PDA

View Full Version : Lore-wise, how do monks fit into D&D?



Jeivar
2018-01-06, 08:56 AM
I mean, I'm no expert on the matter, but Shaolin monks and the kinds of figures the class is meant to represent are a very eastern thing, steeped in eastern mysticism. But D&D traditionally has a medieval Europe flavour, and a divinity system that I don't see how monks fit into. Clerics can produce actual miracles. What's the point of seeking inner spiritual perfection in a setting like that?

Pleh
2018-01-06, 09:11 AM
Why would anyone bother becoming a Fighter when they could've become a Wizard instead?

Not every Character has access to the same opportunities, even if every Player does.

The reason can be rooted in Culture, as well. It is possible the monks simply travel in pilgrimage through European lands, seeking enlightenment by studying the world, though their home monastery is hidden in some far away mountains.

Or maybe the character just doesn't like the entities that comprise the pantheon and feel that their petty squabbles endanger the cosmos, preferring to instead seek enlightenment on their own.

Or perhaps monks in a given setting DO serve some deity/deities in a religious manner and have different sets of powers and skills due to their specific function and duties.

Honestly, I don't think there's a single answer because D&D generally does not have a single lore to draw from. It will depend on the setting more than the generic implication of D&D.

Morty
2018-01-06, 09:20 AM
D&D has virtually nothing to do with any part of Europe in any given period of the Middle Ages - which lasted a thousand years, but people tend to assume they started around 14th century. Except that people use swords and those in charge tend to be called kings. I really don't see how and why people who channel their inner strength to punch things very well don't fit into the kitchen sink that is any given D&D setting.

miinstrel
2018-01-06, 09:47 AM
If you use psionics you could flavor it as monks channeling their own internal psionic abilities.

In the Forgotten Realms a lot of monk activity stems from Kara Tur, the eastern side of the same continent Faerun is on. It's about embracing and channeling a particular deities ideals. Like the Monks of the Dark Moon following Shar's example.

Personally I also find them a little out of place, but it's not difficult to fit them into the context of most D&D campaigns. Maybe the monastery was built at the site of a miracle or some significant location, and the monks there are spiritual protectors. Or play against type a little and fluff your monk as a pit fighter or brawler.

Anxe
2018-01-06, 10:08 AM
The Cleric Quintet novels based in Faerun had a monk character didn't they?

Darth Ultron
2018-01-06, 10:51 AM
Well, keep in mind that D&D has never been really big on medieval Europe flavor. Just pick out the big things about medieval Europe:

1.Unbelievable All Powerful Oppressive Religious Rule
2.Royal/Noble/Peasant lifestyles with people LOCKED into them for life
3.Every inch of land accounted for and owned by someone
4.No big wild animals, but plenty of vermin
5.and Death, disease, more Death and more disease

Now, this does not seem like a good setting for a game....maybe that is why they did not use it.

The default D&D setting is much more America roughly 1700:

1.Religious Freedom, with religion having a hold in only some areas
2.Anyone can be anything
3.Unbelievably vast and wild and mostly unexplored areas of land
4.Wild animals up the wazoo everywhere
5.And well, sure death and disease


The idea that a dragon might be living in the wilds outside of London in 1200 is just about impossible.....but it would sure work outside of Boston in 1700.


A bit of a Real World answer is the popularity of martial arts in the late 70's with things like Kung Fu (the TV show) and Bruce Lee...and people wanted that in the game.

Vortling
2018-01-06, 11:34 AM
Traditionally yes, several of D&D's settings have been medieval Europe inspired. However you must also remember that D&D has traditionally been a hodgepodge of every fantasy trope all mushed together in one unexplained mess. I mean there's a module from the traditional era of D&D that features a crashed spaceship. D&D has always been short on explanations and long on bring in anything that tickles the fancy of the designers or community.

LibraryOgre
2018-01-06, 11:38 AM
The Cleric Quintet novels based in Faerun had a monk character didn't they?

Danica cheated a bit... her family was from Kara-Tur, and she was following a discipline from Kara-Tur. And, Kara-Tur, is notAsia of the Forgotten Realms.


I mean, I'm no expert on the matter, but Shaolin monks and the kinds of figures the class is meant to represent are a very eastern thing, steeped in eastern mysticism. But D&D traditionally has a medieval Europe flavour, and a divinity system that I don't see how monks fit into. Clerics can produce actual miracles. What's the point of seeking inner spiritual perfection in a setting like that?

Some of the earliest monks in AD&D were the Scarlet Brotherhood (https://wiki.greyparticle.com/index.php/Scarlet_Brotherhood), a Suel-supremacist organization whose monks, thieves, and assassins infiltrated Flaenass society to prepare it for Suel domination. They're crypto-fascist slavers, and all-round enemies for most heroes.

As to "D&D has a medieval Europe flavor", I tend to disagree... it has medieval-to-Renaissance technology, but, culturally and thematically, I think it has a lot more in common with the Western genre.

Guizonde
2018-01-06, 11:46 AM
i wish there were more trappist monks and less shaolin wannabes in dnd... but that's more with the fact that 80% of martial arts practitionners i've met had this superiority complex about "how awesome" they were despite being a white belt, that or weebs. plus, the idea of an overweight, tonsured, sandal-and-homespun-robe-wearing, jolly, rosy-cheeked close combat monster that enjoys brewing beer pleases me a lot more than yet another naruto clone.

(yes, i always picture trappist monks as overweight, jolly, and wearing robes. blame belgian beer labels for that)

i've never had a dm allow me to play a trappist, especially not with a spigot mallet as main armament. apparently, it's "too silly", despite being a proud european tradition...

LibraryOgre
2018-01-06, 11:57 AM
i wish there were more trappist monks and less shaolin wannabes in dnd... but that's more with the fact that 80% of martial arts practitionners i've met had this superiority complex about "how awesome" they were despite being a white belt, that or weebs. plus, the idea of an overweight, tonsured, sandal-and-homespun-robe-wearing, jolly, rosy-cheeked close combat monster that enjoys brewing beer pleases me a lot more than yet another naruto clone.

(yes, i always picture trappist monks as overweight, jolly, and wearing robes. blame belgian beer labels for that)

i've never had a dm allow me to play a trappist, especially not with a spigot mallet as main armament. apparently, it's "too silly", despite being a proud european tradition...

You may want to consider a cleric...

Example 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CONa4b9errw)

Unfortunately, I cannot find my favorite example, where the friar above sings

Good King Richard, Bless his soul
Loves his Wine and Warring
But for us who stay at home
It's only beer and whoring

Knaight
2018-01-06, 12:35 PM
I mean, I'm no expert on the matter, but Shaolin monks and the kinds of figures the class is meant to represent are a very eastern thing, steeped in eastern mysticism. But D&D traditionally has a medieval Europe flavour, and a divinity system that I don't see how monks fit into. Clerics can produce actual miracles. What's the point of seeking inner spiritual perfection in a setting like that?

D&D's medieval Europe flavor is overstated. There's a lot of very non-medieval material awkwardly shoved in there (starting with the heavy polytheism and continuing to a lot of the monsters), and it's an awkward mismash of a lot of different cultures. The monks are just one more dish in the fantasy kitchen sink.

Pelle
2018-01-06, 12:37 PM
i wish there were more trappist monks and less shaolin wannabes in dnd... but that's more with the fact that 80% of martial arts practitionners i've met had this superiority complex about "how awesome" they were despite being a white belt, that or weebs. plus, the idea of an overweight, tonsured, sandal-and-homespun-robe-wearing, jolly, rosy-cheeked close combat monster that enjoys brewing beer pleases me a lot more than yet another naruto clone.

(yes, i always picture trappist monks as overweight, jolly, and wearing robes. blame belgian beer labels for that)

i've never had a dm allow me to play a trappist, especially not with a spigot mallet as main armament. apparently, it's "too silly", despite being a proud european tradition...

Well, you have the new Drunken Master subclass now!

I should open the bottle of Westvleteren I have in my fridge soon...

Thrudd
2018-01-06, 12:42 PM
D&D is a gonzo fantasy setting where almost any sort of crazy thing you can think of could show up. There's psychic aliens from another dimension, living blobs of slime, giant eyeballs that shoot laser beams, and an adventure in a crashed flying saucer with plant people. Monks fit in because Arneson and Gygax thought it would be cool if there were monasteries with kung fu fighting mystical monks. And it is cool.

Becca Stareyes
2018-01-06, 12:49 PM
I've also seen attempts to make the monk flavored more Sufi than Shaolin, which keeps things closer to the western half of the Eastern hemisphere. But at this point, I see both D&D as sort of its own sub-genre of fantasy, often based around what people want to play as. Magic works in X, Y, and Z ways, and a side effect of meditation and spiritual contemplation is martial arts.

Xuc Xac
2018-01-06, 02:02 PM
Clerics can produce actual miracles. What's the point of seeking inner spiritual perfection in a setting like that?

Greek and Roman mystery cults sought their own spiritual perfection separate from the standard public pantheon. Mages are Zoroastrian priests from Persia. Medieval alchemists were also looking for personal spiritual perfection separately from the religious traditions around them (turning lead into gold was a metaphor for self-actualization).

D&D monks aren't as weird as actual European stuff like anchorites. Complaining that they're too "Eastern" makes as much sense as complaining that including spears on the equipment list is too eastern. "Why did they put spears in the game? I want to play a European knight, not a Japanese ashigaru!"



The default D&D setting is much more America roughly 1700:


More like 1870. D&D is the American Old West dressed up for a Ren Faire.

Guizonde
2018-01-06, 03:07 PM
You may want to consider a cleric...

Example 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CONa4b9errw)

Unfortunately, I cannot find my favorite example, where the friar above sings

Good King Richard, Bless his soul
Loves his Wine and Warring
But for us who stay at home
It's only beer and whoring

well, i've gotten half my wish. i'm in a full-divine campaign in the name of cayden cayllean right now, and most monks are either brewers (with the drunken master prc/archetype) or tavern brawlers. i just wish it was more common. also, spraying high-proof booze in someone's face will incapacitate anyone!

Bohandas
2018-01-06, 04:06 PM
The default D&D setting is much more America roughly 1700:

1.Religious Freedom, with religion having a hold in only some areas
2.Anyone can be anything
3.Unbelievably vast and wild and mostly unexplored areas of land
4.Wild animals up the wazoo everywhere
5.And well, sure death and disease


or maybe even america circa the late 1900's; anybody can be anything even if they're a woman or black. They didn't have that in the 1700's

BWR
2018-01-06, 04:38 PM
Well, keep in mind that D&D has never been really big on medieval Europe flavor. Just pick out the big things about medieval Europe:

1.Unbelievable All Powerful Oppressive Religious Rule
2.Royal/Noble/Peasant lifestyles with people LOCKED into them for life
3.Every inch of land accounted for and owned by someone
4.No big wild animals, but plenty of vermin
5.and Death, disease, more Death and more disease

Now, this does not seem like a good setting for a game....maybe that is why they did not use it.


Ars Magica begs to differ.

Bohandas
2018-01-06, 04:43 PM
The jarring and incongrous part is that the class is simply called "Monk". That implies that the game is in a wuxia film, because that's the only kind of setting where "Monk", with no qualifiers, refers to this archetype. Even if one were to specify a Buddhist monk one would generally think of someone more similar to the Dalai Lama unless a wuxia-esque setting was already understood

Nifft
2018-01-06, 06:08 PM
IIRC the unarmed / pugilist martial arts have many Western traditions, but yeah the Monk in specific is rather Shaolin with the whole "Master of the East Wind" / "Master of Flowers" / "Tongue of Sun and Moon" / "Empty Body" (etc.) naming conventions.

But then, consider how close the 1e Barbarian cleaves to Conan's abilities, and how 1e modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks directly import sci-fi tropes into D&D.


D&D has no "purity". It's just kitchen sinks, all the way down.

And that's a big part of why it's awesome.

Xuc Xac
2018-01-06, 06:15 PM
The jarring and incongrous part is that the class is simply called "Monk". That implies that the game is in a wuxia film, because that's the only kind of setting where "Monk", with no qualifiers, refers to this archetype. Even if one were to specify a Buddhist monk one would generally think of someone more similar to the Dalai Lama unless a wuxia-esque setting was already understood

"Fighter" with no qualifiers implies that it's a boxing film. Robert E. Howard is most famous for his sword and sorcery stories, particularly the ones featuring Conan, but he was also a major contributor to the genre of "boxing stories", which used to be a major category like "westerns". You probably don't think of the fighter that way because you're not so familiar with it.

The fact that you associate the word "monk" with Buddhism and the Dalai Lama is probably because you aren't familiar with any other examples. Thinking of the Dalai Lama as the typical "Buddhist monk" is like hearing the word "pizza" and assuming it must be one of those Japanese "squid ink and sea urchin" monstrosities. Technically, it's a pizza, but it's pretty far from the standard.

The monks in D&D are not even particularly Buddhist. They are inspired by poorly dubbed Hong Kong action movies where half the monks are Taoists but the gamer geeks in Wisconsin in the 1980s couldn't tell the difference. D&D monks with all their weird higher level powers are more Wudang than Shaolin.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-06, 07:28 PM
I mean, I'm no expert on the matter, but Shaolin monks and the kinds of figures the class is meant to represent are a very eastern thing, steeped in eastern mysticism. But D&D traditionally has a medieval Europe flavour, and a divinity system that I don't see how monks fit into. Clerics can produce actual miracles. What's the point of seeking inner spiritual perfection in a setting like that?

1) While most of DnD is either Western inspired or pretty generic, it's often wandered away from those beginnings with mounted archers, samurai, ninja, dervishes, etc. I'd say most is typically inspired by media depictions of Westren Europe, but there's plenty of other material for most editions. Basically, the European version of poorly dubbed Hong Kong movies.

2) Well, if you go off of the assumption that the classes are balanced, having protectors, spies and scouts make a whole lot of sense. Sadly, many editions weren't too good on the balance thing, so the argument begins to fall apart.

3) You assume every form of religion is going to be based on deriving power from gods. Gods might not want to grant everyone divine power for a variety of reasons (not suited, horrible charisma scores, makes your forces too predictable, etc). Other faiths might not have a god or similar divine source and yet still be a faith or philosophy. Others might just not want to rely on outsiders for their own personal advancement.

4) Multi-classing is a thing in many editions and clones. Want a divine monk? Dip monk, go cleric. Done.

Through if I was adapting the monk class to a more European setting, I'd give them bonuses for using staves or spears and say they are guided but not given power by the gods. Close enough, I hope?

Bohandas
2018-01-06, 11:40 PM
The fact that you associate the word "monk" with Buddhism and the Dalai Lama is probably because you aren't familiar with any other examples. Thinking of the Dalai Lama as the typical "Buddhist monk" is like hearing the word "pizza" and assuming it must be one of those Japanese "squid ink and sea urchin" monstrosities. Technically, it's a pizza, but it's pretty far from the standard.

Well I actually primarily associate the word "monk" with christian mendicants but I am aware that there are also monastic orders in eastern faiths like Buddhism and Taoism.These are a little bit closer to D&D's monks than a Christian monk would be but still a good ways off because whether Eastern or Western none of them spend much time flying around on wires cutting everybody to shreds - that's specific to kung-fu movies - nor are they particularly associated with martial arts other than one specific monastery in Henan.

Xuc Xac
2018-01-07, 04:43 AM
- nor are they particularly associated with martial arts other than one specific monastery in Henan.

Oh, of course, only Henan. Well, only Henan and Hubei. Henan, Hubei, and Shantung, but that's it! Except for Guangdong. So, Henan, Hubei, Shantung, Guangdong, and Binh Dinh... Let me count again...

Berenger
2018-01-07, 06:48 AM
Well, keep in mind that D&D has never been really big on medieval Europe flavor. Just pick out the big things about medieval Europe:

1.Unbelievable All Powerful Oppressive Religious Rule
2.Royal/Noble/Peasant lifestyles with people LOCKED into them for life
3.Every inch of land accounted for and owned by someone
4.No big wild animals, but plenty of vermin

Note that these are tropes, not facts. None of them hold actually true for the whole of Europe or for the entire span of the middle ages.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-07, 07:51 AM
Greek and Roman mystery cults sought their own spiritual perfection separate from the standard public pantheon. Mages are Zoroastrian priests from Persia. Medieval alchemists were also looking for personal spiritual perfection separately from the religious traditions around them (turning lead into gold was a metaphor for self-actualization).

D&D monks aren't as weird as actual European stuff like anchorites. Complaining that they're too "Eastern" makes as much sense as complaining that including spears on the equipment list is too eastern. "Why did they put spears in the game? I want to play a European knight, not a Japanese ashigaru!"

The monks in D&D are not even particularly Buddhist. They are inspired by poorly dubbed Hong Kong action movies where half the monks are Taoists but the gamer geeks in Wisconsin in the 1980s couldn't tell the difference. D&D monks with all their weird higher level powers are more Wudang than Shaolin.
Yeah, but that basically just makes them Fighters that specialise in unarmed combat. If they have a spiritual dimension and a binding ethical code, that makes them Paladins. If they explicitly act as spiritual guides and leaders to a larger community and devote themselves to communion to the divine (which is what Taoist and Buddhist monks were actually about just as much as their European equivalents, just with different conceptions of divinity,) then they should be Clerics.

