# How do you fit monks into Occidental campaigns?



## Tonguez (Feb 22, 2002)

The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?

yet most gamers use Westernish settings

How do you reconcile the two?

- Monks are exotic 'oriental' visitors to the campaign region  
- Monks are a integral part of normal society
- Monks are changed to have a more occidental outlook whilst maintaining their core abilities

any ideas?


----------



## Black Omega (Feb 22, 2002)

I consider it a non-fantasy 'DnD thing' they did just because they liked watching Kung Fu and they've never bothered to remove it because some people like it.  In general the monks are just an accepted part of society.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2002)

The two times I've played a martial artist/monk, I had the character come from "a far distant place, thataway".


----------



## Roland Delacroix (Feb 22, 2002)

I played a non-Occidental monk twice.  The first time I played a philosopher/mathematician from a greek like society.  Instead of training my body per se my order studied mathematics, philosophy and engineering.  This gave us great insite into how the body moves, acts, and reacts.  With this knowledge we learned how merely tapping a person lightly in the perfectlly calculated place could cause agony or disable.  Greater knowledge of the bodys mathematics lead to greater eficiency, expressed in movement and attacks.

The second time I was just a bare knuckle brawler.  Trip attacks were RPed as a roundhouse so vicious it knocked men down in a single blow.  'Lucky' tended to be at the right place at the right time, barely dodging fireballs and rolling with falls.  Mixed in a few Fighter levels there, and if I ever play him again I'll prolly use the Oriental Adventure feats heavily.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Feb 22, 2002)

You could always have it started by Lawful outsiders that want to increase their numbers on the Prime planes.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 22, 2002)

I have a vaguely western setting but with martial arts which are integrated into the whole thing. Monks in my world are seeking perfection of body and spirit but not in a zen/shaolin etc way.

My campaign has a very wide range of martial arts feats, and many martial artists are simply fighters who specialise in unarmed combat.

Imagine a world where unarmed fighting and fighting techniques were as common and popular as various schools of swordfighting and stickfighting in europe (with addition of savate and similar european unarmed striking techniques)


----------



## Kriegspiel (Feb 22, 2002)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Imagine a world where unarmed fighting and fighting techniques were as common and popular as various schools of swordfighting and stickfighting in europe (with addition of savate and similar european unarmed striking techniques) *




You mean like the one we live in?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 22, 2002)

I incorporate it into the culture.

I have things set up so that an order of my Judeo-Xian-esque god retreats to better contemplate their deity through mental, spiritual, and physical perfection.  When the emerge into the world to spread their findings, they discovered that their training made them pretty good combattants (they used sparring as a way to test their physical development) this embarassed the order horribly but the cat had been let out of the bag.  There are two other "monestaries" that copy the divine one, but they don't follow any school of thought and are just in it to learn how to beat people up (evil orientation).


----------



## Psion (Feb 22, 2002)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> *The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> ...




As I see it, you can:

Exclude monks (A DM locally who wanted to make a very Christianish/Knightly game do this, in addition to hearing of this multiple times on the net)
Tweak monks to fit european archetypes like savate fighters and pankrationists.
Assume your campaign is like Europe except for certain aspects. Frex, what if a nation like India or China was much closer to your europe analog, like where the middle east is in our world?
Explain monks in the context that they exist in your game, and not worry about what happened in ancient Europe.

Personally, I lean towards the last one. AFAIAC, my game only resembles Europe inasmuch as it, er, resembles Europe. Yes there are knightly warriors and suchnot. But in the age of knights in Europe, a monotheistic religion held sway; in my campaign (and in most campaigns) there is a more pantheistic outlook. So it would be rather odd to me to try to enforce consistency with europe as an archetype when it doesn't fit the mold in so many other ways. (And I won't start on how different the easily available magic in D&D makes a D&D world different from europe.)

Your world is your world. Europe is Europe. The right thing to do, like any other aspect of the game, is to decide why it exists, including history. Martial arts has always been part of my game world that I have been using since 1e. Monks are followers of certain deities who espouse both a martial life and introspection. IMC, knowledge (religion) is a class skill for monks (and I was happy to see that OA agrees with me on this count.) Some orders of monks have evolved that do not hold a deity central, but all orders have some sort of central purpose (this idea was lifted from a well written article in an old Dragon, which I'm sure you could dig up if you have the CD archive.)


----------



## nsruf (Feb 22, 2002)

I excluded monks from my campaign, as they don't match my idea of a pseudo-medieval setting. But it's really a matter of taste.


----------



## drnuncheon (Feb 22, 2002)

One could also look at the reasons that monasteries and the martial arts evolved as they did in the Orient, and incorporate elements of that history into your campaign.  

For example, most of the traditional "monk weapons" (much like Western polearms) are evolved from farming implements - the nunchaku from rice flails, the sai from some sort of gardening tool, etc).  This happened in Okinawa because the Japanese rulers refused to allow the populace to have any weapons - so the people improvised.

In many cases unarmed martial arts were developed by people who weren't allowed to own weapons, because regardless of what Shaw Brothers films might depict, weapons are a heck of a lot better at hurting someone than puncing or kicking them is.  Combine that with the concept of monasteries - isolated spiritual communities in remote places, who will often need protection in a dangeous world - and you have a situation ripe for the development/adoption of the monk class.

In one world I worked on, the first monks were humans who were not permitted weapons by their elven overlords.  The monks developed the arts diguised as dance and other religious observances, and formed the core of the rebellion that eventually freed their people.

J


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with Psion here: most campaigns (and the D&D campaigns in particular) don't particularly look like Medieval Europe, neither does the monk class look particularly like a zen Oriental monk.  Both are so far removed from the historical reality that there's no real conflict between the monk and the setting in a traditional D&D setting.

However, there are settings that can't support a monk, either because they are more like medieval Europe than the standard D&D, or for whatever reason.  I made a setting based heavily on Celtic and Germanic folklore that featured a Seelie/Unseelie court of non-humans and the like, and thought that the monk definately had to go, as well as all the monk-like prestige classes.  But, if using a homebrew setting, YMMV.


----------



## Codragon (Feb 22, 2002)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> *The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> ...




I think that the Monk class's name should have been "Martial Artist".  Think about it.  All D&D Monks are skilled martial artists.  None of Western Europe's "Monks" (the kind that lived in abbeys, took vows of silence, wore plain brown robes) were martial artists.  Since many D&D campaigns strive for an "occidental outlook", this causes confusion.   And not even all real-life Oriental Monks were/are skilled Martial artists. Therefore, the Monk class's name is a misleading.

