Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6194143" data-attributes="member: 95493">First, regardless what it is inspired by, the Jedi as presented in the original trilogy (which later spurred the whole expanded universe) were warriors first. They were ascetic ones but non the less they were warriors. However, in that they were warriors they did not use warrior tricks. Obi Wan pulled out his saber once to cut off a dude's arm and then another time when fighting another (former) jedi. Everything else he did made him non-warrior, using mind tricks and force persuasion to get his way.Second, have you ever seen TV tropes? I know they can be maddening but they are quite useful in other ways - often opening up insights that a single person may otherwise miss on their own analysis. <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WarriorMonk" target="_blank">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WarriorMonk</a> is the relevant link, and looking at the movies you can see that the Jedi blend the difference between a holy warrior and oriental mysticism, saying, "Jedi Knights from Star Wars combine Western chivalry and swordsmanship with Eastern mysticism and acrobatics." So, in this way I think that jedi are non-oriental. They are also a great example of how to do something that may otherwise be oriental in origin, in a non-oriental space.So, yes there is oriental influences there, I don't dispute that; but there is equally non-oriental ones.Yes? I mean in reality I would say no, but in background it fits much better in divine than in arcane so I have to say yes I guess. I mostly mean mysticism as in NOT magic, neither arcane nor divine. I'm not sold on psionic either - but I'm sure with the best writers they could get me there.Still no. Not warrior wizard.Warrior priest, one term two words. Not warrior-priest. But that is really semantics.[tangent]I think your problem is my saying "not talking to the gods"? And because of that him not being divine, but instead being arcane? Druids don't talk to the gods, they commune with nature. So too do jedi (commune with nature) but in a very different way).[/tangent]But no once again I don't think he is really divine at all. His flavour is vaguely priest, he is called Monk after all.Warrior Priest, one term two words. Not Warrior/Priest. I don't think he has the skills of a warrior nor a priest. I don't think he could be made by either a warrior or a priest (or a mage or a trickster). I think he has elements of warrior and priest, namely he fights (sometimes) and is a holy man. Skills-wise he is closest to trickster because he has a lot of tricks. If I had a different term (other than monk or jedi) then I could say he is that. Perhaps (which came up last time too) he is best represented as a paladin, but not as a paladin. A monk may be to a paladin as a druid is to a cleric. Mystic powers and a honed body as opposed to holy powers and a patron god. But that is the closets I can give you.And yes, a paladin is also a warrior priest, but is neither.1. I never said mage. You did, but I didn't.2. I don't know what marty sue is or what its relationship is to your argument. Please clarify, or else I'll have to ignore it.3. It doesn't have to outshine everything, there is literally no reason it has to. In fact in 3e it is considered one of the weakest classes because it does many things, second best. I think in this regard it fits in the same place as a bard; music-magic, fighting ability, healing - but not squarely in any group.4. "then it probably isn't going to make the people that like it happy  because it's not monkish enough with its cool combination rogue,  warrior, priest, wizard powers." It shouldn't have any of those thing's powers. That is my point really. It has its own suit and should have its own suit that makes it cool and unique. I don't see a paladin, bard, druid, etc. having to justify its placement as a class to the degree a monk does.5. I don't have a lot of experience with Jedi in RPGs, I've listened to a few saga games but that's about it. In those games I've listened to the jedi don't disrupt the game but I suppose there is always room for abuse. The same as how I've only rarely had wizards/casters disrupt the game, it can happen I'm sure but it is not the norm.I'm going to be honest. I wrote that because I was trying to be clear enough that monk isn't just lumped in with psionics (but again, I'm open to be being convinced of this). But no, it isn't magic. It isn't even spell-like, as I said. I said supernatural and meant it. Supernatural in the ways already described - able to do things close to human ability. A wizard casts a spell and conjures a fireball from the tip of their finger that explodes at a designated location. They could also cast a spell that allows them to float to the ground as if a feather. The cleric can cast a spell and revive a fallen comrade. A paladin can even cast a spell and ask their god for some kind of boon to kill the enemy. The monk.. falls and doesn't hurt himself. He jumps really high, without the spell but through training. Do you see the difference? It is like I read in another thread, "The druid uses magic to part the undergrowth while he passes, the ranger moves through it as if it weren't there." (If someone directs me to the actual quote and who says it I'll edit this post.)Who/What Caine? Michael Caine?</blockquote>

Verification