They're a bunch of different things glommed together, none of which they do very well, and all of which stem from seeing them as alien to European societies when they're not. The class would benefit immensely from nailing down what they're actually about, so to speak, and designing them accordingly.

Logosloki
2018-01-07, 08:00 AM
The same way everything gets added in. Cool thing exists in the hearts and minds of writers > thing is written into D&D > Cultutal Osmosis > Thing exists as a staple.

As someone said up thread "It's kitchen sinks all the way down".

Besides, far eastern themed unarmed kickers of butt isn't as strange as some of the things we consider staples. I just wish that gunslingers had stayed culturally relevant during the early years of D&D. They would have been a great base class.

Pugwampy
2018-01-07, 08:43 AM
The gods of Dnd are very jealous gods . The church needs to preserve its tenets and core values even among adventurers.

Everyone needs scum to take care of monsters or explore abandoned holes but why should they be heretics or worship rival gods. How do you control those freaks ? A loyal cleric is putting his super powers at risk just by hanging out with them .

Fighters , Wizards and rogues are just not good enough so was born Paladins , priests and monks .

Monks fill the role of rogue .

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-07, 09:02 AM
The gods of Dnd are very jealous gods . The church needs to preserve its tenets and core values even among adventurers.

Everyone needs scum to take care of monsters or explore abandoned holes but why should they be heretics or worship rival gods. How do you control those freaks ? A loyal cleric is putting his super powers at risk just by hanging out with them .

Fighters, Wizards and rogues are just not good enough so was born Paladins , priests and monks .

Monks fill the role of rogue .
Ooooh. I like that. I like that very much. I like that very very very much.

Oh, that is just delicious. You'd still need to rework them mechanically, I think, but that's a really neat selling point.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-07, 12:52 PM
I generally don't use the monk class.

I'd O want an unarmed combatant I'll likely make a Fighter archetype for just that (maybe specific ones for Paladins and Barbarians as well). Wuxia martial arts fit just as well for the Fighter as 'monk' class, if people would stop assuming that everybody should be able to Lightfoot.

Especially in 5e, as you could use different subclasses to represent different styles. Let's say the Champion style represents somebody without a 'signature' style or who uses a mixture of styles, and use this as our basis. Now let's make new subclasses for different styles. The Unyielding Mountain Fighter has an impervious defence, forming aside blows, outlasting opponents, and punishes with devastating strikes. The Flowing River Fighter is all about mobility, with the ability to Lightfoot around, giving disadvantage on Opportunity Attacks, and a toned down version of Skirmish. The Raging Inferno Fighter sacrifices defence to deal out a flurry of accurate attacks, likely gaining a version of the Barbarian's Reckless Attack. So on and so on. And these martial artists can use their styles with whatever weapon they wish.

Because of you still want the classic monk flavour, you can take the Acolyte background.

The monk as an archetype certainly has a place, as the seeker of enlightenment. The monk as a class is not needed. You can play a monk who contributes as a Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue, a Cleric, or any other class, without losing any of that monkish flavour.

(Now the 5e Monk class is still very nice, but it's not rally bringing a new archetype that can't be represented by another class. At least the Druid makes playing a shapeshifter easier.)

Xuc Xac
2018-01-07, 12:56 PM
Yeah, but that basically just makes them Fighters that specialise in unarmed combat. If they have a spiritual dimension and a binding ethical code, that makes them Paladins. If they explicitly act as spiritual guides and leaders to a larger community and devote themselves to communion to the divine (which is what Taoist and Buddhist monks were actually about just as much as their European equivalents, just with different conceptions of divinity,) then they should be Clerics.


You could apply the same argument to say "Paladins should just be fighters with a couple levels of cleric." If paladins can be a separate class, so can monks. I wouldn't mind seeing monks and paladins as specialized fighters, but fighters would need to have many more options and a lot more versatility to do that. (In some systems, they do, but D&D usually limits them quite a bit.)

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-07, 02:21 PM
Fighters, wizards and rogues are just not good enough so was born paladins, priests and monks.

Ooooh. I like that. I like that very much. I like that very very very much.
Just to follow up, another neat property is that you can extend this to the 'nature' team as well: Barbarian, Druid, Ranger.


You could apply the same argument to say "Paladins should just be fighters with a couple levels of cleric." If paladins can be a separate class, so can monks. I wouldn't mind seeing monks and paladins as specialized fighters, but fighters would need to have many more options and a lot more versatility to do that. (In some systems, they do, but D&D usually limits them quite a bit.)
I do indeed question whether paladins couldn't just be mechanically represented as a multiclass cleric/fighter. There might be a somewhat different social niche for members of the church militant, but if they're both supposed to derive powers from the same source it's... odd that the class with more faith-based restrictions actually gets fewer spells.

I wonder how the math works out in 3.5e, actually. 10 levels of cleric plus 10 levels of fighter gives you... a BAB of 17, access to 5th level spells, and 6 bonus feats, while 20 levels of paladin gives you a BAB of 20, lay hands/smite and other perks, and a markedly better chance to turn undead. Is that a wash?

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-07, 02:41 PM
The gods of Dnd are very jealous gods . The church needs to preserve its tenets and core values even among adventurers.

Everyone needs scum to take care of monsters or explore abandoned holes but why should they be heretics or worship rival gods. How do you control those freaks ? A loyal cleric is putting his super powers at risk just by hanging out with them .

Fighters , Wizards and rogues are just not good enough so was born Paladins , priests and monks .

Monks fill the role of rogue .

Mind if I steal this idea? I think it could also work if everyone just can't become a cleric due to being incompatible or exploding due to the magic.

D+1
2018-01-07, 03:31 PM
I mean, I'm no expert on the matter, but Shaolin monks and the kinds of figures the class is meant to represent are a very eastern thing, steeped in eastern mysticism. But D&D traditionally has a medieval Europe flavour, and a divinity system that I don't see how monks fit into. Clerics can produce actual miracles. What's the point of seeking inner spiritual perfection in a setting like that?
The most likely source of inspiration for monks was probably the 1972 TV show Kung Fu. The central character, a Shaolin monk, wanders the American old west. A decidedly incompatible setting. In D&D it'd be no different. The Monk PC would be an outsider for the most part, bringing fresh perspectives to many well-trodden aspects of fantasy settings, just as in Kung Fu the character brought new kinds of fighting and new approaches to social issues in the Western horses-and-sixguns setting.

The general concept for the TV show was probably stolen from Bruce Lee, who at the very least had a nearly identical idea at the very same time. Lee's idea was that all the fighting would fit with an old West better than a modern setting. Obviously, the violence is no issue at all in any standard fantasy RPG setting. The monk as written may not fit into every fantasy setting, but there is absolutely no reason it shouldn't fit because it's deemed anachronistic. Fantasy settings often work BETTER when they have a number of seriously anachronistic elements. Certainly early D&D was rife with sci-fi bits that nobody bat an eyelash at, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks being the most obvious sample. Mixing genres produces entertaining results and always has with D&D, even if it's not to EVERYbody's taste.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-07, 04:36 PM
You could apply the same argument to say "Paladins should just be fighters with a couple levels of cleric." If paladins can be a separate class, so can monks. I wouldn't mind seeing monks and paladins as specialized fighters, but fighters would need to have many more options and a lot more versatility to do that. (In some systems, they do, but D&D usually limits them quite a bit.)

I agree with both 'paladins should be fighters with Cleric levels' and 'the monk class is fine'.

I'll point out that my main problem with the monk class is the name. If we're going to sperate 'divine warrior' from other warriors we might as well sperate 'enlightened warrior'. I'm not in the game I'm making (currently four classes, Bard, Rogue, Scholar, and Warrior, having trouble working out if I need any more), but the way D&D is it's completely valid.

I just don't think we need to do all this separating, so I'm not in my game. I am, however, still keeping the concept of the enlightenment seeker as a Theme (who you are, compared to what you do. This is expanding out of what was originally a 5e hack and so these are the outgrowth of backgrounds).

Bohandas
2018-01-07, 09:36 PM
The biggest problem with the monk is the name and trying to shoehorn the fluff of the class into a religious context; it doesn't jibe at all with the way religion is handled in D&D. They should rename the class "Martial Artist" or "Karate Guy" or something and leave it at that. I'm fine with martial artists, I'm not fine with the monk class as named and fluffed, that don't fit in with either the setting or the actual mechanical class abilities

RazorChain
2018-01-07, 10:24 PM
Lore wise I think they fit something like this.


Game Designer #1 "Guys, shaolin monks are cool"

Game Designer #2 and #3 "Yeah, they rock"

Game Designer #1 "Then let's include them....and pirates...everyone loves pirates"

Thrudd
2018-01-07, 11:29 PM
Saying they don't fit in the setting is weird, because they've been in the game from basically the beginning. Their presence, therefore, is part of what defines "the setting"- they were invented for Blackmoore pre AD&D, and were a part of the first version of both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. It's true that some people even then had a problem with their inclusion, but the earliest official settings all had them, which sort of invalidates the idea that D&D ever was exclusively a faux-European medieval setting. It was always a kitchen sink of fantasy and mythology from various cultures and pop culture fiction.

Bohandas
2018-01-08, 12:26 AM
I suppose "They don't fit the game" would be more accurate. It's a good ways off from the way D&D generally handles religion.

guileus
2018-01-08, 06:32 AM
I always found the monk class a bit dumb. If it's meant to represent not-Shaolin monks in your world, then OK, but that should be an exception rather than the rule that a class is meant to represent. And I mean an exception because D&D (not its Oriental Adventures or Arabian Adventures variations) is rooted in traditional fantasy, which stems from a modified version of the European Middle Ages (the transposition is not 100% of course, as some people pointd out; I must say that the older I get, the more I want to play in a setting more similar to the Middle Ages and thus more "realistic" instead of the kitchen sink fantasy thing you see in some worlds).

I guess I could understand if people tried to make them into a some kind of western monk, but it's not like martial arts was the thing with them, so that's why I say it's dumb.

Well, keep in mind that D&D has never been really big on medieval Europe flavor. Just pick out the big things about medieval Europe:


1.Unbelievable All Powerful Oppressive Religious Rule
2.Royal/Noble/Peasant lifestyles with people LOCKED into them for life
3.Every inch of land accounted for and owned by someone
4.No big wild animals, but plenty of vermin
5.and Death, disease, more Death and more disease

Now, this does not seem like a good setting for a game....maybe that is why they did not use it.

The default D&D setting is much more America roughly 1700:

1.Religious Freedom, with religion having a hold in only some areas
2.Anyone can be anything
3.Unbelievably vast and wild and mostly unexplored areas of land
4.Wild animals up the wazoo everywhere
5.And well, sure death and disease

Wait, what? Weren't many workers who travelled to the Americas indentured servants? And that's without mentioning slavery.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-08, 07:25 AM
I agree with both 'paladins should be fighters with Cleric levels' and 'the monk class is fine'.

I'll point out that my main problem with the monk class is the name. If we're going to seperate 'divine warrior' from other warriors we might as well sperate 'enlightened warrior'. I'm not in the game I'm making (currently four classes, Bard, Rogue, Scholar, and Warrior, having trouble working out if I need any more), but the way D&D is it's completely valid.
My knowledge of later editions is sketchy, but certainly in 3e the Monk was pretty much the butt of every balance-related joke in the game. So the problems extended beyond naming, certainly.

Do you have a link to the system for the game you're working on? (I had a vague notion of trying to boil D&D down to a system that appears superficially class-based but actually isn't, with the notion of just having Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard as the core skill-sets/feat-trees. Probably get around to it any decade now.)

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-08, 08:45 AM
My knowledge of later editions is sketchy, but certainly in 3e the Monk was pretty much the butt of every balance-related joke in the game. So the problems extended beyond naming, certainly.

I was referring to the concept. Balance-wise the 3e monk is almost as bad as going Commoner (alright, not quite true), in 4e monks were balanced and cool and I'm sad I never got to play it, and in 5e monks are again within the average balance range (the lowest class being the Ranger in 5e, and it's not as bad as in 3e).


Do you have a link to the system for the game you're working on? (I had a vague notion of trying to boil D&D down to a system that appears superficially class-based but actually isn't, with the notion of just having Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard as the core skill-sets/feat-trees. Probably get around to it any decade now.)

No, for the reason that it's in very early alpha and still being pinned down. Classes are currently being stripped down, I'm working out how I want numbers to progress (I'm considering +1 to trained stats every other level), and if I want skills at all. I'm currently considering just using eight to ten stats as skills (Strength, Constitution, Agility, Dexterity, Cognition, Intuition, Presence). I'm also considering dropping classes entirely (and maybe levels) in any significant form, or just have them give bonuses to Ability Scores as you level.

I'm also working on a science fiction variation which doesn't use classes or themes, but instead has a longer list of Abilities, including stuff like Marksmanship and Technology. It's closer to beta because there's a lot less immediate work, but it'll not get there until there's a working spaceships system that isn't just 'pick from a list'.

I'll link one of them in the forum when they hit what I'd consider a beta state. But they're nowhere near where I'm willing to show them.

EDIT: note, the current versions work on 2d6, because dice that roll a one or a six give the characters a complication or benefit in addition to resolving the action. I've considered changing to 3d6 to get closer to the D&D numbers people are familiar with, but I'm not sure if I want more than two complications or benefits possible on each roll.

PrismCat21
2018-01-08, 10:22 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/3b/c5/683bc56c5311af5203b7d4ae63571276.jpg
https://78.media.tumblr.com/2f1e2250ad1592067c9f71222bab780b/tumblr_inline_o7qtycSmvW1qjutp7_500.jpg

Throwing in a monk from that time wouldn't be hard at all.

Morty
2018-01-08, 10:24 AM
While D&D has very little to do with European Middle Ages, it's certainly true that its mish-mash of ideas and inspirations is decidedly Eurocentric and that the monk class is very awkwardly tacked on. But that's an argument for broadening its inspiration pool and integrating such elements into it, rather than cutting out everything that doesn't "feel right".

guileus
2018-01-08, 10:38 AM
Agree, if that's what someone likes, go for it, you could argue that the somehow western setting you are has a lot of cultural exchange with the eastern part, or that you play in a crossroads nation, whatever. My only thing would be that it's somewhat weird that monks are the only class that gets represented: why don't we get samurais, or horsemen archers etc?

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 10:49 AM
Ars Magica begs to differ.

Never mind that real history begs to differ on every point.

Really wish we could kill and bury the Victorian / Marxist caricature of "medieval Europe" as the "dung ages".

Jeivar
2018-01-08, 10:53 AM
The biggest problem with the monk is the name and trying to shoehorn the fluff of the class into a religious context; it doesn't jibe at all with the way religion is handled in D&D. They should rename the class "Martial Artist" or "Karate Guy" or something and leave it at that.


I suppose "They don't fit the game" would be more accurate. It's a good ways off from the way D&D generally handles religion.

Yes. I think you two have summed my point up better than I did.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 10:55 AM
I do indeed question whether paladins couldn't just be mechanically represented as a multiclass cleric/fighter. There might be a somewhat different social niche for members of the church militant, but if they're both supposed to derive powers from the same source it's... odd that the class with more faith-based restrictions actually gets fewer spells.

I wonder how the math works out in 3.5e, actually. 10 levels of cleric plus 10 levels of fighter gives you... a BAB of 17, access to 5th level spells, and 6 bonus feats, while 20 levels of paladin gives you a BAB of 20, lay hands/smite and other perks, and a markedly better chance to turn undead. Is that a wash?


Consider also that in some editions a character might be a cleric/paladin or fighter/paladin.

Character classes are just strange.

guileus
2018-01-08, 10:56 AM
Never mind that real history begs to differ on every point.

Really wish we could kill and bury the Victorian / Marxist caricature of "medieval Europe" as the "dung ages".


Marxism doesn't characterize the Middle Ages as "dung ages". In fact IIRC some Marxist historians stress that the class nature of medieval ages set the conditions for the Black Death to severely increase the conditions of peasants (as killing so many of them decreased supply of labour and thus forced lords to give them better conditions in order to retain them).

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 11:28 AM
Marxism doesn't characterize the Middle Ages as "dung ages". In fact IIRC some Marxist historians stress that the class nature of medieval ages set the conditions for the Black Death to severely increase the conditions of peasants (as killing so many of them decreased supply of labour and thus forced lords to give them better conditions in order to retain them).

Last comments on this lest it derail the thread:

That's a single moment in a ~1000-year span.

I've seen quite a bit of Marxist polemic directed at the class injustices of the "middle ages", the oppression of the masses, the supposedly mud-hut shoeless abject conditions of everyone outside the "elite", etc.

Which is entirely an aside from the point that a grotesque caricature has been painted of everything that came between the fall of Rome and the "high Renaissance" -- the very fact that the entire 1000-some-year time period and the entire continent has been lumped together as the "European middle ages" should be a hint as to just how dismissive and derisive the Victorians and others have been.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-08, 12:08 PM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/3b/c5/683bc56c5311af5203b7d4ae63571276.jpg
https://78.media.tumblr.com/2f1e2250ad1592067c9f71222bab780b/tumblr_inline_o7qtycSmvW1qjutp7_500.jpg

Throwing in a monk from that time wouldn't be hard at all.