Perhaps the reason they kept the Monk name was to attract old-school gamers to 3E by reviving the old 1E Monk class.  I have nothing against the class itself, just the name.

As an aside, I think core D&D is not based on Western Europe or the Middle Ages as much as most people think.  But that's a whole other topic...

To answer your question:  I would not worry too much about "reconciling" Monks in D&D.  As I alluded to above, D&D is not that similar to Western Europe, and even if it was, who says your campaign has to be?  Maybe martial artists ARE "Westernish" in your world.  Or maybe they are visitors from a far-off land.  It's just another campaign decision you have to make, like what mountains the orcs live in or what country borders what.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Feb 22, 2002)

Has to agree with the general consensus---it's your world, make what you will of it.  You can easily think of a reason for their presence/absence IYC.

The way I resolved the presence of the martial artist monks in my pseudo-European realm is simple---the PHB monks are the result of missionaries who worked their way from the lands of my OA-style empire to this one.  And, as it often occurs with language, these monks stayed closer to their roots than those monks in the "homeland"---hence the difference in multiclassng allowances, weapons allowed, & feat/virtual feat selection (the language reference deals with immigration/colonization---the immigrants/colonists, in an effort to retain a connection with their homeland, change little/slower, while the language spoken in the homeland is more prone to change.  Hence why Icelandic is closer to Old Norse than any of the modern Scandinavian languages---used to hold true for English-speaking colonists, as well).

The end result---PHB monks vs. OA monks.  PHB monks can't multiclass; OA monks can.  PHB monks have a smaller weapon list than OA monks.  PHB monks gain certain feats at certain levels; OA monks have a little more freedom to choose.

But, it's up to you.  If you allow OA classes/races, then the above situation might be an option.  If not, then you're free to create your own.  Maybe a githzerai monk instituted a monastery on the Prime; maybe it naturally developed on its own; etc.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Feb 22, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *This happened in Okinawa because the Japanese rulers refused to allow the populace to have any weapons - so the people improvised. *




Salutations,

In my last campeign, I grasped on to the same line- the largest kingdom distrusted the power of the church and forbade anyone of the cloth to wield weapons. This lead to the development of martial arts/monks.

In my current campeign, there is a "far east" like land that monks come from.

If I ever get around to running my psionic campeign, then the monks will be developed by a sect of psi-warriors who believe that as their mind provides all that is needed, should their body provide any less?

Of course, I also go through the same thought process on paladins, rangers, wizards, sorcerers, and bards.

FD


----------



## Ruvion (Feb 22, 2002)

I would have to agree with the above posters...A D&D campaigns do not equate usually to real world medieval Europe.  Although, there may be people playing a polytheistic, magic infested, Middle Age Europe, most campaigns usually do not follow this path IMO.  So let the fist-totting, kick-swinging monks rule!


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 22, 2002)

In my campaign, monks come from the same Greco-Romanesque culture as psions and psychic warriors, and are recognized as another psionic discipline.


----------



## Wolf72 (Feb 22, 2002)

*GreyHawk*

the Empire that monks were a part of was destroyed and the survivors moved/immigrated.  Along with them they brought their fighting styles and preferences.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find something in today's society that doesn't seem to fit in all the time, but is present anyway and seems to have just placed itself there.


----------



## Enforcer (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't use monks in my homebrew campaign, but if I wanted the eastern and western continents to have some contact, I'd probably introduce one.

I think they're easier to introduce if you have a god like Ilmater from the Forgotten Realms, who might teach his followers the martial arts.

As far as having a western brawler class goes, I think a fighter with unarmed feats works pretty well.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 22, 2002)

The Bloodguard in the Thomas Covenant books by Stephen Donaldson are a good example of Monk-types integrated into a quasi-medieval setting, although AIR the Bloodguard are immortal & sterile as a result of an oath.

In my core campaign Monks are either exotic visitors or practitioners of an exotic (lawful) religious philosophy given to both introspection and physical perfection.  The most odd ones are probably my Christian Gnostic Monk martial artists.

Monks fit poorly into some Lawful religions - eg Hextor & Heironeus in Greyhawk shouldn't really have Monk-class followers IMO.  The Lawful Suel & Bakluni deities certainly should.


----------



## Enkhidu (Feb 22, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> ...Monks fit poorly into some Lawful religions - eg Hextor & Heironeus in Greyhawk shouldn't really have Monk-class followers IMO.  The Lawful Suel & Bakluni deities certainly should. [/B]




I definitely have to agree with that statement - Monks in an Occidental setting often have a hard time fitting in to an existing religious framework. Which is why they tend to work much better in home brewed worlds.

An example - Monks in our present campaign world come from the schools run by Agnostic Gnomes (as a culture, gnomes in our campaign world do not believe in divine beings, but in perfection of self through a set of ideals - they have no official priesthoods, but do have schools/monastaries that crank out Monks - trained in body and spirit under a very strict set of rules).


----------



## glaucon (Feb 22, 2002)

Greetings, 
IMHO it's the word 'monk' that causes the problem. That and the fact that EVERY 1st Edition picture of a monk was Oriental in nature... tsk, tsk
The way I see it, any priest could be a monk... if the particular traditions of a church/sect eschew the use of weaponry.. naturally they're going to concentrate on honing the body to be used offensively...


----------



## Henry (Feb 22, 2002)

In my home-brew campaign, I solved it in a "traditional" manner - there is an asian-flavored continent (or two) in the world, that is a combination of korean/chinese/thai culture, mixed with the feel of the continent of Taladas from the Dragonlance setting. It is a much harsher land, almost apocalyptic in its views of might and right, and many monks who located in the west, came west to escape the place!


