurd. Orcs are not historical, they are fantastical, Dwarves are not historical, they are fantastical, Elves are not historical, they are fantastical. After all it is fantasy and fantastic things can happen. Say 500 years ago a magical mishap occured and a far eastern monestary was deposited on the edge of the kingdom. The voila you have your monks. They have adapted their training (and possibly religion) to the local culture and though initially thought of as strangers, they now fit in.
Frankly, I find it harder to accept renaissance polearms and plate armor along with players who are offended by slavery, who try to institute democracy, and who treat peasant and noble equally than I do with monks in a pseudo-medieval D&D game.
We could also go through the spell list and remove all magic that just doesn't feel appropriate to such a world (and believe me the list is not short, I'll start with Guards and Wards).
Last edited:
Dakkareth said:
No, it is not the same. It's like people posting that they have no opinion on New York, whether or not they've been there. They're posting to say they have nothing to offer. The initial post assumes you use the monk in your world, which subsumes that you do like the monk.
I did in fact contribute my comments on what monks were like in my world, so you're only half-right.
Since folks who don't use monks in their world don't have anything to actually discuss on the topic, they just wind up derailing the thread on some tangent, like why they don't like monks or how they're inappropriate for a pseudo-medieval setting, so that the original poster's subject gets lost. That is what I was hoping to discourage, and as you may have noticed that's exactly what is happening. Please find somebody else to be contrite with.
Last edited:
Ki:There are some, scattered cultures with a tradition of cloistered and/or dedicated ecclestiastics. Some of which practice methods of mental, physical, and spiritual perfection. Since life can get hazardous at times, this training includes fighting skills. These are the closest I have to the D&D® Monk.
Dragon Earth: Here the tradition is more widespread. And not only among Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus. A number of polytheistic faiths have taken up the practice, and even Jews, Branites, and Muslims hold extended "retreats". Most every religion that has some form of cloistered and/or dedicated ecclestiastic tradition has some group that practices some form of mental, physical, and spiritual perfecting. Often including some type of martial art.
However, I am starting to work on adapting a point based class variant I picked up off the web to a template system ala GURPS. In this scheme of things a character would have a minimum of two templates, racial and occupational. The standard D&D® template becoming what I'm calling a conditional template. So you would have, for example, a Savage (conditional) Kobold (racial) Druid (occupational) character. But that's for postings in House Rules.
Dragon Earth: Here the tradition is more widespread. And not only among Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus. A number of polytheistic faiths have taken up the practice, and even Jews, Branites, and Muslims hold extended "retreats". Most every religion that has some form of cloistered and/or dedicated ecclestiastic tradition has some group that practices some form of mental, physical, and spiritual perfecting. Often including some type of martial art.
However, I am starting to work on adapting a point based class variant I picked up off the web to a template system ala GURPS. In this scheme of things a character would have a minimum of two templates, racial and occupational. The standard D&D® template becoming what I'm calling a conditional template. So you would have, for example, a Savage (conditional) Kobold (racial) Druid (occupational) character. But that's for postings in House Rules.
Psion
Adventurer
First off, I never really bought into this "European prototype" mentality. RPGs are a big game of what if. It's very easy for me to ask about what a world would be like where a Europe-analog was located somewhat closer to an India-analog, and the early practitioners of unarmed styles went into Europe instead of China. Such an exercise is minor compared to contemplating the impact of magic.
On the monks themselves, my view of them is largely influenced by an article in Dragon (Bond of Brotherhood in Dragon #164). The primary point to take home here is that for a functional background for a fantasy monk, they should belong to an order than has a purpose. Ever since then, I have tried to conceive what the purpose of various orders monks belong to whenever they are set to paper. Some are dedicated to defending the royal line, some are dedicated to guarding ancient artifacts, and so forth.
On the monks themselves, my view of them is largely influenced by an article in Dragon (Bond of Brotherhood in Dragon #164). The primary point to take home here is that for a functional background for a fantasy monk, they should belong to an order than has a purpose. Ever since then, I have tried to conceive what the purpose of various orders monks belong to whenever they are set to paper. Some are dedicated to defending the royal line, some are dedicated to guarding ancient artifacts, and so forth.
Krieg
First Post
Felon said:
I would guess they think their contribution consists of directly answering a question posed by the individual who started the thread. To whit...
Samuel Leming said:
At least they actually read the entire post.
Now back to the topic at hand...since my campaign has moved more in the direction of a D20 Modern/Grim Tales ruleset I don't use Monks as written. However my players are welcome to use Feats & Talent Trees to create a pretty good aproximation of the 3.5 Monk....of course they also now have the flexibility to go in a direction that allows them to create unarmed martial artists that better fit other concepts as well.
