Worldwide Europe - Are People Doing This?

[Psion]

Okay, well Faerun-lore states in the FRCS
(...)
So, as you can well see, monks are from Faraway Lands, at least in FR.

Yup. That's the one I was alluding to when I said "Because of all the campaigns I own (and there are many), I can only think of one."

Any others? The notion that I am challenging is the notion that's all that ever is, which is demonstratably false. There are many that wouldn't argue that FR has some shortcomings as a logical and consistent setting.

 

[Nyaricus]

Yup. That's the one I was alluding to when I said "Because of all the campaigns I own (and there are many), I can only think of one."

Any others? The notion that I am challenging is the notion that's all that ever is, which is demonstratably false. There are many that wouldn't argue that FR has some shortcomings as a logical and consistent setting.

Unfortuatly, my setting-fu fails here. Don't have an answer other than Forgotten Realms; I don't own any other campaign settings, otehr than that, and my own homebrew.

Anyways, despite your following statement, I am pretty sure that I have proved, beyond reason of a doubt, that FR has monks form faraway lands. Sure, FR has some problems, but it's survived how many editions, with some major change-ups along the way. Personally, I think it's doing pretty good

 

[Psion]

Anyways, despite your following statement, I am pretty sure that I have proved, beyond reason of a doubt, that FR has monks form faraway lands. Sure, FR has some problems, but it's survived how many editions, with some major change-ups along the way. Personally, I think it's doing pretty good

Well then obviously, not a lot of people have a big problem with this particular complaint.

But I think my initial point has been made -- many, probably most, D&D/D20 settings write all core classes, monks included, into the setting in some capacity.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've noticed a trend on these forums for certain people to respond with immediate and fervent hate to any possibility of cultural influences outside of Europe appearing in their D&D worlds, especially if those influences are Oriental. I have been exposed to Oriental culture more than most Enworlders living in the United States, but I think even without that bias I would still like a little cultural diversity in my campaign settings.

Now, given the nature of a D&D world, where there is magic to influence events, I can't imagine a world where, if there was an Oriental culture out there, it wouldn't have bled into the rest of the world a little. But some people seem to think the existence of Monks in their setting is a dreadful thing.

What I'm wondering is if this is an indication such people develop a Worldwide Europe setting, with no room for other cultures to actually make the world realistic and interesting. Discuss!

Most campaigns simply do not cover an entire WORLD. IME, and IMO they generally get limited to a an area... about the size of Europe. Thus, the cultures presented tend not to be dramatically diverse.

This is not in and of itself a bad thing. A successful campaign does not need cultural diversity to provide multi-national events and strife if such should be desired. Most campaigns do also include plenty of RACIAL diversity even if they do not borrow from outside European cultures since D&D has Halflings, Gnomes, Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs. Fit all those into a mix with a few European human cultures and you don't exactly have a lot of room left to start cramming in the rich and varied Oriental, African, South- and Central-American cultures to further "diversify" their campaign worlds. It gets to be WAY too much very quickly. Accordingly, if you START with a pseudo-European cultural base you then tend not to go overboard with sharply contrasting cultures from far outside European norms - such as the Orient.

The "norm" for fantasy settings is, like it or not, a pseudo-European model. It isn't really a matter of some kind of bias AGAINST other world cultures so much as it is a tradition of the genre that the cultures remain very predominantly European.

Having said all that, the single most likely culture to be introduced to a fantasy RPG that already has a European base is an Oriental one. Regarding the monk, if I understand it correctly, Gygax's original intent was that the monk WASN'T meant to be intrinsic to settings such as Greyhawk on a large scale, but was presented to be an itinerant outsider. Mostly that's how I've always used them - mostly.

I don't have a problem with people who say that monks are underpowered or problematic in some mechanical way. I don't have a problem with people who simply, and politely, say that the monk has no place in their campaign world because there is no cultural basis for it. I DO have a problem with anyone who goes on about how a class with an Oriental... orientation doesn't BELONG in a D&D setting. Not in YOUR setting - okay. Not in D&D AT ALL, I strongly disagree for any number of reasons. "It's Fantasy," being #1 and rather unassailable to begin with.

 

[Nyaricus]

Well then obviously, not a lot of people have a big problem with this particular complaint.

I do - and please, leave the smartass "'s" at home. I understand you are trying to make a point - no *nudges* or *winks* needed.

But I think my initial point has been made -- many, probably most, D&D/D20 settings write all core classes, monks included, into the setting in some capacity.

Well, it's core, so it's almost a prereq in many cases - I am sure that many a CS has been pidgeoned-holed into including some unwanted elements, monk included.

 

[Zapak Vim]

So, Chaotic Monks, eh?