----------



## Seagrim_Sirius (Nov 3, 2010)

*The Monk in terms of Science*

Instead of thinking of the monk as a 'monk' like typical thought, i agree in saying it should be titled a Martial Artist. Artist in the way of perfecting their art work of a body. But if you are planning on a game with no Eastern philosophy, you can include the Monk class in a more conventional way. The Monk can be titled a "Physician" or a doctor. Using the knowledge of medical studies, and knowledge of the human body, he knows the principals of body mechanics and the most lethal and sensitive areas of the body. For example, a brawler might swing at their opponents face while the Doctor might apply a no-strength block to re-direct the force of the incoming punch, sidestep, then tap the back of the jawline with a protruding thumb or press on the St3 (weak point on the face) and break the eye socket. That would take care of the damage part of the monk, but there are other things to address as well. The abnormal healing and health of the monk could be explained by the superior diet and exercise. He knows what stretches to do, what lifting maximizes good bones. All food for thought, give it a think.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 3, 2010)

_This thread was *eight years old*_


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 3, 2010)

IME, monks were usually just ignored. I think that, of all the AD&D campaigns I have played in, they were only used in one. As a result, I don't really miss them in OSRIC, either. In fact, the other day, it occurred to me that I think OSRIC is a stronger game _because_ it lacks the monk class. The monk has, to me, always seemed to be that one piece of AD&D that did not match. You know, "One of these things is not like the others..."


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _This thread was *eight years old*_




But monks never go stale - its all the preservatives they put in them.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 3, 2010)

Oh, hey! I did not notice the necromancy! I'd be _so_ dead right now if I was a D&D character!


----------



## Set (Nov 3, 2010)

Reflavor the monk to be some sort of savage warrior who eschews the use of weapons and armor, believing that they have made man soft and weak and dependent upon tools. Emulating the abilities of the wild animals, until he can punch an oxen into unconsciousness and strike with the swiftness of an adder, the primal warrior is going all Fight Club / Tyler Durden and trying to remove the shackles that 'civilization' has placed upon man and strengthen himself to again be a part of the natural world, and not some weakened and dissolute shadow of what a man can truly be.

The first rule about Wild Fist Style, is that you don't talk about Wild Fist Style.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 3, 2010)

Tonguez said:


> The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> ...




- Monks don't exist.

If there's a good place for monks in your campaign setting, include them. If not, get rid of 'em, simple as that. There are plenty of other classes out there. I detest this idea that anyone who chooses to run a D&D campaign must find room for every class and race and concept TSR and Wizards ever came up with.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't.

I detest the very concept of the monk in a great many ways that have nothing to do with flavor.  I wouldn't even use the monk class in a heavily oriental themed campaign.   

I have no problem with the concepts of 'martial artist' or 'skilled with fighting barehanded', but both of those concepts seem to me to fit within the concept of a 'fighter'.  So, to me, the problem is first that the fighter isn't well designed if you can't make those concepts within the class. 

Likewise, I have very basic problems with the notion of "I can be just as effective of a combatant bare handed and naked as I could with a weapon and armor.", regardless of class implementation.  Real 'warrior monks' or 'warrior priests' might well have been skilled with fighting with their hands, but nonetheless prefered to use weapons when they were available.  In a world where your naked bare handed men can be front line warriors, why would weapons and armor ever be invented?   Not needing equipment with its expense and hassle is a huge advantage.   So as a result, the concept of a 'barehanded fighter' is inherently impossible balance.  Either its not effective or its too effective.   But 'just right' is just about impossible to achieve.

Additionally, I don't have occidental/oriental campaigns.   You'd be hard pressed to determine whether Italy, or Wales, or India had more influence over the culture of the nation where my current campaign is set.   I don't particularly like straight up copies of real world nations or cultures showing up in my fantasy.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 3, 2010)

Tonguez said:


> The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> How do you reconcile the two?



By playing a normal D&D fantasy setting which doesn't give a hoot about such things, and not a real-world Occidental-ish setting.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 3, 2010)

I treat them like any other class in my game. You will never hear me say:

"All barbarians are 'X'"
"All fighters are 'X'"
"All monks are 'X'"

When a player decides to play a class I let them tell me their concept and I tell them if their concept fits my campaign world.

And I play the same. My city-born socialite with a secret history of dragon-blood lineage? A barbarian/sorcerer. No foraging for roots in the wild for this character. His rage ability was reflavored to tapping into the strength of his dragon heritage.

I don't know why people let themselves get so boxxed up in a character class.


----------



## Corathon (Nov 3, 2010)

Monks (of the "kung-fu fighting" variety) in the quasi-European part of the game world are members of a single order (which then split into three over theological differences) sent into the area as a consequence of a prophecy.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 3, 2010)

I simply hybridize Western and Eastern fantasy.  Though European fantasy lacked "kung-fu" monastic orders, they did have monastic orders.  Considering that it's my world, I say "now they do."  They train in the ways of the body because they believe it is a way of staying holy.  I dunno, really if you're attempting to "reconcile" eastern and western fantasy, you're taking everything far to literally.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 3, 2010)

No problems with monks.  Why would I have?

I adamantly refuse to play a "white dudes only" D&D game.  If you want to make a game about and only about psuedo-Christian knights in psuedo-Europe, there's far better games for it.  European-only games are about as close as I get to "badwrongfun"


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 3, 2010)

Side note - monks are bar none the worst class in D&D ever, and I don't (just) mean mechanically.  They're literally "*Racism: the Class!*"


----------



## Mircoles (Nov 3, 2010)

I tied the monk class to the Githzerai. They brought it with them when they immigrated to the world. 

The Githzerai came in with a Githyanki invasion. Githyanki invade seemingly from out of nowhere and heroes go off to find thier tradition enemy race.

They find the Githzerai and convince them to join the fight against the Githeryanki. 

After the Githyanki are expelled some Githzerai decide to stay. 

I'm still ironing it out though.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Nov 4, 2010)

I just did my research on Japanese Feudalism and the role of the monestaries in that culture, then carefully lifted western monasticism out and replaced it.  I had a prolonged War of the Roses type war where the king and his son fought each other for the throne and killed each other (cough*Arthur*cough*Mordred).  The main religion had monestaries where the monks trained in martial combat including the arts of boxing, wrestling, and pankration (as actually happened in history:  Martial arts of the world: an ... - Google Books).  Like in feudal Japan the monasteries acted as a de facto government during the civil war and were loathe to give it up.  When the new king established power he wanted to break their backs and get at the large amounts of money they had (like King Henry VIII and Tokugawa Japan) and decided to take them down on a flimsy excuse.

Another campaign, I had that world's equivalent to Alexander the Great saved by a wandering Buddhist monk which prompted him to change religions and allow them to spread west which is probably linked to the one above.