I do actually want to run such a game, to the point where I nabbed Victoriana to have a system that'll work with the time period. Adding in a sholin monk will be hard with my intended system, but it's certainly something I'd be willing to work with to add to the party.

LibraryOgre
2018-01-08, 12:47 PM
Ooooh. I like that. I like that very much. I like that very very very much.

Oh, that is just delicious. You'd still need to rework them mechanically, I think, but that's a really neat selling point.

Note that 1e monks were pretty explicitly Lawful Thieves. They had most of the abilities of thieves built into the class.

Knaight
2018-01-08, 01:31 PM
I do actually want to run such a game, to the point where I nabbed Victoriana to have a system that'll work with the time period. Adding in a sholin monk will be hard with my intended system, but it's certainly something I'd be willing to work with to add to the party.

If you snag Leagues of Adventure you can support the period while also easily tossing in a Shaolin monk.

GungHo
2018-01-08, 01:58 PM
Danica cheated a bit...
Of course she did. Her married name was Dani Bonaduce.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-08, 02:12 PM
If you snag Leagues of Adventure you can support the period while also easily tossing in a Shaolin monk.

I'll have a look and see if it's up my street, thank you for the recommendation :smallsmile:

LibraryOgre
2018-01-08, 02:55 PM
Of course she did. Her married name was Dani Bonaduce.

:smallbiggrin: *throws rotten fruit*

Chaosticket
2018-01-08, 02:57 PM
I havent read every post.

I dont hate Monks in the style of Shaolin Monks, but rather that they stick out like a sore thumb in any setting that isnt asian and as a Core class its like having Knights, a lot of other classes, and ending with Ninjas. Now there are things like the Oriental Adventures book that have even more thematic classes.

Sohei are militant monks based on the Japanese Ikko Ikki sect that fought against Nobunaga Oda. Doesnt pretend to anything but asian warrior monks.

Clerics are closer to real monks, but are still warriors.
Pathfinder has probably the most Historically accurate monks as the Cloistered Cleric archetype. Basically bookworm noncombatants with robes and unusual hair not the typical heavily armored warriors monks Clerics are.

RazorChain
2018-01-08, 03:05 PM
Never mind that real history begs to differ on every point.

Really wish we could kill and bury the Victorian / Marxist caricature of "medieval Europe" as the "dung ages".


Aren't you talking about the Dark Ages?

This perspective really depends where you are from. In Iceland where I am from the medieval times were like the good years with no kings, no taxes....well except church tithes. It was an age of bloodshed and literature that ended with a civil war because some people really like to be lapdogs to a king as long as there is power and a title involved.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 03:44 PM
Aren't you talking about the Dark Ages?

This perspective really depends where you are from. In Iceland where I am from the medieval times were like the good years with no kings, no taxes....well except church tithes. It was an age of bloodshed and literature that ended with a civil war because some people really like to be lapdogs to a king as long as there is power and a title involved.


There are two competing and equally incorrect caricatures of "medieval Europe": Ye Goode Olde Days (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YeGoodeOldeDays), and The Dung Ages (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDungAges). I'm borrowing from TV Tropes to explain it, but they're hardly limited to fiction. Popular conception and even to some degree serious scholarship get caught up in these narratives.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-08, 04:00 PM
Note that 1e monks were pretty explicitly Lawful Thieves. They had most of the abilities of thieves built into the class.
Cool. Thanks for the tip.


There are two competing and equally incorrect caricatures of "medieval Europe": Ye Goode Olde Days (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YeGoodeOldeDays), and The Dung Ages (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDungAges). I'm borrowing from TV Tropes to explain it, but they're hardly limited to fiction. Popular conception and even to some degree serious scholarship get caught up in these narratives.
Yeah, we're not allowed to say 'Dark Ages' any more. We have to call it the 'post-Roman migrations period' now, or something.

I think there is room for the interpretation that large chunks of Europe seeing precipitous population collapse, vanishing literacy, a general breakdown of law and order and some truly appalling standards of hygiene in the centuries following the collapse of the western Roman empire probably indicates that gumdrops and sunshine were not tripping their way.

Not equally everywhere and all times, naturally- some of the provinces arguably left their peasantry better off without the burden of tribute to Rome, for example. And of course, once you get in the high middle ages and early renaissance you see things like actual plumbing again, and the shining armour for knights that were actually going out style by then and specifically designed to stop bullets.

As for whether the Marxists are or were right to complain about that social setup... well, sure. Marx wasn't generally wrong about pointing out problems, he just had systematically terrible solutions. I'm quite fond of my country's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity#Ireland_2) Dark Ages, as it happens, but serfdom is nextdoor to slavery and both tend to be frowned on these days.

Chaosticket
2018-01-08, 04:27 PM
Wow this is too historically political.

I thought this was about the Kung Fu class being in the same setting as Paladins, Clerics, and European Dragons.

gkathellar
2018-01-08, 04:39 PM
So here's a concrete answer I got to a similar question in another thread some time ago:


It's not specifically about these two abilities, but I wanted to add my source on the whole parody thing.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
The original monk character class was created by Brian Blume, inspired by the fictional martial arts of the Destroyer series of novels.[2] The monk was introduced in 1975's Blackmoor supplement.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyer_(novel_series), I found the name of the martial art.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinanju_(martial_art) I learn that "Sinanju is a fictional Korean martial art (the "Sun Source" of all martial arts) of a cult paperback book series, The Destroyer, by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir. The Destroyer series lampoons politicians, politics, and other adventure novels, and features gory violence on evildoers, martial art adventures and more." Farther in "Sinanju training enables one to hold one's breath over an hour, rip steel doors from their hinges, climb walls, dodge bullets (even at point-blank range), overturn a moving tank, outrun a car, seem invisible, overcome multiple opponents..."

So D&D monks are Korean. Obviously there's a lot more to the history of the monk between Blackmoor in '75, the AD&D martial artist in '86, and the following versions from WotC. I just found this interesting enough to share.

[2] E. Gary Gygax, "Preface", Oriental Adventures (1st edition, 1986): "In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game."

Basically, it's because Brian Blume had some kung fu novels he liked.

Hopefully that helps.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 04:47 PM
Yeah, we're not allowed to say 'Dark Ages' any more. We have to call it the 'post-Roman migrations period' now, or something.

I think there is room for the interpretation that large chunks of Europe seeing precipitous population collapse, vanishing literacy, a general breakdown of law and order and some truly appalling standards of hygiene in the centuries following the collapse of the western Roman empire probably indicates that gumdrops and sunshine were not tripping their way.

Not equally everywhere and all times, naturally- some of the provinces arguably left their peasantry better off without the burden of tribute to Rome, for example. And of course, once you get in the high middle ages and early renaissance you see things like actual plumbing again, and the shining armour for knights that were actually going out style by then and specifically designed to stop bullets.

As for whether the Marxists are or were right to complain about that social setup... well, sure. Marx wasn't generally wrong about pointing out problems, he just had systematically terrible solutions. I'm quite fond of my country's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity#Ireland_2) Dark Ages, as it happens, but serfdom is nextdoor to slavery and both tend to be frowned on these days.


The "lack of hygiene" thing was more in effect during the Renaissance, oddly enough.

My gripe about the Marxist, the Victorians, and even to some degree Enlightenment commentators isn't about criticism of the social structures, but rather their assertions that time period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance was a filthy stupid ignorant backward suffering millennium or so with zero progress.



Wow this is too historically political.

I thought this was about the Kung Fu class being in the same setting as Paladins, Clerics, and European Dragons.

Someone posted Standard Model Dung Ages nonsense and I felt compelled to call it out.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-08, 04:53 PM
The "lack of hygiene" thing was more in effect during the Renaissance, oddly enough.
Really? I assumed it was pretty bad during the industrial revolution, but I would have thought renaissance florence was a cleaner place than medieval london, for example.

Could you link any sources on the topic? (Not to impute that you're wrong, just curious on the topic.)

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 05:15 PM
Really? I assumed it was pretty bad during the industrial revolution, but I would have thought renaissance florence was a cleaner place than medieval london, for example.

Could you link any sources on the topic? (Not to impute that you're wrong, just curious on the topic.)


It's mainly a buildup of bits and pieces I've picked up over the years, everything from documentaries like Going Medieval (Mike Loades), to our own "Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question?" threads here, to random reading various books and of sites like this -- http://www.medievalists.net/2014/06/15-myths-middle-ages/, to perusing "Ask Historians" on reddit (it's heavily moderated and has very high standards for reddit).


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-the-middle-ages/2016/09/22/e56c4150-7f50-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html
https://www.historyonthenet.com/five-absurd-myths-about-the-middle-ages/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/10-worst-misconceptions-about-medieval-life-youd-get-fr-1686799982

gkathellar
2018-01-08, 05:16 PM
Really? I assumed it was pretty bad during the industrial revolution, but I would have thought renaissance florence was a cleaner place than medieval london, for example.

Could you link any sources on the topic? (Not to impute that you're wrong, just curious on the topic.)

Max can help you with this more than I can, but we have a lot of tapestries, municipal records, and accounts to suggest that bathing and bathhouses were pretty common in a lot of Europe all through the middle ages. (It comes up fairly often over in the Weapons & Armor thread on this board.)

IIRC, the stuff about "bathing makes you sinful" that is often attributed to medieval Europeans is fictional: there was public outcry against public bathhouses because they were perceived as houses of sin, but it was not a reaction to water.

London is also kind of an odd case, given it had fog so toxic that people died from breathing it - but it took hundreds of years for the problem to get that bad.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 05:21 PM
Max can help you with this more than I can, but we have a lot of tapestries, municipal records, and accounts to suggest that bathing and bathhouses were pretty common in a lot of Europe all through the middle ages. (It comes up fairly often over in the Weapons & Armor thread on this board.)

IIRC, the stuff about "bathing makes you sinful" that is often attributed to medieval Europeans is fictional: there was public outcry against public bathhouses because they were perceived as houses of sin, but it was not a reaction to water.

London is also kind of an odd case, given it had fog so toxic that people died from breathing it - but it took hundreds of years for the problem to get that bad.


"Pea soup fog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_soup_fog)".

Jeivar
2018-01-08, 05:40 PM
This isn't the "Misconceptions About Historical Periods" thread.

Morty
2018-01-08, 06:23 PM
I'd say misconceptions about historical periods matter quite a lot for the premise of this thread.

Bohandas
2018-01-08, 06:48 PM
The middle ages were awful amd nasty and so was the victorian era. In fact pretty much everything prior to the 1960's or so. And it's still the dark ages in subsaharan africa and the poorer parts of asia.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-08, 06:55 PM
I'd say misconceptions about historical periods matter quite a lot for the premise of this thread.

I think if the greatest complaint is that the monk doesn't fit a faux-European setting, it does matter since it assumes a low-medium fantasy setting, so I agree with you. Admittedly, I am a little concerned about how the hygiene issue became relevant...

This has given me a great idea for a setting with portals opening up randomly and dumping people all over the place. *sigh* It's raining elves again, they're going to bruise the crops!

Bohandas
2018-01-08, 06:57 PM
Wow this is too historically political.

I thought this was about the Kung Fu class being in the same setting as Paladins, Clerics, and European Dragons.

It's about a religious kung-fu class focused solely on fighting being in the same setting as Paladins, Clerics, Adpets, Druids, and Divine Minds, all of which either cast spells or use psionic powers

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 07:02 PM
The middle ages were awful amd nasty and so was the victorian era. In fact pretty much everything prior to the 1960's or so. And it's still the dark ages in subsaharan africa and the poorer parts of asia.

In some ways you're quite right, but in some ways that have become "everyone knows" popular "knowledge", that ~1000 years has been depicted as abjectly horrible in ways that aren't quite so. That's all I'm saying, in reaction to a certain poster regurgitating those same tired myths about that span of time and continent.

Thrudd
2018-01-08, 07:19 PM
I never saw D&D as mimicking a single historic period or place. The cleric and paladin are obviously inspired by European high middle ages crusading knights. But the druid is from antiquity, the ranger is Aragorn from middle earth, the magic users are from a far-future Dying Earth, fighters and thieves could be anything from almost any era or culture real or fictional. And monks are near-psionic kung fu fighters from east asia. There are monsters from Greek myth, various regions of Europe, Slavic lands, Middle East, India and East Asia, as well as middle earth, pop culture and custom creations. The weapons and armor are mostly generic enough in description to be applicable to a wide range of cultures from anywhere on earth.
A number of the psionic powers (at least in 1e) are rather sci-fi inspired.

I always saw the setting as more similar to a Hyperborea (Conan) with sci-fi elements like Dying Earth - taking place mostly in a cultural crossroads type place that has elements of different time periods overlapping. You might have one city that acts like a renaissance era Florence or Venice, another kingdom is a collection of feudal lords in Norman castles with a Christian-like religion, another part of the world is like Sumerian Ur or dynastic Egypt, there might be Mongol or Scythian like tribes in between them, monasteries of ascetic kung fu fighters in isolated mountain valleys, the Baghdad of Arabian Nights and Sinbad on the other side of the desert from The Norman knights, some bands of seafaring Viking raiders, and further south a jungle with dinosaurs, giant gorillas and tribes of cannibals with blowguns. All of this on top of the ruins of ancient civilizations with vast hidden treasure and lost magic and technology. If you want, you can even have magic spaceships and Dr.Strange-style psychedelic dimension hopping with Lovecraftian horrors. That's D&D. The greater struggle to me would be finding something considered fantasy that doesn't or couldn't fit into such a setting. Mystical kung fu-fighters from China is one of the least crazy things in the mix.

edit: also, to be fair, the type of religion that inspires D&D kung fu monks is a very different sort of religion IRL than the one which inspires the clerics - so it makes sense that the way they get fantasized in the game would be very different as well. That doesn't mean they don't fit. They aren't meant to be similar. Is there a reason the game setting shouldn't have religions and spiritual practices which manifest in different ways?

Chaosticket
2018-01-08, 07:43 PM
Okay I see where you went.
Default settings of each edition are generic European.

Expanded you really go into all the things you mentioned. It's why there are different possible planets like the Dark Sun setting has psionics on a desert Deathworld. Kara-tur in the Forgotten Realms is basically Japan.

Just the same there is Dragonlance and Greyhawk that up the European fill, but not low fantasy so there are of course Dragons.

Still, why are there martial artists with proficiency in chinese and japanese weapons in not-Europe?

Its the McNinja dilemma.

War_lord
2018-01-08, 07:48 PM
Few brief points: There's no such thing as the "Dark ages", that's a myth that was started in the Renaissance period that was then picked up by historians non-critically believing everything historical writers of the period asserted, without considering the socio-political motives behind those writings. You can't generalize an entire Continent, never mind an entire continent over several hundred years, a large chunk of which we have to fill in gaps through educated guessing.

Sub-Saharan Africa literally describes everything in Africa south of the equator. That's an enormous area of land populated by a huge number of diverse peoples. A statement like "And it's still the dark ages in subsaharan africa" is absurd, and is more a reflection of stereotypes about Africa then any attempt to really understand the region. Much like the so called "Dark Ages" in Europe is a bunch of stereotypes that don't reflect the complexities of that region and era.

Final note, I don't know where people are getting "how D&D deals with Religion" from. The two most popular published settings are FR and Eberron. They each deal with religion in almost diametrically opposed ways.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-08, 07:52 PM
Max can help you with this more than I can, but we have a lot of tapestries, municipal records, and accounts to suggest that bathing and bathhouses were pretty common in a lot of Europe all through the middle ages. (It comes up fairly often over in the Weapons & Armor thread on this board.)

IIRC, the stuff about "bathing makes you sinful" that is often attributed to medieval Europeans is fictional: there was public outcry against public bathhouses because they were perceived as houses of sin, but it was not a reaction to water.

It's mainly a buildup of bits and pieces I've picked up over the years, everything from documentaries like Going Medieval (Mike Loades), to our own "Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question?" threads here, to random reading various books and of sites like this -- http://www.medievalists.net/2014/06/15-myths-middle-ages/, to perusing "Ask Historians" on reddit (it's heavily moderated and has very high standards for reddit).
Cool, thanks.


edit: also, to be fair, the type of religion that inspires D&D kung fu monks is a very different sort of religion IRL than the one which inspires the clerics...
It certainly is, but the D&D cleric has been adapted to serve a variety of fantasy religions that also have little or nothing in common with their medieval-european inspirations (certainly no more than christianity and druidism.) It seems particularly unfair that bards, paladins and rangers all get limited spellcasting on top of their flavoursome perks in 3e and monks get... bupkiss, really.

I would just say that a lot of arthurian myth and the romances of charlemagne actually represent a fusion of christian and celtic/germanic influences, so it's not that strange to toss some adulterated druidism into the mix.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-08, 07:53 PM
Final note, I don't know where people are getting "how D&D deals with Religion" from. The two most popular published settings are FR and Eberron. They each deal with religion in almost diametrically opposed ways.

I'm guessing they mean Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, not Eberron. I've certainly heard and seen more fans of Eberron (Let's test. I hate warforged! Fight me!), but Greyhawk was the default setting up until third and is often seen as the 'traditional' one until third.