We call for redemption!! Armageddon is upon us!

yes, well, mine are lawful like in the book, yes historical cathars and other heretics would be chaotic if I was trying to fit them into DnD, but I kept the standard lawful monk, I liked the idea that they reject temples and other worldy things in favour of a simple wandering but still lawful, lifestyle. Unlike historical cathars etc, they do not preach rebellion or do any other chaotic type stuff. they preach a simple life, obedience to the govt etc, so they are not violently supressed as much as a chaotic rebellious cult might be, but as they do try to recruit people to their beliefs they are not liked by the churches.

At the moment in my campaign the monks are split between those who want to fight back against the dominant LG temples, and those who want to make themselves useful to the nobility and avoid oppression by having lots of powerful friends, but Im getting wildly off the topic now . .

 

[GQuail]

Second Edition chucked Assassins, Half-orcs AND the Monk class (not to mention the terms Demons and Devils when referring to those critters; that's why they are called Baatezu and whatnot) and upped the requisite of term-work in order to avoid flak that D&D was a "devil-worshipping" game about the occult thanks to a bunch of bad (and mostly false) press.

When I first wrote that post, I almost said "pulled an Assassin on the monk", until I remembered their absence in 2nd Ed. ;-) But with both 1st Ed, and the RC Mystics and suchlike, there's certainly enough of a history of D&D Monks to view them as a sacred cow of sorts: certainly, if you count the RC Mystic, the fact they're the only one of the classes who aren't a Big Four to get in the RC says something about the archetype.

Although to drop the monk in favour of having it in a Oriental Adventures book would be a different reason, some might take this the wrong way for some reason, or accuse WotC for racism, which would be silly as well. If you want to make an Oriental-themed book, why not put all your cards in one hand?

Hmm, the racism complaint is one I hadn't considered: but as testified by the tone of the OP, I guess quite a few people would consider a totally European-ised D&D as being somewhat "blinkered". Like I said, I wouldn't mind if the Monk persistd in core rules but as a noted setting-specific element (much like Katanas and Muskets are already) and then OA could expand them appropriately: but some people might see that as "casting out" the Monk, yeah.

 

[Psion]

I do - and please, leave the smartass "'s" at home. I understand you are trying to make a point - no *nudges* or *winks* needed.

No hostility needed. I just found it mildly amusing that you seem to be making my point for me.

Well, it's core, so it's almost a prereq in many cases - I am sure that many a CS has been pidgeoned-holed into including some unwanted elements, monk included.

Unwanted by you. Those settings that really don't fit a monk like Iron Kingdoms don't use it. Those that do use it tend to lavish sufficient attention to it that it's pretty clear that it's not "unwanted."

 

[Hussar]

Just to mention, and because Nightfall would like me to , Monks are hardwired into Scarred Lands. The invasion of the Chardunni dwarves before the Divine War brought brutal repression to Scarn and the stripping of weapons from the citizenry. Groups then developed unarmed combat techniques in response and monk traditions grew from that.

Doesn't seem like a terribly difficult thing to add to most settings I think.

Something that should also be mentioned is that unarmed combat techniques isn't out of place in a Eurocentric setting. The ARMA has numerous fight books demonstrating teaching of various techniques that would suit a monk. Throws, strikes, grapples are all part of a knights teaching. Granted, the ki stuff isn't - that's pure Asian flavour, but, switch it out for holy flavour and give monks a diety. Poof, instant monk that fits into any setting.

 

[GQuail]

Just to mention, and because Nightfall would like me to , Monks are hardwired into Scarred Lands. The invasion of the Chardunni dwarves before the Divine War brought brutal repression to Scarn and the stripping of weapons from the citizenry. Groups then developed unarmed combat techniques in response and monk traditions grew from that.

Doesn't seem like a terribly difficult thing to add to most settings I think.

I do like these kinds of logical leaps: the above gives a very reasonable, Capoeria-esque formation of the martial arts, which sits well. The problem, though, is that some people don't think you should have to shoe-horn in a special Monk story into every campaign setting when you don't have to work a special "excuse" for Barbarians, Druids or Sorcerers or whatever for most.

Arguably, "I am from an uncivilized tribe in the north" or "I am related to a dragon" is just the same thing. ;-)

Something that should also be mentioned is that unarmed combat techniques isn't out of place in a Eurocentric setting. The ARMA has numerous fight books demonstrating teaching of various techniques that would suit a monk. Throws, strikes, grapples are all part of a knights teaching. Granted, the ki stuff isn't - that's pure Asian flavour, but, switch it out for holy flavour and give monks a diety. Poof, instant monk that fits into any setting.

I think the most recent Dragon has some ideas for divine Monks which I thought were quite cool: like you said, alternate some of the flavour and remove words like "ki" and suddenly you have a class a whole lot of Monk-haters could probably find time for.