And no, there were never martial buddhist monks, were there:  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfare-Michael-Jerryson/dp/0195394844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1288829586&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Buddhist Warfare (9780195394849): Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer: Books: Reviews, Prices & more[/ame] (it has been a fascinating read)


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They're literally "*Racism: the Class!*"



<boggle>  Uh... you'll have to explain that one to me.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Side note - monks are bar none the worst class in D&D ever, and I don't (just) mean mechanically.  They're literally "*Racism: the Class!*"



 In my game I remove the Dietary Requirement (rice) restriction, but I still make them either talk funny, or the player can delay his words by 1-3 seconds from when his lips start moving.

Also I impose a -2 penalty on attacks if the player fails to yell "HAI-YA!" when rolling.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 4, 2010)

To quote from someone who said it much better:



> I don't like Monks.
> 
> This is an old complaint, which is appropriate since Monks, like  Barbarians, have been hovering around the edges of core D&D rules  since the very earliest editions. Monks 'don't fit' the traditional  medieval-Europe fantasy mold; the class is a take on the  kung-fu-fighting Shaolin monks seen in dozens of cheap martial-arts  films.
> 
> ...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 4, 2010)

tl'dr version:

Monks are not based on actual buddhist aesthetics, they're based off of terrible yellow-faced films from the 70's.

Imagine if there were a group of weirdos in L5R who ran around praising "Jebus" and believed that stabbing people caused their soul to go into heaven by conversion.  And that it was implied _all westerners felt this way_.

Would you find that absolutely rediculous and in no small part racist?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Would you find that absolutely *rediculous* and in no small part racist?




*rediculous*, _adj._ - arousing or deserving rosiness : INCARNADIGOUS, RUDDIFYING.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 4, 2010)

Nifft said:


> *rediculous*, _adj._ - arousing or deserving rosiness : INCARNADIGOUS, RUDDIFYING.




Man, if you're going to be criticizing my spelling, you've got a long job ahead of you.


----------



## Orius (Nov 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _This thread was *eight years old*_




I managed to catch that before replying because on of the posters was frequently referring to 3e OA.  I'm thinking "huh?" with all the references to a 3.0 book, and then I saw the date.

One of the web's biggest mysteries is how a forum newbie will always manage to dig deep into the archives and resurrect at least one long-dead thread that everyone else had forgotten.    I'm not trying to be nasty about it here, it just confuses me as to how so many new people ignore about 5 pages of current topics, up to 20 pages of topics recently discussed, and then go down to Display Options and select "From the beginning" and just pick something apparently at random from the end of the list.   It's probably isn't all that random, but it really feels that way when reading a necro.

Why do people go back so far when this really isn't a dead forum?



shidaku said:


> I simply hybridize Western and Eastern fantasy.  Though European fantasy lacked "kung-fu" monastic orders, they did have monastic orders.  Considering that it's my world, I say "now they do."  They train in the ways of the body because they believe it is a way of staying holy.  I dunno, really if you're attempting to "reconcile" eastern and western fantasy, you're taking everything far to literally.




I think this is the best approach.  Tell medieval Europe to go shove it and just make a campaign that mixes stuff together.  It's not like D&D has ever truely been historically accurate anyway.  I've been wanting to do this for a while so I can actually use OA.  There's some good stuff in the book, but if I seperate "eastern", and "western" I have to wonder if i'll every really use the book at all.  If I mix the stuff together, and blend OA elements into core and spread it through the whole campaign, then I get more use out of it.

Hey, maybe even try a more anime-styled approach.  I'm serious.  That stuff mixes East and West together like crazy, cranks everything up high-powered, and still manages to look fun.  From what little I've seen, I swear it pulls off D&D better than other influences at times.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 4, 2010)

Orius said:


> I managed to catch that before replying because on of the posters was frequently referring to 3e OA.  I'm thinking "huh?" with all the references to a 3.0 book, and then I saw the date.
> 
> One of the web's biggest mysteries is how a forum newbie will always manage to dig deep into the archives and resurrect at least one long-dead thread that everyone else had forgotten.    I'm not trying to be nasty about it here, it just confuses me as to how so many new people ignore about 5 pages of current topics, up to 20 pages of topics recently discussed, and then go down to Display Options and select "From the beginning" and just pick something apparently at random from the end of the list.   It's probably isn't all that random, but it really feels that way when reading a necro.
> 
> Why do people go back so far when this really isn't a dead forum?




I often come across random old threads when searching on Google. I've necro-ed a couple before realizing how old they were. That's probably how it happens most of the time.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Monks are not based on actual buddhist aesthetics, they're based off of terrible yellow-faced films from the 70's.




They're based off Asian films. If I ran across a Japanese RPG where there was a Western culture based off "Dude, Where's My Car" and similar films, I would be amused. I suspect you can find Asian films where the martial artist kicks ass in the West.



> Imagine if there were a group of weirdos in L5R who ran around praising "Jebus" and believed that stabbing people caused their soul to go into heaven by conversion.  And that it was implied _all westerners felt this way_.




For one, the religious part has been stripped out of the roleplaying bits, which makes a huge difference. Secondly, I don't see the implication that all westerners felt this way. 

But there is an anime where a Christian American foreign exchange student joins a Buddhist and a Taoist to send ghosts back to where they came from. I'm amused, not offended, by this concept; how about you? 



> Would you find that absolutely rediculous and in no small part racist?




Japanese and American culture have spent years ripping each other off. Which might have something to do with the fact that Japan, the US, and the UK are the only three countries in the world that are net exporters of copyrighted material. There's some genuinely offensive material both ways but acting like anything that doesn't represent a full and representative section of one culture is offensive is silly.

More directly responding to the original: Very little of my reading gets deeper than Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_. If you check out the numbers, I bet there's a lot of roleplayers like me.  I'm not seeing this deep reason to be upset that FR doesn't encourage me to get into deep ethical probing. Moreover, if I'm with a group where the Paladin doesn't understand why he can't torture prisoners, I suspect encouraging us to get into deep ethical probing would be a lot less fun then the way it is. There are games out there that play with it--_Dogs in the Vineyard_ is one I keep hearing about but never played--but D&D is the standard entry game and is designed with no more ethical probing than most of its audience are interested in getting into.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the monk. There's a reason why plate mail and long swords were invented, and that's when someone with plate mail and long sword goes up against someone unarmed, the usual result is pretty bad for the guy with the plate mail--he's got all this metal covered with the the other guy's blood and guts he's got to clean. But what the heck, some people like the supernatural martial artist idea better than I do.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 4, 2010)

Someone XP prosfilaes for me.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Someone XP prosfilaes for me.