I don't think there's been a single UA for Greyhawk, mind you, but it might just be a matter of when people picked up the hobby.

War_lord
2018-01-08, 08:01 PM
I'm guessing they mean Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, not Eberron. I've certainly heard and seen more fans of Eberron (Let's test. I hate warforged! Fight me!), but Greyhawk was the default setting up until third and is often seen as the 'traditional' one until third.

Eberron was literally designed to be the next big setting for 3.5, from what I've been told Greyhawk's position as the 3.5 default was basically on paper only and FR and later Eberron were the actually supported "main" settings.

If we're making generalized statements about how D&D "does" Religion, Eberron deserves consideration. And I say that a person who gets into arguments centered around my love of trashing Eberron. Heck the Xanthar's guide entry for Clerics has a whole sidebar that basically says that "in certain campaigns" Clerics might worship an alignment or even a force or philosophy and namedrops Eberron.

Thrudd
2018-01-08, 08:04 PM
Okay I see where you went.
Default settings of each edition are generic European.

Expanded you really go into all the things you mentioned. It's why there are different possible planets like the Dark Sun setting has psionics on a desert Deathworld. Kara-tur in the Forgotten Realms is basically Japan.

Just the same there is Dragonlance and Greyhawk that up the European fill, but not low fantasy so there are of course Dragons.

The things I mentioned are all present and possible with the core D&D rules. The "default setting" is all the things in the core books - which in 1e included monks and psionics (as an option). Magic Users are Dying Earth, which is far-future fantasy/sci-fi weirdness (not particularly European or anything else) - that's where the magic system comes from. Greyhawk has kung fu monks and psionics, and so does Forgotten Realms, they were both created for or before 1e AD&D. Neither setting was really default, though - 3e was really the first time they started including any setting information in the core books or suggesting there was a "default". People mostly invented their own settings. D&D was always all those things as a default, it is the later specific settings which narrows things down more.

Also, it's not "Not Europe", by default, not even Greyhawk and FR. FR has a whole planet worth of regions with different cultures, including Not-East Asia. The monster manual and 1e fiend folio have creatures drawn from both eastern and western cultures. The fighter and thief could be from anywhere, any time. The weapons could mostly be from anywhere, it was 3e which created the special and idiotic "monk weapons" that included Okinawan kobudo weapons, for some reason.

PS PS - Chinese and Japanese weapons aren't really different from European weapons, for the most part, except for cosmetic things. Shaolin monks know how to fight with spears, staves, polearms, double edged and single edged swords, and various other things with analogues in other parts of the world. Weapons are weapons - the tactics and strategies developed differently in some places, but there are really more similarities than differences when you get down to it - especially at the level of abstraction in D&D combat.

Chaosticket
2018-01-08, 08:05 PM
Its not about religion. Monks in Dungeons and Dragons are martial artists not followers of particular gods.Those are clerics.

Monks are Kwai Chang Caine.
Ive seen variants with more Ki powers. In Pathfinder there is an archetype of the Warpriest that forgoes the usual weapons and Armor for Monk abilities.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-08, 08:06 PM
Really D&D suffers from the rules having no real theming. The setting presented is generally pantheistic medieval to renaissance, but the rules have everything.

The fighter, rogue, and cleric as classes are relatively generic as warriors, scoundrels, and holy (wo)men (and I'd argue that the cleric draws as much from early religion as middle ages). The ranger is a specific flavour but manages to be neither tribal hunter or medieval woodsman in early editions, but becomes both in more recent editions. Paladins are obviously meant to be European knights in the Lancelot and Gawain model. Bards are somewhere between Celtic wandering lorekeepers and medieval minstrels. Monks are practitioners of wuxia martial arts. Druids are prehistoric nature priests (but not historical druids, who are better represented as Clerics). Barbarians theoretically have flavour but are actually rather transferrable (most settings will have either tribal warriors or berserkers). Warlocks use magic close to what medieval people might have believed. Wizards are a mixture of scholars with rather modern magic, while sorcerers have a specific kind of magic but one that appears time and tone again.

If D&D picked one time period and geographic location (say 1400s France, 1500s Italy, 200BC Rome, or whatever) then it would be a much better game as the flavour of everything would mesh together. It doesn't have to be a very accurate representation of the era, but it should decide what it wants to be.

I'm considering going for an earlier time period for my game. Not iron age Celts or Vikings, they've definitely been done well, and I'm not liking the idea of going for Greeks or Romans. I think I'll do a little research into the Bronze Age in the fertile crescent, pick an era that seems interesting, and change everything to fit.

So my four core classes are the Warrior (hit stuff), the Rogue (shifty stuff), the Wise Man (know stuff), and the as yet needing a rename Face class (previously Bard). Maybe I'll add in an Artisan class as well. The only race is human, just to make it easy on myself. There's no need to go into the crowded European Fantasy Game market. Potentially with the option for Prophet characters with limited muscle abilities.

War_lord
2018-01-08, 08:12 PM
Still, why are there martial artists with proficiency in chinese and japanese weapons in not-Europe?

So it's still not-Europe when there's Dragons and magic and inter-dimensional portals and spaceships and so on... but someone from the far east of the world taking a boat to wherever the Campaign is set and setting up a school to teach their techniques and philosophy is shattering your suspension of disbelief?


Its not about religion. Monks in Dungeons and Dragons are martial artists not followers of particular gods.Those are clerics.

1. In the Forgotten Realms at least, everyone is a follower of a god.

2. Not every clergyman/clergywoman in D&D is a Cleric.

3. Monks are trained in Monasteries, there's an assumed religious element even if it's not as strict as a more overtly faith based class.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 08:18 PM
So it's still not-Europe when there's Dragons and magic and inter-dimensional portals and spaceships and so on... but someone from the far east of the world taking a boat to wherever the Campaign is set and setting up a school to teach their techniques and philosophy is shattering your suspension of disbelief?


First, it depends on the particular setting at hand. No setting has to have (or does not have to have) Monks, or Paladins, or Clerics, or Wizards, or any other particular class.

Second, the existence of one fantastical element in a setting is not by itself a justification for any and all other fantastical elements.




The things I mentioned are all present and possible with the core D&D rules. The "default setting" is all the things in the core books - which in 1e included monks and psionics (as an option). Magic Users are Dying Earth, which is far-future fantasy/sci-fi weirdness (not particularly European or anything else) - that's where the magic system comes from. Greyhawk has kung fu monks and psionics, and so does Forgotten Realms, they were both created for or before 1e AD&D. Neither setting was really default, though - 3e was really the first time they started including any setting information in the core books or suggesting there was a "default". People mostly invented their own settings. D&D was always all those things as a default, it is the later specific settings which narrows things down more.

Also, it's not "Not Europe", by default, not even Greyhawk and FR. FR has a whole planet worth of regions with different cultures, including Not-East Asia. The monster manual and 1e fiend folio have creatures drawn from both eastern and western cultures. The fighter and thief could be from anywhere, any time. The weapons could mostly be from anywhere, it was 3e which created the special and idiotic "monk weapons" that included Okinawan kobudo weapons, for some reason.


D&D's unspoken default setting, when looking at the older books (AD&D and before) and the writings of Gygax et all, seems to be a sort of weird fantasy mashup with just enough "medieval to early Ren" thrown in to confuse. As you say, it's more Conan and Dying Earth than it is anything strictly "medieval Europe".

I don't think Monks are all that odd in and of themselves in such a weird-world mashup setting... but if I were writing them into a setting and customizing the class, I'd have to acknowledge the fact that robust armor, widely worn, is a thing, and that unarmed and unarmored just isn't the best way to attack someone whose armor was "proofed" with early firearms and heavy crossbows, and who is carrying multiple highly-refined flesh-breaking implements on his person.

(I'm sure someone will cite the Monk's special spiritual powers as giving them special armor and weapon countering juju, but I have to wonder why a "fighter" with armor and weapons couldn't tap the same well... other than raw genre emulation putting blinders on everyone in the setting.)

War_lord
2018-01-08, 08:26 PM
First, it depends on the particular setting at hand. No setting has to have (or does not have to have) Monks, or Paladins, or Clerics, or Wizards, or any other particular class.

Second, the existence of one fantastical element in a setting is not by itself a justification for any and all other fantastical elements.

No, I agree with what you're saying. What I object to is how Chaosticket is rejecting the presence of Chinese and Japanese inspired elements that aren't at all fantastical, in a world with teleportation and communication magic that would allow cultural spread across the natural physical barriers that prevented such a thing in the actual medieval world.

If we're going kitchen sink fantasy, we don't have to explain it, it's just cool. If we're going "hard" fantasy (a term I don't agree with that I'm using for simplicity), you have to account for the existence of means of easy long distance travel and communications for even a select few.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 08:29 PM
No, I agree with what you're saying. What I object to is how Chaosticket is rejecting the presence of Chinese and Japanese inspired elements that aren't at all fantastical, in a world with teleportation and communication magic that would allow cultural spread across the natural physical barriers that prevented such a thing in the actual medieval world.

If we're going kitchen sink fantasy, we don't have to explain it, it's just cool. If we're going "hard" fantasy (a term I don't agree with that I'm using for simplicity), you have to account for the existence of means of easy long distance travel and communications for even a select few.

That's reasonable -- geography alone is not nearly as significant a barrier in such a setting.

Thrudd
2018-01-08, 08:53 PM
This is why I don't use D&D for history-inspired settings. Go with a generic that can be customized to the proper details for that sort of thing - GURPS or D6 or HERO or whatever.

For me, D&D should be more like Thundarr the Barbarian than Arthurian legends, more Conan than real world cultures or history. Gamma World its closest game cousin, to move the setting from fantasy to sci-fi/post apocalypse. Gonzo, incredible, pulpy, wildly variable serial/episodic style adventures. While I definitely support crafting a coherent and consistent setting from the core elements of D&D, including excluding classes and creatures from the core books, I don't think it lends itself well to doing a near-historic setting or any single real-world culture to any degree of accuracy.

Bohandas
2018-01-08, 08:57 PM
edit: also, to be fair, the type of religion that inspires D&D kung fu monks is a very different sort of religion IRL than the one which inspires the clerics - so it makes sense that the way they get fantasized in the game would be very different as well. That doesn't mean they don't fit. They aren't meant to be similar. Is there a reason the game setting shouldn't have religions and spiritual practices which manifest in different ways?

But followers of philosophy based (rather than deity based) religions are also clerics by default, at least as of 3e.


No, I agree with what you're saying. What I object to is how Chaosticket is rejecting the presence of Chinese and Japanese inspired elements that aren't at all fantastical

Yeah, because real Taoist and Buddhist monks spend all their time jumping around and beating people up


Few brief points: There's no such thing as the "Dark ages", that's a myth that was started in the Renaissance period that was then picked up by historians non-critically believing everything historical writers of the period asserted, without considering the socio-political motives behind those writings. You can't generalize an entire Continent, never mind an entire continent over several hundred years, a large chunk of which we have to fill in gaps through educated guessing.

Sub-Saharan Africa literally describes everything in Africa south of the equator. That's an enormous area of land populated by a huge number of diverse peoples. A statement like "And it's still the dark ages in subsaharan africa" is absurd, and is more a reflection of stereotypes about Africa then any attempt to really understand the region. Much like the so called "Dark Ages" in Europe is a bunch of stereotypes that don't reflect the complexities of that region and era.


The concept of the dark ages is valid, it's traditional the singling out of the 1000 years immediately following the fall of rome that's the problem. I personally view everything prior to the late 1960's as a single continuous dark age. Especially the victorian era. And the 1950's

Chaosticket
2018-01-08, 09:24 PM
No, I agree with what you're saying. What I object to is how Chaosticket is rejecting the presence of Chinese and Japanese inspired elements that aren't at all fantastical, in a world with teleportation and communication magic that would allow cultural spread across the natural physical barriers that prevented such a thing in the actual medieval world.

If we're going kitchen sink fantasy, we don't have to explain it, it's just cool. If we're going "hard" fantasy (a term I don't agree with that I'm using for simplicity), you have to account for the existence of means of easy long distance travel and communications for even a select few.

Because its not easy. Teleport isnt a low level spell, neither are other forms of long distance communication and travel, its why there are horses and boats. You dont have schools churning out students ready to warp people between countries and continents.

If that is your reasoning it fails to take into account the requirements or how drastic that change really would be. Now if you did then at some point there would of course be a magical war. Not-China would invade not-japan and change their culture.

The Roman Empire had to conquer based on foot and they took over most of Europe, north Africa, and Persia. Give them instant teleporting and see them take over the World.

Kitten Champion
2018-01-08, 09:46 PM
The issue I have with monks - and it's been touched upon here - is there's a very limited foundation for their existence within the religious/spiritual life of the main D&D campaign settings, at least where the majority of these settings' stories are intended to be set. Particularly as they're designed as characters who have a strict philosophy that they adhere to as the core aspect of their fluff, while such philosophies/beliefs have no actual presence in their setting. There aren't laypeople who follow these teachings of their own accord or provide support for these monasteries.

If the Monk class didn't exist, neither would the monasteries. Which wouldn't be true for Clerics or Paladins because - even if they had no mechanical game-related interactions - D&D campaign settings would still have religions and the various pantheons they're associated with as an integral element of their worlds, and people would still fulfill the societal roles if not the Class Roles.

To me, it's like playing an exotic PC class where they don't really have a society or history in the world that they're connected to, they exists as outsiders and islands to themselves. Which, sure, that's easily enough done - mysterious traveller from a foreign land or somesuch - but it's pretty limiting. You can also just re-fluff the kit to however you want, though the class features all fit a particular archetype which makes them a little too remarkable to simply remake them as say, pit brawlers or something.

I'm someone who likes to draw characters from the world, to have people and organizations which connect them to their world and a worldview shaped from their life experiences. With the Monk, as written, I find that difficult to do. Even if you go with the mysterious traveller angle, your niche in the setting isn't going to be nearly as fleshed out and you're likely to be away from the people significant to you and your development.

Though, that being said, we do mostly play in our own settings where the Monk's world can be filled in. The one I made that we're currently using where Monks are a thing, I refluffed them into being an fringe and arguably heretical sect of Clerics - though not technically clergy anymore, but founded by Clerics who were once - who formed ascetic communes on the edges of civilization that eschewed possessions and conventional hierarchical structures for harsh self-discipline and spiritual enlightenment. The martial arts aspect came about because the world is full of terrifying monsters of which it is a tenant of faith to destroy and yet they were ill-equipped to fight them using traditional means, so they adapted by learning to punch really hard while believing even harder.

RazorChain
2018-01-08, 10:06 PM
Its not about religion. Monks in Dungeons and Dragons are martial artists not followers of particular gods.Those are clerics.

Monks are Kwai Chang Caine.
Ive seen variants with more Ki powers. In Pathfinder there is an archetype of the Warpriest that forgoes the usual weapons and Armor for Monk abilities.

You see this may be the cause of the religious confusion. Monks are religious, be they buddhists, christians, hinduists or whatever. I mean it's based on monastic orders where people devote themselves to religous spiritual pursuit. We have both Shaolin and Buddhist warrior monks that practioned martial arts but then again there were many more people who practiced martial arts. I'm not even going into the discussion how every culture had martial artists be they vikings, samurais or knights.

So if the D&D monk is based on the Shaolin monk which practiced Zen Buddhism first and martial arts second, it's like saying that you are playing a priest but he has nothing to do with religion, he just marries people and holds speeches in churchs.

Martial artist might have been a better name or even pugilist or some such. Last time I played a monk I felt a little out of place as he was more of a mixed martial artist than a shaolin monk as he wasn't tied to any monastic order.

Xuc Xac
2018-01-08, 11:15 PM
If monks have to live in monasteries, then paladins have to live in palaces. Barbarians have to speak gibberish and wizards have to be wrinkled with age.

Don't get hung up on the names. This is the game that thought "magic-user" was a good idea.

Thrudd
2018-01-08, 11:21 PM
This whole "they don't fit" problem stems entirely from how people design their settings. There is nothing inherent in the rules or premise of D&D that makes the monk ill-fitting. If someone fails to do their due-diligence in giving all the classes an appropriate place in the fiction, that is not the fault of the class concept. You could make the philosophy practiced by the monks as widespread as you want, just as with any religion in your cultures. There are countless ways to include them in a setting so they don't feel out-of-place.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-08, 11:39 PM
This whole "they don't fit" problem stems entirely from how people design their settings. There is nothing inherent in the rules or premise of D&D that makes the monk ill-fitting. If someone fails to do their due-diligence in giving all the classes an appropriate place in the fiction, that is not the fault of the class concept. You could make the philosophy practiced by the monks as widespread as you want, just as with any religion in your cultures. There are countless ways to include them in a setting so they don't feel out-of-place.


Indeed, it's not as if the "monks" in someone's setting have to be notChinese, notTaoist, or notBuddhist, or whatever.

As long as they're mutually integrating with the rest of the worldbuilding, they can be anything.

In my "4th BCE Greco-Sumerian" setting (currently doing research so it's a bit quiet in that thread), they could hypothetically be an order dedicated to the goddess from the dominant religion who is linked with the sun, perfection, and purity -- thus an order dedicated to striving toward purity, perfection, and unity; both spiritual and physical. Heck, they could even wear orange as a sign of their dedication to the goddess.

