Tell me about Monks in your world.

[TheFan]

Monks come from all sorts of places in my world.

One country uses them as diplomats. (After all, diplomacy and sense motive are class skills). They are trained in the use of martial arts since you realy can't bring swords to a negotiating table.

In an island nation, they are the elite bodyguards of the king. Wearing grass-plumed helmets, capes, and not much else but a loincloth, they are trained in a brutal grappling style.

Could go on, but really, the asiatic monks are a small minority in my world.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I use oathsworn in my AU rules game, and most of them are human priests of the Dragon-gods, especially the Red Monks of Garyx. Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries is a good PrC for them.

In Eberron, they're mostly the Valaes Tairn sword-dancers, goblin ninjae, and religious warriors.

In IK, they're religious warriors and occasionally assassins and enforcers (in the Theocracy of Menoth).

 

[Aaron L]

I have them set up as warrior-philosophers from a pseudo Greco-Roman culture, recognized as a strict psionic discipline alongside Psions and Psychic Warriors.

I also remove the multiclass limitations.

 

[Tonguez]

In an island nation, they are the elite bodyguards of the king. Wearing grass-plumed helmets, capes, and not much else but a loincloth, they are trained in a brutal grappling style.
.

Hey I have this too!

I also have a pseudo-Greek/Minoan culture ruled by Scorcerer -Kings on their way to becoming Dragon-gods. The whole culture is into Eugenics with everyone trying to improve themselves physically, mentally and spiritually even going so far as Biomancy (ie creating monsters like Owl Bears, Athachs etc). Here the Bull Leapers of Minos have become Monks who hone their bodies, mind and souls to service of the Dragon-Kings. The Bull Leaping is an initial selection rite, the true training happens afterwards perfecting the body and eventually overcoming physical limitations (whereupon they become outsiders and true guardians of the Dragon-gods)


But IMHO the best Monk is a Psychic warrior (or at least a Monk with Psionic feats - they rock!)

 

[Greg K]

The closest thing my world has to the monk is a cleric variant for female priests of one of the campaign's deities. Originally it was a paladin variant, but now it is a variant of the champion good cleric from UA (which itself replaces paladin's in my campaign world for the male priests of the deity).

As Champion of Good, but
1. gives up all armor for monks unarmored AC.
2. Gives up most weapons for UA strike and OA Shaman's unarrmed damage.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Campaign I want to run

As for the monk not being authentic Medieval, name a D&D class that is. I can poke holes in every one of the character classes. D&D would not be as popular as it is if we had to play authentic medieval characters in an authentic medieval world. Just look at Magic, Equipment, or Monsters. Even those of you who like their Hellenic style campaigns aren't thorougly authentic and they can't be since we don't know everything about those times and some of their practices are repugnant by modern sensibilities.

At any rate, the type of campaign I want to run is to use Monks, but make them look and act outwardly as western monks. They do have mystical and martial arts training and people know this, but they still sport tonsures, make wine, and farm. What I want to do is a Henry VIII game where the king wants to take their land and give it to his supporting nobles. In the "real world" they had no defense, but what if they could kick some serious tail with open handed combat, now that would be a war and a game to run.

 

[Tonguez]

At any rate, the type of campaign I want to run is to use Monks, but make them look and act outwardly as western monks. They do have mystical and martial arts training and people know this, but they still sport tonsures, make wine, and farm. What I want to do is a Henry VIII game where the king wants to take their land and give it to his supporting nobles. In the "real world" they had no defense, but what if they could kick some serious tail with open handed combat, now that would be a war and a game to run.

Actually many of those western monks were accomplished wrestlers. SOme monastaries required monks to engage in daily exercise and calisthenics so they probably were stronger, faster and fitter than many)

 

[fusangite]

As for the monk not being authentic Medieval, name a D&D class that is.

The question is not being authentically medieval; the question is whether a class conforms to a fantasy medieval archetype we can situate in our shared mythic past.

Every culture, including the West has the archetype of the martial ascetic. In the East, the martial ascetic is the archetype represented by the Monk class. In the West, the martial ascetic is represented by the Paladin.

D&D is not about the actual past; it is about the mythic past. Common D&D archetypes derive from the mythic past of Western Europeans -- this mythic past has deep roots going back 500 years or more. The Bard and Druid classes are based on the Celtic mythic past that has been celebrated in literature for more than a millennium. The Paladin and Cleric derive from the ascetic holy knights we imagined into the crusades -- again a tradition more than 700 years old. The Wizard and Sorceror derive from the original idea of the mage/magus -- an archetype that has existed in our literature for more than 2000 years. The generic fighter goes back to the dawn of time; and the Barbarian derives from the Norse berserkers who, again, stretch back through nearly 1000 years of literature and myth.

The only classes that do not stem from powerful cultural archetypes are the Ranger and the Monk -- the two classes that I think add little or nothing to D&D. (Yes, one could link the Ranger to the Robin Hood archetype but suddenly the two-fisted wildernazi doesn't seem such a good way to model the idea.)

Now, if I were running a campaign in the Eastern Orthodox world -- one based on the medieval near east, I would be all over the Monk class. In both Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, we have the hermit/athlete of God, the original St. Symeon/St. Anthony model of Christian asceticism before St. Benedict came along. It is from this tradition that the Islamic Sufi/Dervish springs.

So, I'm not opposed to the monk per se; I just think the class is a poor cultural fit and makes about as much sense as the Barbarian class would in a feudal Japan game.

So, because I've never run a campaign based on cultural archetypes from east of the Adriatic, I've never run a game with monks therein.

 

[Felon]

Folks, in a thread entitled "Tell Me About Monks in Your World", exactly what kind of contribution do you think is being made by posting that you don't have them in your world? If I ask people to tell me what they think of New York, I'm pretty obviously only looking to hear from people who've been to New York.

WotC's treatment of monks in their published material is pretty odd. They actually equate the eatern martial artist monk with the western mendicant friar monk. So if you go to a church of a lawful god, they typically have a few monks on staff.

IMC, I use a few house rules. First off, monks and paladins don't have the standard multi-classing restriction. It's stupid and pointless and accomplishes nothing and should have been repealed in 3.5e.

Secondly, monks do not inflict more dice of damage with their unarmed strikes as they gain levels. Instead, at 4th level (when they would receive their first die increase), they can add their Wis modifier (if positive) to their damage with both unarmed strikes and with special monk weapons (even ranged weapons, out to 30 feet).

One of the big advantages to this rule is that it doesn't make using monk weapons a sub-optimal choice. Some monks will prefer unarmed strikes so they can make use of feats like Stunning Fist and the others in Complete Warrior that use it as a prerequisite, but it won't be a hands-down choice.

 

[Dakkareth]

Folks, in a thread entitled "Tell Me About Monks in Your World", exactly what kind of contribution do you think is being made by posting that you don't have them in your world? If I ask people to tell me what they think of New York, I'm pretty obviously only looking to hear from people who've been to New York.

People posting that they have no monks in their world are the same as people saying, that they've been to New York and didn't like it. They have reasons and their opinions contribute to the topic. Unlike the above quote and this post.