Covered.


----------



## Zaran (Nov 4, 2010)

Tonguez said:


> The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> ...




I usually give Monks a religious bent.  They usually stay in their monstaries that are in hard to reach places.  Because most campaigns are not pre-dominately one religion there can easily be monk-like ideas from one particular god or even as a sect from a more common god.  Gods like Kord probably encourage martial arts training.  

I would like to go on record in saying that I HATE that monks are psionic.  I would have much rather they stuck with Ki as a Power Source or just made them Martial in nature.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I would like to go on record in saying that I HATE that monks are psionic.  I would have much rather they stuck with Ki as a Power Source or just made them Martial in nature.




I'm a 1E grognard. A better version of the 1E monk was published in Dragon Magazine as the Psionic Monk. Psionic powers like Body Weaponry and Body Equilibrium fit the bill for the mind over matter nature of the monk. It still makes sense to me to this day. There are different "schools" of psionics that were codified in 2E AD&D and the monk focuses on those that affect himself.

Then again, since power source has ABSOLUTELY no effect on the game, you can call it Ki. You can call it Primal like the great idea posted up thread. Or you can just call it Martial. Don't be penned in by the category the designers used to help them guide their process. Sometimes I wished they had never shared these power sources with us as it seems to dull peoples' creativity.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 4, 2010)

*>How do you fit monks into Occidental campaigns?

*Some of this is repetitious, but what the hay...

The short answer: It's my world.

The slightly longer answer: The same way I put elves and dragons and  sorcery and unicorns. It's a D&D world. There is no Occidental or  Oriental. There is no West vs. East other than the kingdoms, races and  cultures you  chose to put there (or the campaign setting designers of  the world you chose to play in put there).

 On some points by other posters: The flavor you use to integrate them can make as much sense or be as fantastical as you like (I esp. liked the one about the Githzerai being exiled to the Prime plane and teaching martial arts to others.)

Having "martial arts" monks does not mean HAVING to have a real world Far-Eastern Shaolin/Taoist/Feudal Japan realm in your world. Doesn't mean having a "martial arts" monk demands yellow skin and a Silk Road to travel.  

As for the kibitzing about the term "monk." Hey, look, call them whatever you like, but that's the name of the class from editions immemorial, so I call them monks.

I am ALSO capable of referring to those clerics in the monastery up the hill transcribing their manuscripts in brown robes "monks" if I so chose (and I do, too  

The monastic order of THIS deity is composed of scholarly aesthetics. The monastic order of THAT deity is into the whole mystical martial arts thing. Yes, the latter is more rare and often more remote than the former, but that's just for flavor. My world doesn't have (as of yet hehe) a separate "eastern continent/culture". 

That is not even going to get into the very simple (and "real world" accurate) fact that you can easily establish MULTIPLE ORDERS for a SINGLE religion/deity who engage in very different styles/practices/devotions in their monastic life.

If it's easier for you, then sure, say he learned his techniques from some mystic/hermit/temple/master far far away. But using monks in a campaign setting really doesn't require a whole lot of "justifying."

Just my two coppers.
--Steel Dragons


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 4, 2010)




----------



## Troll Slayer (Nov 4, 2010)

In my own homebrew fantasy world, I have an order of minotaurs that live in discreet mountain monestaries. They practice a strict way of life and martial style which helps to control their more bestial urges. At one point a human made the trek to one of their temples and earned the right to be taught their ways (woo hoo tropes!) When he returned to the western human lands, he founded the first "monk" temple; and brought with him an aggressive fighting style which focused on headbutts, grapples and stomps.

That's over simplifying the whole thing, but you get the picture. More traditional eastern styles still exist but this gives a more western themed/eastern inspired monestary for players to base their monk characters from. Plus I like the idea of a fighting style that focuses on headbutts, grapples and stomps.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 4, 2010)

Orius said:


> One of the web's biggest mysteries is how a forum newbie will always manage to dig deep into the archives and resurrect at least one long-dead thread that everyone else had forgotten.




I didn't know that web-searches still qualified as "mysterious" on the internet.  

Last game world I brewed up, I used the presence of monks to build some world backstory.  The continent the PCs roamed had, in the past, been overrun by humanoids.  Humans had gotten driven into small, defensible enclaves, without much access to metal to make traditional weapons.  The lawful style and weaponless combat were responses to their environment.

Immigrants later came, and together they were able to beat back the humanoids.  But the enclaves and monk traditions remain.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 4, 2010)

I emphasize the "ish" in Westernish. It goes in with pantheism in cultures that otherwise derive tropes from monotheistic historical cultures, really. Not many people blink an eye at a "chivalric romance" D&D kingdom where knights venerate a few gods in particular and peasants venerate more agrarian and druidic gods, and of course worshippers of evil gods show up as Gilles de Rais figures. That's very D&D. 

So similarly, in a "swashbuckling fantasy" area I set up the idea that the opera houses are one part traditional European in influence, but also one part inspired by Beijing Opera: the actors are often trained in acrobatics and martial arts. One opera house might have an assassins' guild attached, while another could easily have a harlequinade that, from a rules perspective, turns out monks. I'm inclined to do things like this no matter where I go in D&D, from sword-and-sorcery inspired locations like Hollowfaust to more carefully tuned areas like a Castlevania/Ravenloft mashup. If I or a player can figure out a way to make a race or class look good, in it goes.

I like Western European cultures as stuff to draw from, but I take what I want from them and leave the stuff I'm not interested in. The "tropes from outside Western European cultures should be treated as exotic" trope gets left at the salad bar.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> tl'dr version:
> 
> Monks are not based on actual buddhist aesthetics, they're based off of terrible yellow-faced films from the 70's.
> 
> ...



Well then I'm either hopelessly dim or incorrigably politically correct or something.  Ever since 1E I've pictured almost all monks that I've played or that have been in my games as quite non-oriental, and borrowing nothing more than an utterly unrealistic mysticism from shaolin/buddist aesthetics.  I see them being a lot like the Bloodguard from Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.  I see them as nothing more insulting than someone with a Friar Tuck haircut in a brown ghi doing PT in a monastery courtyard.  I see them based on the ninja rather than shaolin monks.  I see them in terms of Jason Bourne, John McLane, and River Tam and Lu-Tze from Terry Pratchett's discworld, all of which have about as much to do with insulting oriental depictions from bad 1970's films as I have with bodybuilding.