E: could even have a split between those who view the search as individual, those who view the search as something to be taught to those who come looking, and those who are more militant about it.

E2: it would take some work to make them fit, some aesthetic changes such as blending in some Greek ideas about perfection of the physical form, names, more emphasis on wrestling/grappling maybe, not sure... the point is that it doesn't have to be an "eastern" flavor and tradition-expy.

Koeh
2018-01-09, 12:15 AM
I think with the trade between china and the silk road that while monks may be rare, itd be about as rare as a dragon attack.

I also agree with psionics that power of inner mind can be a good cause for a different source that spiritual power or study or bloodlines for power

Bohandas
2018-01-09, 12:25 AM
If monks have to live in monasteries, then paladins have to live in palaces.

But regardless of it's etymology "Paladin" doesn't imply a palace the way "monk"implies a monestary

Bohandas
2018-01-09, 12:33 AM
Its not about religion. Monks in Dungeons and Dragons are martial artists not followers of particular gods.Those are clerics.

If the setting did that and stuck with it it would be fine. But orders of monks with the monk class associated with various lawful deities have a tencency to crop up in sourcebooks; sometimes even when they don't fit the deity at all in any way except matching the lawful alignment component. Plus there is, again, the matter of the religious aspect that the word "monk" explicitly denotes.

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 12:55 AM
If monks have to live in monasteries, then paladins have to live in palaces. Barbarians have to speak gibberish and wizards have to be wrinkled with age.

Don't get hung up on the names. This is the game that thought "magic-user" was a good idea.


Well the barbarian should speak gibberish else they wouldn't be barbarians in the first place!

Any good Paladin should live in a palace because he's one of the highest officials in the empire/kingdom, not some wandering knight errant do gooder that is affiliated with some religious order, I mean he isn't a templar or a hospitalier after all.


Wizard don't have to be wrinkled, they have to be wise, age isn't a requirement but wisdom tends to come with age as I can attest to that I'm a lot wiser than I was 20 years ago...I mean I'm practically a wizard! Why isn't wisdom the primary stat for wizards?

Thrudd
2018-01-09, 01:00 AM
Indeed, it's not as if the "monks" in someone's setting have to be notChinese, notTaoist, or notBuddhist, or whatever.

As long as they're mutually integrating with the rest of the worldbuilding, they can be anything.

In my "4th BCE Greco-Sumerian" setting (currently doing research so it's a bit quiet in that thread), they could hypothetically be an order dedicated to the goddess from the dominant religion who is linked with the sun, perfection, and purity -- thus an order dedicated to striving toward purity, perfection, and unity; both spiritual and physical. Heck, they could even wear orange as a sign of their dedication to the goddess.

E: could even have a split between those who view the search as individual, those who view the search as something to be taught to those who come looking, and those who are more militant about it.

E2: it would take some work to make them fit, some aesthetic changes such as blending in some Greek ideas about perfection of the physical form, names, more emphasis on wrestling/grappling maybe, not sure... the point is that it doesn't have to be an "eastern" flavor and tradition-expy.

A number of heterodox philosophies or mystery cults might easily slide into that role. Some version of Pythagoreans, Platonics or Stoics maybe. The actual manner of fighting doesn't matter a lot (Greeks celebrated pugilism along with their other combat sports- Pankration had punches and kicks and other strikes, sweeps and locks and throws).

Based off the original class, nothing mechanically says their style needs to look like anything in particular, besides using unarmed strikes. That's a universal feature of fighting the world over.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-09, 06:03 AM
I don't think Monks are all that odd in and of themselves in such a weird-world mashup setting... but if I were writing them into a setting and customizing the class, I'd have to acknowledge the fact that robust armor, widely worn, is a thing, and that unarmed and unarmored just isn't the best way to attack someone whose armor was "proofed" with early firearms and heavy crossbows, and who is carrying multiple highly-refined flesh-breaking implements on his person.

Even better, while most wandering martial artists in Chinese literature and films (which we have to admit, is the easiest place to find D&D monks in media) don't wear armour, which makes a lot more sense then adventuring fighters in plate all the time, and are able to fight unarmed most of them use weapons.

The staff, the sword, and the sabre all appear in the hands of wandering martial artists, because when you're fighting off bandits and other wandering martial artists having a big stick or a sharp bit of metal makes it easier to harm them. Plus martial arts in asian cultures do train in the use of weapons, these are the same thing the military uses to teach it's recruits which end of the spear goes in the enemy, so why would trained martial artists rely only on their hands unless they managed to avoid learning a weapon style entire?

Note not knowing a weapon style would involve not having weapon proficiencies, or at least not the ability to use them with monk abilities.


Don't get hung up on the names. This is the game that thought "magic-user" was a good idea.

Actually, it was. They should have gone with magician, but then you run out of terms meaning 'magic-user' that don't have connotations.

Chaosticket
2018-01-09, 06:28 AM
Oh so much confusion.

Okay the Monk Class is the stereotypical Hong Kong Wuxia film character. There are kits, archetypes, subclasses, and prestige classes that add to that with magical and Psionic powers.

Monks as real people are basically priests of religions. They are scholars not warriors.

Cleric class represents the minor and major priests of every religion in game.

Paladins are champions of the Gods, but not actual priests.

There are big difference between combat techniques and martial arts. They are not potatoes and potahtoes.
========
By default Monk class has nothing to do with religions. Its not a requirement, and you have to go out of your way to receive benefits from being a follower.

If you want a Kung Fu Priests there are ways to do that with multiclassing. Make a Monk/cleric, or try the pathfinder Sacred Fist archetype.

A problem I didnt expect is just how divisive this subject is. Apparently prople expect every priest to be combat trained and know Shaolin Kung Fu because scholar priests in temples are boring?

I think in Eberron the Church of Silver Flame's high priest is a level 3 character, but level 18 in the Cathedral. That is the best depiction Ive seen in Dungeons and Dragons.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-09, 07:26 AM
Oh so much confusion.

Okay the Monk Class is the stereotypical Hong Kong Wuxia film character. There are kits, archetypes, subclasses, and prestige classes that add to that with magical and Psionic powers.

Monks as real people are basically priests of religions. They are scholars not warriors.

Cleric class represents the minor and major priests of every religion in game.

Paladins are champions of the Gods, but not actual priests.

There are big difference between combat techniques and martial arts. They are not potatoes and potahtoes.

Minor note, the Cleric class, at least back in 2e and possibly earlier, was specifically meant to be a warrior priest. A scholar priest would be a viable 2e Priest class though, something like 'cast spells as a cleric, has THAC0 as a wizard/thief, restricted to the same weapon groups as mages, able to read languages as the thief skill according to the following table, gains the following NWP for free). Plus, especially in later editions, most priests are low level non casters occasionally granted a spell by their deities.

Agreeing on the Paladins, but martial arts are, to my understanding, collections of combat techniques which might be an actual viable combat style or just a combat sport.


By default Monk class has nothing to do with religions. Its not a requirement, and you have to go out of your way to receive benefits from being a follower.

If you want a Kung Fu Priests there are ways to do that with multiclassing. Make a Monk/cleric, or try the pathfinder Sacred Fist archetype.

A problem I didnt expect is just how divisive this subject is. Apparently prople expect every priest to be combat trained and know Shaolin Kung Fu because scholar priests in temples are boring?

I think in Eberron the Church of Silver Flame's high priest is a level 3 character, but level 18 in the Cathedral. That is the best depiction Ive seen in Dungeons and Dragons.

By default the monk class is indirectly tied to religion. Or rather, the default fluff is that monks are trained in monasteries, and monasteries are tied to religion, being where scholar monks live. Now a monk doesn't have to have learnt at a monastery, a martial arts academy is probably more realistic for most adventuring monks, and I'm a bit sad the word academy is rarely used to describe where monks train (the wizards seem to have monopolised most 'school' words). But as it is both the name and the default fluff ties them to religion, although they're not hard to remove from it.

Note that even with your Eberron example (which is great), the high priest is younger than most soldiers and yet is a better combatant than most of them. Although that being the case does make sense in story, and I think she only gets the level 18 bit because Wizards persuaded the designer that there had to be somebody able to cast True Ressurection.

Now you're right, not all priests need combat abilities. Which is why it's weird that people assume every priest has the Cleric class, most probably just have access to the spellcasting ability if they have any 'cleric training' (a good number probably don't). Kung fu priests are also valid characters and in 5e the multiclass is rather viable (both Clerics and Monks want Wisdom, and monk abilities lets means that clerics can easily go for a dex build).

I actually want to create a character called Friar Song now, who grew up in a notChinese monastery before wandering and settling down in a notEuropean monastery, converting to the local religion. Focus on Dexterity, and Wisdom as my primary stats, Intelligence as a secondary, take the acolyte background, and make sure I nab Perform proficiency.

Chaosticket
2018-01-09, 07:40 AM
Go ahead. In 5th A Bard/monk would have some use as having bonuses to all skills and still being a decent warrior. A cleric/monk would stack some abilities, and being able to Flurry with some domain powers could make a strong close combat warrior.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-09, 07:48 AM
If the Monk class didn't exist, neither would the monasteries. Which wouldn't be true for Clerics or Paladins because - even if they had no mechanical game-related interactions - D&D campaign settings would still have religions and the various pantheons they're associated with as an integral element of their worlds, and people would still fulfill the societal roles if not the Class Roles.
This, basically. D&D monks are essentially clerics of a religion that nobody visibly follows.


(I'm sure someone will cite the Monk's special spiritual powers as given them special armor and weapon countering juju, but I have to wonder why a "fighter" with armor and weapons couldn't tap the same well... other than raw genre emulation putting blinders on everyone in the setting.)
Yes. That, and the fact that every other class with special spiritual powers actually gets spellcasting abilities.


Any good Paladin should live in a palace because he's one of the highest officials in the empire/kingdom, not some wandering knight errant do gooder that is affiliated with some religious order, I mean he isn't a templar or a hospitalier after all.
The Knights of the Round Table and the Twelve Paladins of Charlemagne were both the highest officials of the kingdom and wandering knight-errant do-gooders. There's plenty of precedent for this.


A problem I didnt expect is just how divisive this subject is. Apparently prople expect every priest to be combat trained and know Shaolin Kung Fu because scholar priests in temples are boring?
They're not boring. But the way that D&D represents dedicated scholar priests is as, e.g, Cloistered Clerics, who shave off some BAB in exchange for extra skill points. What they keep is a ****-ton of powerful magic spells. Monks get none of that.

Chaosticket
2018-01-09, 07:55 AM
This, basically. D&D monks are essentially clerics of a religion that nobody visibly follows.




They're not boring. But the way that D&D represents dedicated scholar priests is as, e.g, Cloistered Clerics, who shave off some BAB in exchange for extra skill points. What they keep is a ****-ton of powerful magic spells. Monks get none of that.

Because the Monk class is in no way religious by default. They are practitioners of Martial Arts.

Clerics are the actual priests. In Dungeons and Dragons all Gods Are Real is in effect, so being a Scholar of Bane isnt just a title. You can be a bookworm and still have your god granting you powers.

In effect Monks are different Kind of Magic, Ki magic to make their fists more damaging than 4foot long pieces of magically enhanced steel.

The Monk class gains no Divine Powers.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 08:24 AM
Because the Monk class is in no way religious by default. They are practitioners of Martial Arts.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk

It would appear that "monk" is fairly well tied to religion, going back centuries.

If the folks who added that class to the game wanted an "unarmed martial artist" class separate from religion, they probably should have chosen a different name.


The character Kwai Chang Caine was a Shaolin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery) Monk. What do you think Shaolin is?

Chaosticket
2018-01-09, 09:00 AM
Rulewise monks have nothing to do with religion. They dont gain or lose Divine Powers. Their martial arts are not god given powers like the Clerics are. They are Hollywood martial artists.

Do you understand difference the Monk character class and real monks in the texts are? I keep seeing comments that dont.

I mean it would be funny to think every monk in Europe is secretly a warrior, its the basis of the Cleric class after all. Be a Cleric of Thor with the Storm Domain.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 09:49 AM
Go find the comments I've made about the Druid class and its utter misuse of the word "druid" there based on Victorian era and 70s New Age garbage. Brian Blume misused the word "monk", even from a purely "eastern" context, and created a character class based on a pulp novel series he liked.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-09, 10:01 AM
If we're going by Rule As Written crunch, clerics have nothing to do with religion. They are linked to a deity, except for 3.X, but not to a religion, while from a pure crunch perspective a monk is related to neither.

To give a definition, a deity is a god. A religion is the organisation and practices of people who worship a deity or believe a certain universal philosphy (it gets more complicated).


In fluff terms, going with the default, a cleric may or may not be associated with a religion while the majority of monks are. I don't have the book right now, but as I remember the 5e fluff for clerics is 'clerics may be orbained priests, or they may not be, the important thing is not official status but that a deity has decided to grant them spells', while monk's get 'monks are generally trained in a monastery, although they may have left it'. Now the default monk religion is philosophical rather than having a deity, but that's not what we were discussing. We were concerned with just 'religion'.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 10:31 AM
Go find the comments I've made about the Druid class and its utter misuse of the word "druid" there based on Victorian era and 70s New Age garbage. Brian Blume misused the word "monk", even from a purely "eastern" context, and created a character class based on a pulp novel series he liked.

And etymology is not destiny. "Was originally inspired by" and "Is a direct copy of" are completely different things, even if the same word is used. Yes, if you assume (wrongfully) that the word means what it (sometimes) means in a (specific) historical context, you'll have issues. But those are of your own making, not the system's fault. Words can be evocative as well as literally precise.

Note that there are non-cleric (lay) monks in the catholic tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_brother); in buddhist culture "priest" and "religion" start running into squiffy definitional issues. The Daoshi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoshi) are professional taoists (the closest equivalent to monks/priests), but Taoism only fits parts of the usual western definitions of religions. Reality is complicated and doesn't lend itself to nice neat terminological boxes.



In fluff terms, going with the default, a cleric may or may not be associated with a religion while the majority of monks are. I don't have the book right now, but as I remember the 5e fluff for clerics is 'clerics may be orbained priests, or they may not be, the important thing is not official status but that a deity has decided to grant them spells', while monk's get 'monks are generally trained in a monastery, although they may have left it'. Now the default monk religion is philosophical rather than having a deity, but that's not what we were discussing. We were concerned with just 'religion'.

5e clerics are "god chosen." There is no expectation that they were part of a religious establishment or even know the precepts of the religion any more than any other member of that society. Those that grew up in religious practice would have the Acolyte background. But there are clerics of all backgrounds. And most priests are not Clerics, even if they can cast divine spells. And clerics can often be at odds with the hierarchy/establishment of their god's religion--they can't "pull rank" most of the time.

Some 5e monks were trained at religious monasteries (those with the Acolyte background, most likely). Others weren't. A shadow monk may have been trained at a spy school. Others may have been trained by wandering masters. Others figured it out on their own. What they share is a devotion to self-improvement and the development of inner strength through meditation, experience, and training. Religion is only tangential.

Note that 5e paladins aren't tied to gods either. Neither are druids.

Psyren
2018-01-09, 10:36 AM
Monks in D&D is no problem at all. Literally every published setting has a Wutai (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wutai) analogue, even if it's just a small island or even a single city, or else it has some mystical reason for far-off travelers and strange customs to be knocking around. Your monk can either hail from these locales directly, or some progenitor (a parent, teacher, or both) can do so.

- Greyhawk has Kro Terlep
- Forgotten Realms has Kara-Tur
- Eberron has Adar and Sarlona
- Krynn has Claren Eilan
- Golarion has Tian Xia and Vudra
- Ravenloft has the Mists to explain anything at all being there
- Athas couldn't care less where you learned your stuff as long as you're not an arcanist.

Or of course, your monk (or a forebear/ancestor) could simply have come from an all-oriental setting like Rokugan and been transported to one of the other worlds somehow.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 10:53 AM
And etymology is not destiny. "Was originally inspired by" and "Is a direct copy of" are completely different things, even if the same word is used. Yes, if you assume (wrongfully) that the word means what it (sometimes) means in a (specific) historical context, you'll have issues. But those are of your own making, not the system's fault. Words can be evocative as well as literally precise.

Note that there are non-cleric (lay) monks in the catholic tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_brother); in buddhist culture "priest" and "religion" start running into squiffy definitional issues. The Daoshi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoshi) are professional taoists (the closest equivalent to monks/priests), but Taoism only fits parts of the usual western definitions of religions. Reality is complicated and doesn't lend itself to nice neat terminological boxes.


Partially, I'm offering some insight as to why the assertion "monks aren't religious they're just martial artists" isn't flying with many of the posters here. Etymology might not be destiny, but "monk" has religious implications going back centuries, and one player of one game wanting to strip the word of those implications.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the general differences between "western" and "eastern" religions both as belief systems and as practices -- and the similarities. What I'm objecting to is the notion that there are no religious implications at all.