Last edited:
I think there is a middle position between the two that are being articulated and I feel bad for the original poster that the thread is devolving into "should there be monks in your world" instead of "tell me of the monks in your world."
The position I articulated, to reiterate, is that the monk is not a good fit in a campaign that is primarily based on Western mythic Europe. But there is no requirement that this be the basis of campaigns. So, instead of getting further into the argument that seems to be developing here, let me rephrase my original post in the form of suggestions:
1. Good campaign worlds can draw on multiple myth traditions provided they do so with intelligence and balance. If a GM wants to include both monks and Western archetypal classes (e.g. paladins), he should design a world that draws on both eastern and western myth rather than just importing the monk into an otherwise western story. There are a number of ways of doing this:
(a) running a Western-looking feudal campaign (ie. using Western names or tech.) that is actually based not on the European mythic past but instead on Japanese feudalism or Islamic chivalry .
(b) running a clash of civilizations type of campaign modeled after some variant of the crusades or the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.
(c) spending some time to create a unique fusion of European, Asian and brand new ideas that produces a totally different kind of world. But by spending time, I mean actually getting to know something about both European and non-European traditions so that these non-European features turn out to be better than window dressing.
2. GMs should be willing to modify the monk class in order to adapt it to the myth structure of the campaign. So, if you're anywhere west of the South China sea, ditch the shurikens and nunchaku. If you're anywhere west of the Arabian Sea, ditch the unarmed fighting style. If you're anywhere west of the Bosphorus, ditch the whole damned class.
So, to put this into practice, let's imagine modifying the monk class into the athlete of God of Middle Eastern Christianity:
(a) Make the monk a staff-wielder and have the stuff damage progress exactly and unarmed damage does now.
(b) Change the term "ki" to "merits."
(c) Grant wider weapon proficiency to compensate for the loss of special unarmed attacks.
A dervish, similarly, just need to have his ki changed to baraka, a special weapon or class thereof and a feat progression that points more effectively towards Whirlwind attack.
3. One might ask: why can't the monk class be modified into the European mendicant friar? My answer is: because the mendicant friar is already modeled in the form of an armourless cleric. The starting point for making a European monk is modifying the cleric class not modifying the monk class. About the only things I can think one would borrow from the monk for such a class are, possibly:
(a) Wisdom bonus to AC
(b) Lack of armour proficiency
I hope this helps in sending the discussion in a more constructive direction.
The position I articulated, to reiterate, is that the monk is not a good fit in a campaign that is primarily based on Western mythic Europe. But there is no requirement that this be the basis of campaigns. So, instead of getting further into the argument that seems to be developing here, let me rephrase my original post in the form of suggestions:
1. Good campaign worlds can draw on multiple myth traditions provided they do so with intelligence and balance. If a GM wants to include both monks and Western archetypal classes (e.g. paladins), he should design a world that draws on both eastern and western myth rather than just importing the monk into an otherwise western story. There are a number of ways of doing this:
(a) running a Western-looking feudal campaign (ie. using Western names or tech.) that is actually based not on the European mythic past but instead on Japanese feudalism or Islamic chivalry .
(b) running a clash of civilizations type of campaign modeled after some variant of the crusades or the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.
(c) spending some time to create a unique fusion of European, Asian and brand new ideas that produces a totally different kind of world. But by spending time, I mean actually getting to know something about both European and non-European traditions so that these non-European features turn out to be better than window dressing.
2. GMs should be willing to modify the monk class in order to adapt it to the myth structure of the campaign. So, if you're anywhere west of the South China sea, ditch the shurikens and nunchaku. If you're anywhere west of the Arabian Sea, ditch the unarmed fighting style. If you're anywhere west of the Bosphorus, ditch the whole damned class.
So, to put this into practice, let's imagine modifying the monk class into the athlete of God of Middle Eastern Christianity:
(a) Make the monk a staff-wielder and have the stuff damage progress exactly and unarmed damage does now.
(b) Change the term "ki" to "merits."
(c) Grant wider weapon proficiency to compensate for the loss of special unarmed attacks.
A dervish, similarly, just need to have his ki changed to baraka, a special weapon or class thereof and a feat progression that points more effectively towards Whirlwind attack.
3. One might ask: why can't the monk class be modified into the European mendicant friar? My answer is: because the mendicant friar is already modeled in the form of an armourless cleric. The starting point for making a European monk is modifying the cleric class not modifying the monk class. About the only things I can think one would borrow from the monk for such a class are, possibly:
(a) Wisdom bonus to AC
(b) Lack of armour proficiency
I hope this helps in sending the discussion in a more constructive direction.
Similar Threads