Paladins were originally based on ignorant, murdering crusaders for Christianity, but that's not what I run them as in my games.  Assassins were based on the Thugee from India and I still use them in my games.  ...

Sorry.  I just don't buy the assertion that Monks are an expression of racism.  Maybe that's the only way that YOU can think about them.  Again, I run a game of D&D set in a world of fantasy.  If I use Rome as a culture it's most likely that the only things they share with ACTUAL Roman culture is the armor and weapons and driving chariots and triremes.  In real life I'm a Christian, but I use deities from ancient Norse, Indian, African, Japanese, Greek, Roman, and other cultures and regions which doesn't make me an aspostate so I don't think using monks would make anyone a racist - unless they actually play them in an insulting, racist fashion.   Even if one DID pattern a monk PC after a bad 1970's chop-socky film does that make the player a racist, and the class racist - or is it nothing more than a humorous homage to ALL bad action movies?  I think it can be done BOTH ways, but that can be done with ANY character class.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 4, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Paladins were originally based on ignorant, murdering crusaders for Christianity,





No they ing well weren't.


----------



## Danzauker (Nov 4, 2010)

Personally, I have no problems with martial arts in a fantasy world. With all the magic, strange creatures and plane hopping around, having Asian clichées next to European it's no stranger that having nobody discover fire weapons.

that said, I always liked how monks were represented in old BECMI: "real" benedictine-style monks.

Just change sensei with abbott, bald heads and slippers with capes and sandals, and you have it.

In a world of mine I had the whole martial arts stuff developed in recluse monasteries in the mountains of an otherwise Italian country.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2010)

thedungeondelver said:


> No they ing well weren't.




To be more specific, they were military retainers of Roland under Charlemagne in the 8th century. The Crusades were 11th-13th century.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> To be more specific, they were military retainers of Roland under Charlemagne in the 8th century. The Crusades were 11th-13th century.




Paladins in *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* came from Poul Andersen's *THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS* whose main character was based exclusively on Ogier the Dane, a mythical hero of Denmark.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 4, 2010)

I think it's entirely forgivable for anyone to suspect that some level of influence came from _The Song of Roland_ and other works depicting the original paladins. And yeah, _The Song of Roland_ depicts some psychotic bastards glorified by a seriously biased narrator. On the other hand, _Orlando Furioso_ is like a checklist for fun things to do in a high-level D&D game, and the characters are a lot more sympathetic. 

Grab from both those sources and Andersen, and you've got yourself a versatile place to start for a wide variety of paladin concepts. Not unlike the premise of the thread: more sources offer more ideas, without necessarily contradicting one another.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 4, 2010)

thedungeondelver said:


> Paladins in *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* came from Poul Andersen's *THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS* whose main character was based exclusively on Ogier the Dane, a mythical hero of Denmark.




It's complicated, given that Ogier the Dane makes his first known appearance in the _Song of Roland_ - and Roland was one of Charlemagne's Paladins.  Ogier doesn't seem to appear in Scandinavian reference until later, when a text about Charlamagne is translated for the King of Norway.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It's complicated, given that Ogier the Dane makes his first known appearance in the _Song of Roland_ - and Roland was one of Charlemagne's Paladins.  Ogier doesn't seem to appear in Scandinavian reference until later, when a text about Charlamagne is translated for the King of Norway.




I shouldn't have said "exclusively"; I've got like 10 things going on here today...

but the point stands; *AD&D* paladins are based on Andersen's "Holger du Danske".


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2010)

thedungeondelver said:


> Paladins in *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* came from Poul Andersen's *THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS* whose main character was based exclusively on Ogier the Dane, a mythical hero of Denmark.




Yes, I circumvented Andersen and went to his historical reference in parallel with the reference made to crusaders. Only to point out that the historical reference point was off, not to claim that history was the only source (I don't think many would claim that Charlemagne's paladins could cast spells).


----------



## Orius (Nov 5, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I didn't know that web-searches still qualified as "mysterious" on the internet.




See, that's because I've got this mental picture of newbies registering here first, then going and digging up an old post from years ago.  Web search does explain things.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 5, 2010)

Tonguez said:


> The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> ...




That's just one less Western-ish thing about it. Heck, most D&D worlds have a closer resemblance to the religions of medieval India than they do any Western culture. Unless the world is literally on an Earth analog, or the setting is deliberately hewn to a more historical, less fantastic feel, there is really no good basis for objection. I mean, seriously, if the rogues are using rapiers, then the barbarians should be using Zulu spears, not claymores.

So... If I'm running a more Western medieval setting, I just exclude monks. And often rapiers. Or I include both monks and firearms.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 5, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Paladins were originally based on ignorant, murdering crusaders for Christianity, but that's not what I run them as in my games.




Actually, the word paladin refers to the highly educated political officers of Charlemagne's empire, who were basically the precursors the governors and inspector generals of later political systems. The archetype comes Three Hearts and Three Lions + Galahad (magical horse, hello!).

The murderous crusaders actually inspired _clerics_, who were inspired by White's interpretation of the legendary depiction of the Templars as religious hypocrites.



> Assassins were based on the Thugee from India and I still use them in my games.  ...




This is an etymologically confused sentence, as assassins are named after hashishins, the hash-addled killers, while Thugees gave their name to the word... thug. The actual archetype is a poison-using, fighting rogue, and hence is more like a Venetian hired killer than either the historical assassins or the thugees.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 5, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> They're based off Asian films. If I ran across a Japanese RPG where there was a Western culture based off "Dude, Where's My Car" and similar films, I would be amused. I suspect you can find Asian films where the martial artist kicks ass in the West.




It astounds me that people think like this. It's easy to say you'd be amused from a place of privilege. As an Asian dnd player, I can tell you most assuredly the monk is no walk in the park.

The class is tolerable. People doing terrible racist accents and playing up stereotypes while playing that class isn't.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 5, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> It astounds me that people think like this. It's easy to say you'd be amused from a place of privilege. As an Asian dnd player, I can tell you most assuredly the monk is no walk in the park.
> 
> The class is tolerable. People doing terrible racist accents and playing up stereotypes while playing that class isn't.




I'm not even Asian, and I can't figure out what's up with sticking Okinawan weapons, samurai throwing stars, and a made up Malaysian weapon from the Palladium Book of Exotic Weapons and giving them to Cain from kung fu, to represent legendary Asia in fantasy. I mean, seriously, and no spears or curved broadswords, either?