Partially, I am actually objecting to the very concept of "inspired by". I loath 300 more for slapping the words "Spartan" and "Persian" on the leather diaper squad and the freakshow respectively, than I do for the fact that it's a horrible movie overall.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 10:56 AM
Monks in D&D is no problem at all. Literally every published setting has a Wutai (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wutai) analogue, even if it's just a small island or even a single city, or else it has some mystical reason for far-off travelers and strange customs to be knocking around. Your monk can either hail from these locales directly, or some progenitor (a parent, teacher, or both) can do so.

- Greyhawk has Kro Terlep
- Forgotten Realms has Kara-Tur
- Eberron has Adar and Sarlona
- Krynn has Claren Eilan
- Golarion has Tian Xia and Vudra
- Ravenloft has the Mists to explain anything at all being there
- Athas couldn't care less where you learned your stuff as long as you're not an arcanist.

Or of course, your monk (or a forebear/ancestor) could simply have come from an all-oriental setting like Rokugan and been transported to one of the other worlds somehow.

Or your setting can incorporate the basic concept in such a way that it requires neither "Asian" / "eastern" trappings, nor transplanted founders or practitioners.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-09, 11:25 AM
Note that 5e paladins aren't tied to gods either. Neither are druids.
Yes, but I also find that deeply strange, and feeds into the notion that D&D doesn't have to relate to or model anything beside itself.


I mean, sure, yes, if you want to take a shovel, call it 'pipe wrench' and describe it mechanically as a sewing machine, there's nothing in principle to stop you. That doesn't make it a particularly elegant design or marketing philosophy.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 11:26 AM
Partially, I am actually objecting to the very concept of "inspired by". I loath 300 more for slapping the words "Spartan" and "Persian" on the leather diaper squad and the freakshow respectively, than I do for the fact that it's a horrible movie overall.

That seems really restrictive. If setting elements have to be completely novel (which they can't, because there just aren't that many original ideas that work) or exactly based in reality with no divergences, you cut out 99% of all fiction (not just fantasy). Even historical fiction is more "inspired by" the time period than an exact recounting (at least the way I use "inspired by"). I agree that claiming identity (as that movie did) is a bad thing. This is why I have trouble with historical fiction or "hard" science fiction--because of that claim to accuracy I'm much less tolerant of stupid errors.

Basically, I think it's important to be careful of importing outside assumptions into things. Assuming that something is historical (or European, or whatever) is an easy way to cause needless dissonance. Let the setting speak for itself--don't tell it what it means.


Or your setting can incorporate the basic concept in such a way that it requires neither "Asian" / "eastern" trappings, nor transplanted founders or practitioners.

Which is what most "monk" organizations in published D&D settings actually do. Only a small fraction of D&D monk schools are explicitly "asian-inspired." Most have trappings that some people feel are reflective of or similar to asian-inspired trappings, but they're not asian at their nature. Lots of things are similar without having common origins.

The core of the issue is assuming that because D&D settings pull elements from Europe that they're European in nature. They're not. They're explicitly a melange of different elements, mainly chosen on aesthetic or game-related grounds ("we want to allow this kind of adventure" or "that'd be cool to play, so how can we make it fit"). While that doesn't appease the purists, D&D was never created for purists and setting snobs. And there ain't nothing wrong with that. Trying to force everything to fit a metaphorical bed of procrustes only makes it niche. Which makes finding games more difficult. Especially since everyone has different areas where they're purists--you can't simultaneously satisfy all the various groups.

Fixing the setting to Xth century, Y place would destroy the entire beauty of the system for me and for many others. The freedom to take a basic set of archetypes and styles and make the worlds for it to inhabit and to play in is why I love playing TTRPGs. Different people have different needs from a game system so having a wide variety of them, including ones that can trade off "cultural harmony" for wide applicability, is a pro, not a con.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 11:35 AM
Yes, but I also find that deeply strange, and feeds into the notion that D&D doesn't have to relate to or model anything beside itself.


I mean, sure, yes, if you want to take a shovel, call it 'pipe wrench' and describe it mechanically as a sewing machine, there's nothing in principle to stop you. That doesn't make it a particularly elegant design or marketing philosophy.

Paladins and druids were intentionally decoupled from gods to solve the D&D-old problem of "what makes them different than just a cleric?" and "why do paladins have this restrictive oath when no one else does?" In my opinion, the decoupling was a major success that allows new stories and prevents a lot of the old annoyances. That is, it's a pro, not a con.

Keeping them coupled like that was a mistake in the first place. And if no one can ever change a concept once it's established (or would have to come up with a new word to make a change), the world would be impoverished.

In 5e there's a clear separation between the fluff of each class--they inhabit a separate region of fluff-space.

And it's not shovels and pipe-wrenches--it's shovels and a slightly different design of shovel.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 11:49 AM
Yes, but I also find that deeply strange, and feeds into the notion that D&D doesn't have to relate to or model anything beside itself.


That ties into the general problem that if you ask "Is D&D a toolkit, or a system for a specific sort of setting", the answer you'll get is "Yes."

:confused:




I mean, sure, yes, if you want to take a shovel, call it 'pipe wrench' and describe it mechanically as a sewing machine, there's nothing in principle to stop you. That doesn't make it a particularly elegant design or marketing philosophy.


That's how I view the "druid" of D&D -- it's labelled "pipe wrench" but it's actually a shovel, and some players will vehemently defend calling it a pipe wrench.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 12:05 PM
That ties into the general problem that if you ask "Is D&D a toolkit, or a system for a specific sort of setting", the answer you'll get is "Yes."

:confused:


That's because it's both a dessert topping and a floor wax!

It's a toolkit for creating games within a specific subset of all settings and styles. And that's normal for game systems (or at least not abnormal).

Systems can do one of the following:

1. Only support a single setting and style. This (properly done) minimizes dissonance but maximizes rigidity. Can tend to produce niche games. E.g Ars Magica, oWoD.
2. Support any setting within a particular style. Often involves highly abstract mechanics. This tends to involve micro-settings--each group constructs the setting for the particular game. Fewer published settings. E.g. FATE.
3. Support a range of settings within a range of styles. Can lead to kitchen-sink syndrome if not handled well, balances flexibility with cohesion. Since the fluff is more tied to mechanics than #2, you can get shared settings more easily with less abstract (although still quite abstract) mechanics. This is where D&D attempts to live, at least in modern editions. Earlier editions were closer to option 2 in my opinion.
4. Support any setting and many styles. This usually requires modularity like GURPS. These tend to be game-construction engines where much assembly is required. These can have very crunchy mechanics, but at the cost of lots and lots of work. And many of these have strong internal inconsistencies--you have to pick and choose which pieces to enable or bad things happen to game balance and tone.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 12:08 PM
That seems really restrictive. If setting elements have to be completely novel (which they can't, because there just aren't that many original ideas that work) or exactly based in reality with no divergences, you cut out 99% of all fiction (not just fantasy). Even historical fiction is more "inspired by" the time period than an exact recounting (at least the way I use "inspired by"). I agree that claiming identity (as that movie did) is a bad thing. This is why I have trouble with historical fiction or "hard" science fiction--because of that claim to accuracy I'm much less tolerant of stupid errors.

Basically, I think it's important to be careful of importing outside assumptions into things. Assuming that something is historical (or European, or whatever) is an easy way to cause needless dissonance. Let the setting speak for itself--don't tell it what it means.


I see 300 as a lie. Malice or negligence, other way, it's a lie. It says "here's a story about these people in this time and place", and then proceeds to present something that has almost nothing to do with what actually happened in that time and place.

I see grabbing terms out of thin air, using them for something in a game or fiction, but leaving nothing but a wisp or veneer of the real things behind those terms intact, in the same way. What D&D says about "druids" is, through malice or negligence, a lie.




Which is what most "monk" organizations in published D&D settings actually do. Only a small fraction of D&D monk schools are explicitly "asian-inspired." Most have trappings that some people feel are reflective of or similar to asian-inspired trappings, but they're not asian at their nature. Lots of things are similar without having common origins.

The core of the issue is assuming that because D&D settings pull elements from Europe that they're European in nature. They're not. They're explicitly a melange of different elements, mainly chosen on aesthetic or game-related grounds ("we want to allow this kind of adventure" or "that'd be cool to play, so how can we make it fit"). While that doesn't appease the purists, D&D was never created for purists and setting snobs. And there ain't nothing wrong with that. Trying to force everything to fit a metaphorical bed of procrustes only makes it niche. Which makes finding games more difficult. Especially since everyone has different areas where they're purists--you can't simultaneously satisfy all the various groups.

Fixing the setting to Xth century, Y place would destroy the entire beauty of the system for me and for many others. The freedom to take a basic set of archetypes and styles and make the worlds for it to inhabit and to play in is why I love playing TTRPGs. Different people have different needs from a game system so having a wide variety of them, including ones that can trade off "cultural harmony" for wide applicability, is a pro, not a con.


I agree that D&D was designed around other influences. It incorporates vague quote-unquote "medieval Eurasian" trappings in the same way the Conan stories did. It's weird fantasy, not some sort of high-magic historical-fiction. The problem is, both the publishers and (some of) the players have long avoided that simple fact about the game, one side grasping only at broad appeal and sales figures, the other side trying to force the game to be what they wanted it to be no matter what it actually was.

It doesn't help that despite what the system itself and some of the "founders'" statements tell us about the system and its assumed setting... the publishers have in large part put out settings full of "expys" of specific places and times in real-world Europe and surrounding, or at least expys of the popular-notion caricatures of those places and times.

So when I say "make the monks fit your setting and make your setting fit the monks", it's less that I'm saying "make medieval European aesthetic martial arts warriors" than it is that I'm agreeing that "just like medieval Europe but with magic and polytheism" is a poor assumption in the first place despite being so heavily common in the playerbase.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-09, 12:08 PM
Paladins and druids were intentionally decoupled from gods to solve the D&D-old problem of "what makes them different than just a cleric?" and "why do paladins have this restrictive oath when no one else does?"...

...Keeping them coupled like that was a mistake in the first place. And if no one can ever change a concept once it's established (or would have to come up with a new word to make a change), the world would be impoverished.

I'm all in favour of revising established concepts, but this feels more like conceptual inertia (paladins must have restrictive oaths, druids must be a different class) being imposed on the metaphysics of the game, rather than a sincere effort at making sense of the underlying premises. It feels like an elaborate way of saying 'they're different because they're different, that's why'.

If the fluff of the game doesn't bother you, then that might suit you fine and dandy. Clearly it's a problem that bothers me more than others. But that doesn't quite make it a non-problem.

Chaosticket
2018-01-09, 12:11 PM
Okay now I see the problem. Its about alignment and editions which makes it even more complicated.

Anyone think classes arent Hollywood stereotypes?

Before 4th edition the Monk Class had Lawful alignment but nothing related to any Deity. If you "fell" by changing to neutral or chaotic alignments you didnt lose your Monk abilities, instead you couldnt gain more Monk levels until you regain lawful alignment. To me that was reasoned as no longer following the rules as a monk and/or Monks no longer teaching a rogue disciple.

Other classes also has alignment flaws, Paladin being the most well known.

Forgotten Realms as a setting has a clear East Asia area of Kara-Tur. So explain how you traveled across the continent, please? Just saying "a wizard did it" isnt enough as then you have to explain wizards high enough level to do it, and so on.

I dont hate the Monk as class if that is what you think. If anything I like going further to use Ki magic and more Wuxia moves.

Thrudd
2018-01-09, 12:15 PM
It seems like people are getting caught up on the idea that kung fu monks aren't inherently religious in the game, as they feel they ought to be. Again, this is only a failing of setting design. There also seems to be some complaint that the word "monk" doesnt primarily mean "martial artist". That is obviously true, but neither does the word "cleric" have anything to do with what the D&D class is. All the adventuring clerics are spell casting warriors. All adventuring monks are psionic martial artists. Neither of those are or should be the sole representatives of their religions or philosophies in the game world. More likely they would be rather rare and elite examples of a special sect within their greater religions.

I also dispute the point that gods and religions would be a major feature in the game world without the presence of classes that use "divine magic". If there was no such thing as divine magic you would not need to design a setting with detailed pantheons and religious orders, just the same as a game without monks doesn't need monasteries.

If the monk class is in the game, your setting should account for who and what they are to an equal degree as you account for the presence of all the other classes (likely with monasteries and an attending religious order to which they belong). If you don't want that, then you can rename the class or not include them. But the degree to which monks fit or do not fit is entirely up to you.

Psyren
2018-01-09, 12:25 PM
Or your setting can incorporate the basic concept in such a way that it requires neither "Asian" / "eastern" trappings, nor transplanted founders or practitioners.

Sure, absolutely; Oghman monks are closer to Greco-Roman wrestlers that debate philosophy for instance, than anything to do with kung fu. But the OP was specifically asking about the D&D default of pseudo-medieval trappings in their settings, and so I was pointing out why D&D is able to incorporate Monks so readily. It's because the designers and authors of those settings deliberately include places they could hail from.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 12:26 PM
It seems like people are getting caught up on the idea that kung fu monks aren't inherently religious in the game, as they feel they ought to be. Again, this is only a failing of setting design. There also seems to be some complaint that the word "monk" doesnt primarily mean "martial artist". That is obviously true, but neither does the word "cleric" have anything to do with what the D&D class is. All the adventuring clerics are spell casting warriors. All adventuring monks are psionic martial artists. Neither of those are or should be the sole representatives of their religions or philosophies in the game world. More likely they would be rather rare and elite examples of a special sect within their greater religions.

If the monk class is in the game, your setting should account for who and what they are to an equal degree as you account for the presence of all the other classes (likely with monasteries and an attending religious order to which they belong). If you don't want that, then you can rename the class or not include them. But the degree to which monks fit or do not fit is entirely up to you.


These two paragraphs, I pretty much agree with.

My objection was more in defense of associating "monk" with religious/philosophical aestheticism instead of silly Hollywood Kung Fu stuff... rather than a strong statement that "Monk-class-like" characters must be associated with religion.




I also dispute the point that gods and religions would be a major feature in the game world without the presence of classes that use "divine magic". If there was no such thing as divine magic you would not need to design a setting with detailed pantheons and religious orders, just the same as a game without monks doesn't need monasteries.


This one, I don't agree with.

Whether the gods grant divine magic reliably and routinely so as to enable a "cleric" character class, is a separate question from whether the setting has a richly developed religion, religious orders, etc. A historical setting with no magic at all, taken directly from real history, would still often have a great deal of religion interwoven in the culture, politics, etc, and include religious orders, monasteries, etc.

The elements of the setting don't exist simply to enable/justify character classes or other game elements -- and I'd even say that the game elements exist to represent the setting and what can be played in it. (That is not to say that the setting can't take desired game elements into account as it is built.)

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 12:26 PM
I see 300 as a lie. Malice or negligence, other way, it's a lie. It says "here's a story about these people in this time and place", and then proceeds to present something that has almost nothing to do with what actually happened in that time and place.

I see grabbing terms out of thin air, using them for something in a game or fiction, but leaving nothing but a wisp or veneer of the real things behind those terms intact, in the same way. What D&D says about "druids" is, through malice or negligence, a lie.


I don't see the parallel. 300 claims to be about a specific event. D&D druids are intentionally based in an alternate (and a-historical) concept of druidism, which has since become its own thing. One is failing to follow through on a claim. The other isn't making that claim in the first place.




I agree that D&D was designed around other influences. It incorporates vague quote-unquote "medieval Eurasian" trappings in the same way the Conan stories did. It's weird fantasy, not some sort of high-magic historical-fiction. The problem is, both the publishers and (some of) the players have long avoided that simple fact about the game, one side grasping only at broad appeal and sales figures, the other side trying to force the game to be what they wanted it to be no matter what it actually was.

It doesn't help that despite what the system itself and some of the "founders'" statements tell us about the system and its assumed setting... the publishers have in large part put out settings full of "expys" of specific places and times in real-world Europe and surrounding, or at least expys of the popular-notion caricatures of those places and times.

So when I say "make the monks fit your setting and make your setting fit the monks", it's less that I'm saying "make medieval European aesthetic martial arts warriors" than it is that I'm agreeing that "just like medieval Europe but with magic and polytheism" is a poor assumption in the first place despite being so heavily common in the playerbase.

I can fully agree with this part, especially the bold text.


I'm all in favour of revising established concepts, but this feels more like conceptual inertia (paladins must have restrictive oaths, druids must be a different class) being imposed on the metaphysics of the game, rather than a sincere effort at making sense of the underlying premises. It feels like an elaborate way of saying 'they're different because they're different, that's why'.

If the fluff of the game doesn't bother you, then that might suit you fine and dandy. Clearly it's a problem that bothers me more than others. But that doesn't quite make it a non-problem.

I have written elsewhere about how I see those two classes--I find those pieces what makes them distinctive. In short:

Paladins draw power from their confidence in their oath. The code of conduct is the reason it works, not an outside restriction. And to abandon their oath (and "fall") would mean not just transgressing the oath (being imperfect), but intentionally deciding that the oath doesn't hold any power. Since the power comes from that faith in the oath, losing that faith entirely means you don't get power. Paladins are intentional followers of particular codes; clerics have power bestowed on them from outside.