What D&D needs is a Brother Man class that wields zulu spears, khopeshes, pool cues, and five-bladed swords.

Ok, time for me to walk away from the thread...


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 5, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> People doing terrible racist accents and playing up stereotypes while playing that class isn't.




Because people doing terrible racists accents and playing up stereotypes while playing dwarves as A-OK.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 5, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Because people doing terrible racists accents and playing up stereotypes while playing dwarves as A-OK.




No it's not but I'm not British, if a Brit found it offensive then it's on him to speak up. However, you're barking up the wrong tree as I've never play a Dwarf or had one in a campaign that I've run. I have, on numerous occasions, had to sit through offensive behaviour in fear of being "the over-sensitive minority".


----------



## mach1.9pants (Nov 5, 2010)

Whereas the cool thing (well interesting) is that the Monks in Greyhawk, IIRC, are blond haired blue eyed quasi Aryan-supremacists! ADnD Greyhawk Monks were my first Monks -weren't they Mystics or some-such in BECMI? I haven't my book in front of me.

Anyway, OnT, I have no problem including Monks in my otherwise 100% western European DnD games. Cos as Pawsplay says, polytheism and western Europe do not mix. If there was polytheism throughout western Europe's history it would not look at all like the middle ages as I play it (or it actually was). I let it ride. It is a game.

_And_ I like Monks. And Bards. And Half-orc Fighter-Assassins.

There is room for all.


----------



## Rassilon (Nov 12, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> No it's not but I'm not British, if a Brit found it offensive then it's on him to speak up. However, you're barking up the wrong tree as I've never play a Dwarf or had one in a campaign that I've run. I have, on numerous occasions, had to sit through offensive behaviour in fear of being "the over-sensitive minority".




And now you've offended all the British people. Because everyone knows that Dwarves are Scottish; and the Britains who aren't Scottish are offended at being confused with Scottish, and the Scots are offended at being labelled merely 'British'...


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 12, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> No it's not but I'm not British, if a Brit found it offensive then it's on him to speak up. However, you're barking up the wrong tree as I've never play a Dwarf or had one in a campaign that I've run. I have, on numerous occasions, had to sit through offensive behaviour in fear of being "the over-sensitive minority".




I see your behavior as unproductive; you see no need to stand up for others, and you refuse to stand up for yourself, so nothing will ever change. And by requiring a person of that minority to stand up for themself, you're letting this behavior become normalized in society and making anyone who complains seem to be that over-sensitive minority.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 12, 2010)

Rassilon said:


> And now you've offended all the British people. Because everyone knows that Dwarves are Scottish; and the Britains who aren't Scottish are offended at being confused with Scottish, and the Scots are offended at being labelled merely 'British'...




Amongst Brits I know, Dwarves are more likely to have Russian accents than Scottish. In my last campaign all Dwarves had Klingon accents and culture.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 12, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Amongst Brits I know, Dwarves are more likely to have Russian accents than Scottish. In my last campaign all Dwarves had Klingon accents and culture.




Were they modeled after_ Original Series_ Klingons, or _Next Gen/Movie_ Klingons...or is that something you don't talk about...?




...and I almost forgot -_ In Russia, accent has you..._


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 12, 2010)

If you're running a 'western setting' but you have a large coastal city, then include a 'china town' neighborhood of 'chinese' immigrants, and get some monk love in that way. I've done that for several campaign.

GP


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 12, 2010)

I find it horrifyingly hilarious that people are jumping on a guy who literally just said "Yeah I'm asian and it's incredibly horrible when people turn the monk into a racist stereotype."

Seriously?  We're going to get mad at someone for saying "Yo don't be racist?"


----------



## Mallus (Nov 12, 2010)

You fit Shaolin-style monks into generic Western European fantasy settings the same way you fit square pegs into round holes: with a mallet and a gleefully deranged look on your face.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 12, 2010)

I think people forget that there were (and are) martial arts which did not originate in Asia.  Likewise, there are examples of monks in Western literature - Friar Tuck is a well known example; depending upon the version of Robin Hood you read, he was a very accomplished pugilist.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 12, 2010)

Personally, I don't see the big problem.  The Monk, as a class, is clearly inspired by the various kung-fu movies of the 70s, from the Shaw Brothers and certainly from the American TV series.  I'm not sure how that makes it racist, personally.  An individual player portraying a stereotype certainly would be, but no such player would be welcome at my table.  

What I find interesting is the selective blinders folks apply to introducing something like the monk to a game like D&D.  In a game where medieval technologies from across 5 or 6 centuries sit side-by-side and where a monotheistic setting is often changed to a pantheistic setting with little social change and where real, actual sentient non-human beings exist in huge numbers with no discernable effect on the social order....in this game, featuring characters like monks and barbarians sitting side-by-side with fighting-priests and wizards...well, I don't see it that far of a stretch, really.  

I mean, D&D features a fantasy setting that is no more authentic than your average Renn Faire (and perhaps less so).  Weapons and armor  from distant and disparate real world nations sit side-by-side at the blacksmith, selling plate-mail on the shelf next to a rapier.  Druids hang out with paladins and bards hang out with clerics.  

I can understand if the monk breaks your personal suspension-of-disbelief...I just think it's funny where folks pick and choose which particular historical inaccuracy stands out for them, personally.  

Me, I go with the MST3K theory, but to each his own.  As long as you're having fun, then it's all good.


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 12, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> ...I have very basic problems with the notion of "I can be just as effective of a combatant bare handed and naked as I could with a weapon and armor.", regardless of class implementation. ...In a world where your naked bare handed men can be front line warriors, why would weapons and armor ever be invented?   Not needing equipment with its expense and hassle is a huge advantage.




SCIENCE!

or rather

ALCHEMY!

I, too, have some problems with the idea of someone with "just the right training" beating the snot out of someone with armor and weapons. How does this happen, how widespread is the training, &c. Then, I read the dark elf / dwarf book for Scarred Lands (Burak Torn?) and I thought of the "monk training" being alchemical enhancement.

For a long time I've felt that monks should be more Bannor than Wong Fei-hung. After coming across some phots of the condition of argyria, where an excess of injested silver is deposited in the skin, that convinced me. So now the argyrians are a group of people who undergo a rigorous regimen of diet and exercise along with injesting alchemical concoctions. This toughens the skin to withstand indirect blows with weapons and their training increases the chances that they can partially deflect attacks so they are indirect contacts.