Druids contrast with clerics in that they deal with this-plane sources, not extra-planar sources. They (in my head-canon) make small deals with natural spirits, feeding them spell slots (packets of power) in exchange. They shapeshift by riding a body they create for a beast spirit out of magic-stuff--the spirit gets to experience being in a physical body and the druid gets protection, mobility, etc.

That is, there are similarities between the classes as well as differences. And this pattern creates clusters of things that are different enough that they should be played differently while also being close enough to make patterns.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-09, 12:31 PM
Actually, interesting point, as editions have gone on Paladins have become more and more magical. Remember when they didn't get spells until 9th level and needed a magic sword to use some of their abilities? Remember when Rangers were more 'defenders of civilisation'? I think we need to understand that modern and classic D&D are very different games.

Back before 3e Paladins were fine being associated with gods, they were an attempt at 'holy knights', sacrificed some Fighter bonuses for slower level gain and a smattering of magical abilities, and humans (intended to be the most common race) couldn't advance as both Fighters and Clerics at the same time. In modern D&D Paladins are more warriors of a cause who gain power from their devotion, a fine archetype in and off themselves even if mechanically they have a lot of Fighter/Cleric stuff.

D&D does have a place for a monk class. The name is problematic, although I'd argue that's because it becomes harder to get people to accept your monk is a scholar rather than a unarmoured warrior. If they changed the name to Martial Artist I'd be completely okay with it.

The problem with the 'monk' class isn't that it doesn't fit in D&D, it's that it implies it's the only monks available.

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 12:36 PM
And etymology is not destiny. "Was originally inspired by" and "Is a direct copy of" are completely different things, even if the same word is used. Yes, if you assume (wrongfully) that the word means what it (sometimes) means in a (specific) historical context, you'll have issues. But those are of your own making, not the system's fault. Words can be evocative as well as literally precise.

Note that there are non-cleric (lay) monks in the catholic tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_brother); in buddhist culture "priest" and "religion" start running into squiffy definitional issues. The Daoshi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoshi) are professional taoists (the closest equivalent to monks/priests), but Taoism only fits parts of the usual western definitions of religions. Reality is complicated and doesn't lend itself to nice neat terminological boxes.



5e clerics are "god chosen." There is no expectation that they were part of a religious establishment or even know the precepts of the religion any more than any other member of that society. Those that grew up in religious practice would have the Acolyte background. But there are clerics of all backgrounds. And most priests are not Clerics, even if they can cast divine spells. And clerics can often be at odds with the hierarchy/establishment of their god's religion--they can't "pull rank" most of the time.

Some 5e monks were trained at religious monasteries (those with the Acolyte background, most likely). Others weren't. A shadow monk may have been trained at a spy school. Others may have been trained by wandering masters. Others figured it out on their own. What they share is a devotion to self-improvement and the development of inner strength through meditation, experience, and training. Religion is only tangential.

Note that 5e paladins aren't tied to gods either. Neither are druids.


The problem with this is we have other words for martial artists so there is no need to call them monks because that has a vastly different meaning, most often monks were lay persons because they weren't ordained.

A cleric is a member of the clergy, the ordained part of the religion as opposed to lay person or the laity, for a non ordained miracle worker you could call them a holy man or a saint

As for druids, why call them druids? Why not tree huggers, hippies or eco terrorists?

The problem with paladins is they have always been modeled on religious knightly orders like the Templars or the Hospitallers whereas Paladins were high ranking noblemen/officials, many who were counts and dukes.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 12:41 PM
I can even see a case for "Monk" (and all other classes) to be treated explicitly and only as building blocks, as pieces in a toolkit for best mapping the actual in-setting character one wants to play. You take a "Monk" level because that helps best represent the character's abilities, and nothing more.

The complication that arises with this approach is that there will always be those players who unwaveringly view the classes as specifically reflecting a certain "fluff" and background and assumptions, no matter what, so that "Monk" doesn't simply mean that said character has the following abilities, but rather that said character must in their backstory have elements that mesh the "fluff" assumptions that said players associate with that class.

At least in some editions, the way the classes are described fosters this latter view, as specific examples of who the character should be and what sort of backstory they should have are directly stated... part of D&D's long standing issue of an implied but not directly stated setting underlying the system.

Thrudd
2018-01-09, 12:42 PM
This one, I don't agree with.

Whether the gods grant divine magic reliably and routinely so as to enable a "cleric" character class, is a separate question from whether the setting has a richly developed religion, religious orders, etc. A historical setting with no magic at all, taken directly from real history, would still often have a great deal of religion interwoven in the culture, politics, etc, and include religious orders, monasteries, etc.

The elements of the setting don't exist simply to enable/justify character classes or other game elements -- and I'd even say that the game elements exist to represent the setting and what can be played in it. (That is not to say that the setting can't take desired game elements into account as it is built.)

That might be true, but it wouldn't absolutely need it. Historically accurate setting design is not a thing D&D was built for. Without clerics, you could easily have a setting that barely acknowledges the existence of gods and religions, or even conceive of one where they don't exist.

In D&D, you absolutely should design the setting based on the game mechanics, especially the classes. It is too restrictive of a system to do anything close to historical, it needs to be some version of the "D&D" setting. General advice for setting design that works for flexible systems doesn't really apply here, imo.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 01:00 PM
In D&D, you absolutely should design the setting based on the game mechanics, especially the classes. It is too restrictive of a system to do anything close to historical, it needs to be some version of the "D&D" setting. General advice for setting design that works for flexible systems doesn't really apply here, imo.

I absolutely agree with this. It's not (and modern editions don't claim to be) a generic system. It's designed for a specific set of assumptions and play styles. Much of the difficulty comes with trying to apply it outside its region of applicability. In my opinion, the d20 system (universality! Yay!) was an error--it claimed what it couldn't actually provide. The core assumptions and design ethos are too deeply embedded.

But it does cover the types of games I want to run and play very well. So that's why I use it and enjoy it.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 01:02 PM
That might be true, but it wouldn't absolutely need it. Historically accurate setting design is not a thing D&D was built for. Without clerics, you could easily have a setting that barely acknowledges the existence of gods and religions, or even conceive of one where they don't exist.

In D&D, you absolutely should design the setting based on the game mechanics, especially the classes. It is too restrictive of a system to do anything close to historical, it needs to be some version of the "D&D" setting. General advice for setting design that works for flexible systems doesn't really apply here, imo.

You are right that the setting should take the system into account given all of D&D's peculiarities -- but the setting need not be defined by the system in total.

A setting with little or no divine magic could still have a robust religion. A setting with purely subjective religion and no proof at all that the gods exist could still have robust religion with characters absolutely believing that the gods exist.

Bohandas
2018-01-09, 01:05 PM
That is obviously true, but neither does the word "cleric" have anything to do with what the D&D class is. All the adventuring clerics are spell casting warriors.

He's a holy man who creates supernatural effects through a connection with his deity. This was a common trope in many real world religions. In some cases it still is. There are many people in america who still believe in faith healing.

Given that the word means a clergyman man it's not too far off the mark. Compare this to the total disconnect between what the word monk means and how D&D uses it.


All adventuring monks are psionic martial artists.

Is that new in 4e or 5e. Because psionics would definitely make the 3e monk bith work better and fit better

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 01:19 PM
Yeah, I'm with Max on the big problem here. We literally cannot discuss the lore of why monks do or do not fit into D&D without discussing the lore of D&D. We cannot discuss the lore of D&D because D&D doesn't have any lore. It is a role-playing system, not a setting. The weirdness starts when D&D keeps forgetting that fact.

What we can do is discuss if the monks in D&D are in fact monks. The short answer is yes, they are. They theoretically live in monasteries and pursue an ascetic spiritual lifestyle, the two biggest defining traits of monks. Except... most PC monks don't. They used to have rules strictly limiting the amount of wealth and treasure that the monk could accumulate but that went by the wayside with 3rd edition and for the most part hasn't really come up since. While many characters excursions can be said to be religious pilgrimages how many characters think of the monastery as their home? It would be more accurate to say that monks in D&D come from a monk background rather than being currently acting monks.

EDIT: Bohandas monks were established as psionic in the updates to the monk class in late 1st edition AD&D (actually I think they were the very start of psionics if I recall correctly).

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 01:21 PM
Is that new in 4e or 5e. Because psionics would definitely make the 3e monk bith work better and fit better

4e made monks psychic (using the psychic power source). I'll let someone else talk about how well that worked.

5e...well...goes its own way (as usual). They're explicitly not religious (not using divine power), but they use a unique power source (ki). It's basically refined control over their own spiritual energy. So like a cleric that worships themselves, except without many externally manifesting spells. 5e ditched the "everything magical is a spell or SLA" attitude, so they just have class features. Some replicate spells, most don't. They're not blocked inherently by antimagic fields (which have also significantly changed).

One big issue with this whole discussion is the conflation of the various editions of D&D. In a less marketing-centric world, they'd be different games under the same brand. Because they're completely different systems mechanically. Even the terms that are the same are used differently. Even the fluff is only rarely consistent from edition to edition (and especially not setting to setting). Each edition has to be considered on its own. A 1e monk (lawful thief/fighter hybrid), a 2e monk (????), a 3e monk (religious connotations here), a 4e monk (psychic warrior, akin to a martial adept from Shadowrun in concept), and a 5e monk (seeker after self-harmony and balance whose body is their weapon) have overlap (all occupy a similar party niche at high levels of generality), but the execution and the fluff is pretty different in each case.

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 01:23 PM
4e made monks psychic (using the psychic power source). I'll let someone else talk about how well that worked.

5e...well...goes its own way (as usual). They're explicitly not religious (not using divine power), but they use a unique power source (ki). It's basically refined control over their own spiritual energy. So like a cleric that worships themselves, except without many externally manifesting spells. 5e ditched the "everything magical is a spell or SLA" attitude, so they just have class features. Some replicate spells, most don't. They're not blocked inherently by antimagic fields (which have also significantly changed).

One big issue with this whole discussion is the conflation of the various editions of D&D. In a less marketing-centric world, they'd be different games under the same brand. Because they're completely different systems mechanically. Even the terms that are the same are used differently. Even the fluff is only rarely consistent from edition to edition (and especially not setting to setting). Each edition has to be considered on its own. A 1e monk (lawful thief/fighter hybrid), a 2e monk (????), a 3e monk (religious connotations here), a 4e monk (psychic warrior, akin to a martial adept from Shadowrun in concept), and a 5e monk (seeker after self-harmony and balance whose body is their weapon) have overlap (all occupy a similar party niche at high levels of generality), but the execution and the fluff is pretty different in each case.

2nd edition monk was a kit for the Cleric class. So they were straight up clerics. The psionic warrior concept actually comes from a popular 1st edition monk expansion in Dragon.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 01:23 PM
4e made monks psychic (using the psychic power source). I'll let someone else talk about how well that worked.

5e...well...goes its own way (as usual). They're explicitly not religious (not using divine power), but they use a unique power source (ki). It's basically refined control over their own spiritual energy. So like a cleric that worships themselves, except without many externally manifesting spells. 5e ditched the "everything magical is a spell or SLA" attitude, so they just have class features. Some replicate spells, most don't. They're not blocked inherently by antimagic fields (which have also significantly changed).

One big issue with this whole discussion is the conflation of the various editions of D&D. In a less marketing-centric world, they'd be different games under the same brand. Because they're completely different systems mechanically. Even the terms that are the same are used differently. Even the fluff is only rarely consistent from edition to edition (and especially not setting to setting). Each edition has to be considered on its own. A 1e monk (lawful thief/fighter hybrid), a 2e monk (????), a 3e monk (religious connotations here), a 4e monk (psychic warrior, akin to a martial adept from Shadowrun in concept), and a 5e monk (seeker after self-harmony and balance whose body is their weapon) have overlap (all occupy a similar party niche at high levels of generality), but the execution and the fluff is pretty different in each case.

5e version sounds like a "martial sorcerer" almost.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 01:29 PM
5e version sounds like a "martial sorcerer" almost.

Similarities-- both use "internal" power as their source.

Differences--sorcerers create mostly external effects (spells) and are tied to bloodlines. Monks create mostly internal effects (faster movement, etc) and are tied to philosophies.

5e's design is that classes are connected together into webs--each pair of classes has similarities and differences. It's a multi-dimensional comparison/contrast situation instead of a strict tree-like hierarchy.

Knaight
2018-01-09, 01:30 PM
Yeah, I'm with Max on the big problem here. We literally cannot discuss the lore of why monks do or do not fit into D&D without discussing the lore of D&D. We cannot discuss the lore of D&D because D&D doesn't have any lore. It is a role-playing system, not a setting. The weirdness starts when D&D keeps forgetting that fact.

It's not an explicit setting, but there's a great deal of setting specific mechanics and fluff that imply a setting in every edition. Things like the plane shift spell and a list of planes put a lot of very specific setting information in quite quickly. The Monster Manual is a big pile of setting just as much as it's a big pile of mechanics. The choice of classes says a great deal about the setting. What does and doesn't make it on to the equipment list is a window to the material culture of the setting.

D&D is chock full of lore, and the notion that it is or has ever been anywhere close to a generic fantasy setting is ludicrous.

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 01:35 PM
It's not an explicit setting, but there's a great deal of setting specific mechanics and fluff that imply a setting in every edition. Things like the plane shift spell and a list of planes put a lot of very specific setting information in quite quickly. The Monster Manual is a big pile of setting just as much as it's a big pile of mechanics. The choice of classes says a great deal about the setting. What does and doesn't make it on to the equipment list is a window to the material culture of the setting.

D&D is chock full of lore, and the notion that it is or has ever been anywhere close to a generic fantasy setting is ludicrous.

Yep, which is why it needs to stop pretending that it is just a system. They need to just flat out say that Greyhawk is the default however that there are many other worlds which can be played with the system.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 01:38 PM
Yeah, I'm with Max on the big problem here. We literally cannot discuss the lore of why monks do or do not fit into D&D without discussing the lore of D&D. We cannot discuss the lore of D&D because D&D doesn't have any lore. It is a role-playing system, not a setting. The weirdness starts when D&D keeps forgetting that fact.


What makes it even more complicated and (IMO) explains a lot of the disconnect between the different POVs in the "user community" is that it's chock full of implied lore.


E: started this before your post just above it.



Yep, which is why it needs to stop pretending that it is just a system. They need to just flat out say that Greyhawk is the default however that there are many other worlds which can be played with the system.


So I think we're agreeing here.

Corsair14
2018-01-09, 01:39 PM
Outside of an oriental adventures type campaign or area that sees a lot of traffic from those areas there is zero reason to have fighting monks. I typically(but not always) do not allow monks as they do not fit any aesthetic of my campaign world. The only monks present are sitting in monasteries copying books and making wine and not annoying anyone with their vow of silence except when doing a chant(which is an exception).

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 01:43 PM
Yep, which is why it needs to stop pretending that it is just a system. They need to just flat out say that Greyhawk is the default however that there are many other worlds which can be played with the system.

Greyhawk was only the "default implied setting" for one edition, and only loosely at that. D&D settings share lots of commonality, but it's never been a requirement to use all the material. Those are suggested options, not "this exists is your world" declarations. In that way, it's toolkit-esque. Not a pure toolkit like GURPS, not a pure setting-bound system like oWoD. It handles a small range of setting parameters and a small range of campaign styles.

Specifically, heroic adventurers in a swords and sorcery-type world with big monsters, ruins, dungeons, magic, and similar threats. Doing heroic (larger-than-life) things. It can do some other types of games, but at decreasing utility as you move away. And 4e and 5e (the two editions I'm most familiar with) make no pretenses about being "generic fantasy." They always put this "heroic people doing heroic things" at the forefront of the advertising and the game books.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 01:48 PM
Greyhawk was only the "default implied setting" for one edition, and only loosely at that. D&D settings share lots of commonality, but it's never been a requirement to use all the material. Those are suggested options, not "this exists is your world" declarations. In that way, it's toolkit-esque. Not a pure toolkit like GURPS, not a pure setting-bound system like oWoD. It handles a small range of setting parameters and a small range of campaign styles.

Specifically, heroic adventurers in a swords and sorcery-type world with big monsters, ruins, dungeons, magic, and similar threats. Doing heroic (larger-than-life) things. It can do some other types of games, but at decreasing utility as you move away. And 4e and 5e (the two editions I'm most familiar with) make no pretenses about being "generic fantasy." They always put this "heroic people doing heroic things" at the forefront of the advertising and the game books.


Whereas my enduring memory of D&D comes from around the time I washed my hands of the whole thing, with the whole d20 "movement" and open licensing and et cetera, so I recall the big push to present D&D or a very D&D-like system as "universal".

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-09, 01:52 PM
Yep, which is why it needs to stop pretending that it is just a system. They need to just flat out say that Greyhawk is the default however that there are many other worlds which can be played with the system.

Greyhawk was the default setting, but there's a slight issue. Forgotten Realms mugged it for the spot starting in 4th. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if FR or Eberron are just plain more popular. Also, can anyone here even name 10 NPCs from the setting that aren't the basis of spell names?

Just that when you assume the default setting of DnD, you're going to get five different answers.

Back on topic, if FR has random Kara-Turan people showing up every so often to provide a basis for the monk/ninja classes, what is the equivalent for Eberron and Greyhawk, and how well integrated are they?