I like the concept of a method of training that allows an unarmed and armored person to be able to hold their own against a trained warrior. Once I came up with a way to do so in a magical world, I was set.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Likewise, I have very basic problems with the notion of "I can be just as effective of a combatant bare handed and naked as I could with a weapon and armor.", regardless of class implementation.




So, wizards are right out, then?  Because, in combat, without weapons and armor, wizards can roast guys with weapons, and in armor.  From a distance, even.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 12, 2010)

While it's not entirely realistic for an unarmed combatant to regularly trounce people in plate armor with weapons; it's not entirely unrealistic either.  Many martial arts from around the world have techniques which specifically address the concept of fighting against armed attackers.  Still, I would hazard to say that the way such a thing is implemented in D&D tends more toward the unrealistic; however, I think it is perfectly in line with D&D's version of reality.  Other systems treat the idea in a manner more consistant with reality.


One fluff way to handle the 'problem' is to suggest that difficulty of training is part of the reason why everyone in a world doesn't simply learn to fight unarmed.  Historically, many new weapons replaced the older established equipment simply because it was easier to teach people to use the new equipment.  It may take years to train an effective archer; I can teach someone to use even a primitive and unreliable rifle effectively in a few months. 

Another route is to suggest that monks use some sort of spirit magic, chi; etc; etc.  The reason why not everyone learns the abilities is for the same reason that not everyone learns the world shaking powers of a wizard.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 13, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f67LgpJBPPE&feature=related]YouTube - Chuck Norris Super Kick[/ame]


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 13, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> While it's not entirely realistic for an unarmed combatant to regularly trounce people in plate armor with weapons; it's not entirely unrealistic either.




Historically, a sizeable fraction of actual deaths came from knocking your opponent over, then stabbing him in the neck with a knife. While the techniques for knocking your opponent over (lance, pike, jiujitsu, hammer, etc.) have been varied, the central strategy remains central to killing people in melee even today. 

But let's be honest, most fatalities resulted from everyone fighting until they were too tired, then going back to their camps and seeing who died of infected wounds first.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 13, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I find it horrifyingly hilarious that people are jumping on a guy who literally just said "Yeah I'm asian and it's incredibly horrible when people turn the monk into a racist stereotype."
> 
> Seriously?  We're going to get mad at someone for saying "Yo don't be racist?"




Wow, you do have a skill at forming a strawman version of any argument. What he actually said was that the monk is a racist class--being debated, that people are using the monk as a racist stereotype--which nobody was arguing wasn't true, and that he didn't feel responsible for responding to racist stereotypes that weren't directed at him--which I said was very narrow sighted.


----------



## Funkenstein23 (Nov 14, 2010)

I dont think the occidental or not argument is as valid as it might look from the outside. I dont know a lot of people who play an actual medieval setting. They play a fantasy setting. With magic and robots and vampire-werewolves. For example, if I'm playing D&D, my giant sapient mantis using kung-fu all over a guy is just as likely as her hitting him with a broadsword or a psychic burst or a fireball. If someone is really intent on a mythologically accurate medieval setting, losing unarmed combat should be the least of their worries. They should be more concerned with losing psionics, more than half of the player races and like 100% of the fluff.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Nov 14, 2010)

Since the purpose of playing D&D at this point (and since 3E's launch, when this thread started) is to play D&D, in a self-sustaining cycle of self-reference, I'd advise not worrying about it. "It's D&D." 

  Those of you who want to reproduce something else are advised to escape, lest the ouroboros crush you within its coils.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 14, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> I see your behavior as unproductive; you see no need to stand up for others, and you refuse to stand up for yourself, so nothing will ever change. And by requiring a person of that minority to stand up for themself, you're letting this behavior become normalized in society and making anyone who complains seem to be that over-sensitive minority.




Let me be clearer. I can't stand up for every cause, in every country and in every group. I can only speak out against things I don't agree with either with in my group (which the Dwarf issue has never come up) or in conversation (notice when I said it wasn't okay?).

I don't need to be told how to deal with racism and I don't want to put up with the "sensitive" minority syndrome you're trying to paint. 

You might disagree but come back to me when you've dealt with racism for your entire life. I know you might live in an ideal world but the issue is very complex and what you might see as "unproductive" is a learned behaviour from years of experience.

People don't want to be spoken for, hell not all Asians would not agree with me and so I respect that inter-personal line.



prosfilaes said:


> Wow, you do have a skill at forming a strawman  version of any argument. What he actually said was that the monk is a  racist class--being debated, that people are using the monk as a racist  stereotype--which nobody was arguing wasn't true, and that he didn't  feel responsible for responding to racist stereotypes that weren't  directed at him--which I said was very narrow sighted.




Don't put words into my mouth. I said the class is tolerable, I never said it was racist.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 14, 2010)

Rassilon said:


> And now you've offended all the British people. Because everyone knows that Dwarves are Scottish; and the Britains who aren't Scottish are offended at being confused with Scottish, and the Scots are offended at being labelled merely 'British'...




This is a classic example of "sensitive minority" syndrome if anybody was wondering. If somebody speaks out then they have to be very, very careful what they say because people will and do use anything to try and make their point null-and-void.

This is usually done by trying to prove that the person with the complaint is racist or offensive themselves or just too sensitive when it comes to a question of racism. 

You're not a nice person, good day.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 14, 2010)

Tonguez said:


> The Monk class is based on the idea of the Eastern Shaolin/Zen/Taoist Monk as per all those Wuxia/Golden Harvest movies right?
> 
> yet most gamers use Westernish settings
> 
> ...




I tend to disallow monks for that very reason but it sounds like you are looking for a way to incorporate this into your campaign so along those lines, I'd try to "westernize" it; more specifically, integrate it into your setting by reworking the "RP" elements of the monks into your setting.

First off, that means ditching weapons not appropriate to y our setting like bo-sticks and the like. Then it means making the 'order' or 'monastery' of your monks fit into your setting. In a classic medieval-ish setting, this might mean making your monks part of something like the Irish monasteries, perhaps a fighting-brothers sub-order meant to deal with a threat akin to the vikings.

As a practical matter, if you establish the setting, establish a religious or martial order that may have some sort of monk class and THEN associate the D&D monk class with that order, it might work better, rather than starting with the class and trying to retro-fit the setting to it.

But this reminds me of a time when I did allow a monk... more in a new thread


----------