Knaight
2018-01-09, 02:01 PM
Greyhawk was the default setting, but there's a slight issue. Forgotten Realms mugged it for the spot starting in 4th. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if FR or Eberron are just plain more popular. Also, can anyone here even name 10 NPCs from the setting that aren't the basis of spell names?

Just that when you assume the default setting of DnD, you're going to get five different answers.

Once you start asking about whether or not certain setting elements exist though, those answers are likely to converge. Greyhawk, FR, Mystara, and really most of the settings that have been made are highly similar. This is largely due to them being built to accommodate a rules set with a whole bunch of built in setting.

As far as naming NPCs go, I probably can do that for FR, complements of my junior high having a sad little library with a sad little fantasy section that included way too many crappy D&D novels. More to the point though I can point out well over 10 distinct fantasy elements that apply to both settings, and which are downright weird outside of D&D fiction. It's those elements that make the settings nigh identical.

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 02:02 PM
Greyhawk was the default setting, but there's a slight issue. Forgotten Realms mugged it for the spot starting in 4th. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if FR or Eberron are just plain more popular. Also, can anyone here even name 10 NPCs from the setting that aren't the basis of spell names?

Just that when you assume the default setting of DnD, you're going to get five different answers.

Back on topic, if FR has random Kara-Turan people showing up every so often to provide a basis for the monk/ninja classes, what is the equivalent for Eberron and Greyhawk, and how well integrated are they?

Psyren mentioned these a few posts back, reposted for relevance they are apparently



- Greyhawk has Kro Terlep
- Forgotten Realms has Kara-Tur
- Eberron has Adar and Sarlona
- Krynn has Claren Eilan
- Golarion has Tian Xia and Vudra
- Ravenloft has the Mists to explain anything at all being there
- Athas couldn't care less where you learned your stuff as long as you're not an arcanist.

Although there is one thing conspicuously missing there, namely Blackmoor the origin of the monk class.

Psyren
2018-01-09, 02:04 PM
Psyren mentioned these a few posts back, reposted for relevance they are apparently



Although there is one thing conspicuously missing there, namely Blackmoor the origin of the monk class.

I don't know squat about Blackmoor, sorry :smalltongue:

Or Mystara for that matter - maybe someone else can fill in the blanks there?

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 02:20 PM
Greyhawk was the default setting, but there's a slight issue. Forgotten Realms mugged it for the spot starting in 4th. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if FR or Eberron are just plain more popular. Also, can anyone here even name 10 NPCs from the setting that aren't the basis of spell names?

Just that when you assume the default setting of DnD, you're going to get five different answers.

Back on topic, if FR has random Kara-Turan people showing up every so often to provide a basis for the monk/ninja classes, what is the equivalent for Eberron and Greyhawk, and how well integrated are they?

Forgotten Realm had stolen the 1st spot during AD&D 2nd ed. Just take a look at different media like computer games, the default setting has been FR for a long time.

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 02:26 PM
I don't know squat about Blackmoor, sorry :smalltongue:

Or Mystara for that matter - maybe someone else can fill in the blanks there?

Oh I fonldy remember the Gazetteers...like Grand Duchy of Karameikos, The Orcs of Thar, Elves of Alfheim, Dwarves of Rockhome, The five shires....where every race got their Gazetterer and country :smallsmile:

I can't say anything about how good setting was as I was too young to be critical but the most fun and memorable campaign was one where we played orcs in Thar.

Bohandas
2018-01-09, 02:33 PM
There also seems to be some complaint that the word "monk" doesnt primarily mean "martial artist".

Fixed that for you

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 02:37 PM
Forgotten Realm had stolen the 1st spot during AD&D 2nd ed. Just take a look at different media like computer games, the default setting has been FR for a long time.

It's the most common setting for media outside of the RPG for a long time (aside from the mid 80s where I think Dragonlance might have been the most common) but it was only the default setting for 4th edition.

Bohandas
2018-01-09, 02:38 PM
Which is a shame because Greyhawk and Eberron don;t suck

Psyren
2018-01-09, 02:54 PM
The first Final Fantasy was based on D&D, right? It included Vancian spellcasting, D&D classes (and conventions like white mages only using hammers and other bludgeoning weapons), and almost every single monster apart from Chaos itself was ripped off from the older monster manuals, right down to things like Beholders and Mariliths.

It also included a specific monk homage - the Black Belt class. I wonder which edition/setting of D&D Hironobu Sakaguchi based it on?

Knaight
2018-01-09, 03:01 PM
The first Final Fantasy was based on D&D, right? It included Vancian spellcasting, D&D classes (and conventions like white mages only using hammers and other bludgeoning weapons), and almost every single monster apart from Chaos itself was ripped off from the older monster manuals, right down to things like Beholders and Mariliths.

It and a couple hundred MUDs. Videogames in general ripped off D&D pretty blatantly.

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 03:03 PM
The first Final Fantasy was based on D&D, right? It included Vancian spellcasting, D&D classes (and conventions like white mages only using hammers and other bludgeoning weapons), and almost every single monster apart from Chaos itself was ripped off from the older monster manuals, right down to things like Beholders and Mariliths.

It also included a specific monk homage - the Black Belt class. I wonder which edition/setting of D&D Hironobu Sakaguchi based it on?

Most likely Blackmoor since D&D was more popular than AD&D in Japan and I don't think there was a translation of AD&D at the time it was being worked on.

EDIT: Also note that the Black Belt class was called the Monk class in every single language and system release of the game except for the English NES version.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 03:08 PM
Most likely Blackmoor since D&D was more popular than AD&D in Japan and I don't think there was a translation of AD&D at the time it was being worked on.

Which says that monks-as-martial-artists has been around in D&D since D&D was a thing. So if anything, we should be asking if the other, more recent sacred cows (alignment, settings) should be made to fit with monks!

Thrudd
2018-01-09, 03:22 PM
You are right that the setting should take the system into account given all of D&D's peculiarities -- but the setting need not be defined by the system in total.

A setting with little or no divine magic could still have a robust religion. A setting with purely subjective religion and no proof at all that the gods exist could still have robust religion with characters absolutely believing that the gods exist.

Sure they could - and a setting without monk characters could have monastic orders and monasteries, too. But they don't have to, that's my only point. If you have characters called "monks", then your setting has a monastic order and monasteries with some attending belief structure. If your game has "clerics", then you have a religion and a belief structure. If your game has neither, it is not necessary to have either (as unbelievable or improbable as a society without religion might be - no one said this stuff has to be realistic. At the very least it could be a setting element that does not have a prominent role nor great detail, if it will never be relevant to the characters or their activities).

Yes, there is a range of potential settings possible with the various D&D systems, with varying levels of homebrewing modifications to the core classes and rules. There is some leeway in interpretation and picking and choosing optional elements, and the game still works with some exclusions and additions. But there is a limit to which D&D, in any edition, can be stretched before the setting just is not appropriate for the ruleset. Even by "refluffing" every class and ability, the setting needs to include and explain all the things all the classes can do and where they come from, and include an appropriate environment for the type of exploration and combat-centric adventures with wealth and power accumulation that are D&D's core MO.

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 03:24 PM
Which says that monks-as-martial-artists has been around in D&D since D&D was a thing. So if anything, we should be asking if the other, more recent sacred cows (alignment, settings) should be made to fit with monks!

Well for alignment monks are older than Good and Evil but newer than Law and Chaos. And they came from a setting so they are... as old as settings?

EDIT: Sorry they are from the second setting book so they are slightly newer than settings.

Thrudd
2018-01-09, 03:31 PM
Outside of an oriental adventures type campaign or area that sees a lot of traffic from those areas there is zero reason to have fighting monks. I typically(but not always) do not allow monks as they do not fit any aesthetic of my campaign world. The only monks present are sitting in monasteries copying books and making wine and not annoying anyone with their vow of silence except when doing a chant(which is an exception).

The operative phrase here is "MY campaign world". You decided not to integrate fighting monks into the main society of your setting. You could if you wanted to. It isn't necessary that they live on the other side of the planet from your home-base area, nor that their aesthetic is out-of-step with the rest of your world.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 03:32 PM
Well for alignment monks are older than Good and Evil but newer than Law and Chaos. And they came from a setting so they are... as old as settings?

EDIT: Sorry they are from the second setting book so they are slightly newer than settings.

Yeah, I forgot to make my text blue. Although it was semi-serious--monks have been around about as long as anything "official" in D&D. From back when the settings were just starting to get "serious" (instead of being one table's play-stage or the natural outgrowth of that).

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 03:41 PM
Yeah, I forgot to make my text blue. Although it was semi-serious--monks have been around about as long as anything "official" in D&D. From back when the settings were just starting to get "serious" (instead of being one table's play-stage or the natural outgrowth of that).

That makes sense. I just saw your post and went "Well monks are older than 2/3rds of alignments and about 5/6ths of the common campaign settings." I kinda have to trust other people when they say that monks are horribly clashing with the rest of the game since I really haven't run into that at all. And I definitely raise an eyebrow when they say that all hand to hand specialists have to be Asian.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 03:46 PM
For reference, research indicates that the original version of D&D was released in 1974, and the Monk class was first released in 1975 in the Blackmoor setting.

It is asserted that the Monk class exists because Brian Blume liked the Destroyer series of novels.

Scripten
2018-01-09, 03:48 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason the word Monk is used to represent the class and associated archetype is because of how punchy it is as opposed to the competition.

I'm sorry. I'll show myself out.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-09, 03:58 PM
For reference, research indicates that the original version of D&D was released in 1974, and the Monk class was first released in 1975 in the Blackmoor setting.

Yeah. Which, if one wants to be precise, would have probably still been just the dungeon under Castle Blackmoor or not much more than that. Because those first settings weren't stand-alone, complete worlds. They were "here's a cool dungeon play-stage, let's loot it"--the "living, breathing world" thing came later.

In general, I find the insistence on "emulating historical/cultural X" or even "emulating specific fiction" to be misguided. Emulating tone is one thing, drawing inspiration for setting elements likewise, but emulating specific characters, events, plots, or worlds built for literary purposes seems to miss out on the beauty of TTRPGs.

Settings for games and settings for literary fiction are built differently because they have different purposes. A novel setting doesn't need quest hooks, a game setting does. A game setting can be built "on the fly" or be sandboxy--a novel usually needs an overarching plot. Game settings often must bend to "this must be fun to play", while novel settings don't make that concession. This means we need different standards for judging consistency and quality. To me, the biggest factor in a game setting is "does this make me want to play/run a game here." It can be beautifully detailed, totally consistent, and lack anything to do outside of strict rails. At the other extreme it might be a loose kitchen-sink, but provide a bunch of "I can make a game/character that fits there" hooks. Or, like most, somewhere in between.

Psyren
2018-01-09, 04:24 PM
Which says that monks-as-martial-artists has been around in D&D since D&D was a thing. So if anything, we should be asking if the other, more recent sacred cows (alignment, settings) should be made to fit with monks!

Indeed, my point exactly. At the very least it tells us that Gygax wanted kung-fu to be a thing in his medieval fantasy, just like he and his contemporaries were the ones to introduce psionics to it. The folks who have hang-ups about that are actually the ones not being true to D&D's roots.


Most likely Blackmoor since D&D was more popular than AD&D in Japan and I don't think there was a translation of AD&D at the time it was being worked on.

EDIT: Also note that the Black Belt class was called the Monk class in every single language and system release of the game except for the English NES version.

Both interesting factoids - AD&D not being translated before FF debuted is understandable. As for the Black Belt thing, I wonder why they did that? Maybe they were worried Western audiences would see "monk" and immediately think Friar Tuck?

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 04:31 PM
Yeah. Which, if one wants to be precise, would have probably still been just the dungeon under Castle Blackmoor or not much more than that. Because those first settings weren't stand-alone, complete worlds. They were "here's a cool dungeon play-stage, let's loot it"--the "living, breathing world" thing came later.


What Wikipedia has to say -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmoor_(supplement). I have not seen what all is or is not in it, it's before even my time.




In general, I find the insistence on "emulating historical/cultural X" or even "emulating specific fiction" to be misguided. Emulating tone is one thing, drawing inspiration for setting elements likewise, but emulating specific characters, events, plots, or worlds built for literary purposes seems to miss out on the beauty of TTRPGs.

Settings for games and settings for literary fiction are built differently because they have different purposes. A novel setting doesn't need quest hooks, a game setting does. A game setting can be built "on the fly" or be sandboxy--a novel usually needs an overarching plot. Game settings often must bend to "this must be fun to play", while novel settings don't make that concession. This means we need different standards for judging consistency and quality. To me, the biggest factor in a game setting is "does this make me want to play/run a game here." It can be beautifully detailed, totally consistent, and lack anything to do outside of strict rails. At the other extreme it might be a loose kitchen-sink, but provide a bunch of "I can make a game/character that fits there" hooks. Or, like most, somewhere in between.


Agreed.

So many attempts to adapt existing fictional settings into game settings fail. Often, the authors either want, or believe the fans want, to recreate the stories from the fiction in some way, and it ends up with a claustrophobic mess.

Personally, if I'm looking at an adaptation, I don't want to recreate the same stories that have already been told, and I don't want to play the existing characters from the fiction. I want to create my own character, and explore the setting beyond the narrow scope of the existing stories.

Of course, that assumes there's room outside those stories for anything interesting to happen in that setting. Sometimes, the big stuff has happened, and if you want to game in that setting, you need to ignore it, undo it, replace those characters and events, or something else.

Star Wars works as a setting for an RPG because it's huge -- 1000s of planets and 1000s of years. You have massive sprawling campaigns and never come anywhere near the events of the movies or animated series. And personally, that's what I prefer. I don't want to run into the "iconic" movie characters, or get involved in their stories.

Tinkerer
2018-01-09, 04:36 PM
Yeah. Which, if one wants to be precise, would have probably still been just the dungeon under Castle Blackmoor or not much more than that. Because those first settings weren't stand-alone, complete worlds. They were "here's a cool dungeon play-stage, let's loot it"--the "living, breathing world" thing came later.


It was actually quite... odd. It contained the monk class and the assassin class, a hit location table broken down by the type of creature, a weapon/height adjustment table so you couldn't stab tall things in the brain, a bunch of new monsters, the first published adventure, rules on fighting underwater, and rules on disease.

EDIT: Or just look at that Wiki entry haha. I just consulted my notes on the contents.

GungHo
2018-01-10, 11:49 AM
For reference, research indicates that the original version of D&D was released in 1974, and the Monk class was first released in 1975 in the Blackmoor setting.

It is asserted that the Monk class exists because Brian Blume liked the Destroyer series of novels.

Conan, Merlin, Roland, and Remo Williams walked into a bar...

Bohandas
2018-01-10, 12:49 PM
And I definitely raise an eyebrow when they say that all hand to hand specialists have to be Asian.

Agreed. That's definitely a problem too. Maybe if they got rid of Kara-Tur its equivalents they'd be able to actually integrate the class into a setting instead of hand-waving it with "oh they come from not!Asia"

Bohandas
2018-01-10, 12:52 PM
Star Wars works as a setting for an RPG because it's huge -- 1000s of planets and 1000s of years. You have massive sprawling campaigns and never come anywhere near the events of the movies or animated series. And personally, that's what I prefer. I don't want to run into the "iconic" movie characters, or get involved in their stories.
The spelljammer setting has that theoretically


Partially, I'm offering some insight as to why the assertion "monks aren't religious they're just martial artists" isn't flying with many of the posters here. Etymology might not be destiny, but "monk" has religious implications going back centuries

And more importantly it has never meant anything else, D&D and D&D knockoffs notwithstanding

EDIT:
And not implication, but denotation. The term does not imply a religious mendicant it denotes one.

"Matrial artist" on the other hand is noither denoted nor implied by the word "monk", again D&D notwithstanding

Even in kung-fu movies the implication is only that this person is probably also a martial artist

Tinkerer
2018-01-10, 01:32 PM
And more importantly it has never meant anything else, D&D and D&D knockoffs notwithstanding

EDIT:
And not implication, but denotation. The term does not imply a religious mendicant it denotes one.

"Matrial artist" on the other hand is noither denoted nor implied by the word "monk", again D&D notwithstanding

Even in kung-fu movies the implication is only that this person is probably also a martial artist

Bingo. Monks in D&D are monks as described in the real world, that is they fall under every definition. I don't think I've seen an edition where they don't state that they live in monasteries and pursue ascetic religious contemplation. They are also hand-to-hand and hand-to-weapon experts on top of that, not as defined by that. Although I don't think I would use the term "mendicant" preferring "asceticism" due to there being some styles of monastery which don't rely on begging.

However of note is in most editions that is the background of the monk rather than how they act during play. Which isn't unprecedented, after all a thief may do very little thieving and a barbarian doesn't need to keep living in the tribal community in order to be considered a thief and a barbarian.

Actually barbarian is a pretty close match to the monk. Referring to a specific sub-group of warriors from a particular type of society and having the name of the society applied to the class.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-10, 01:42 PM
The spelljammer setting has that theoretically

Spelljammer didn't, IIRC, start out as a fictional setting.

My point in mentioning Star Wars is that it's an exception as an existing fictional setting that also works as a gaming setting, specifically because it's so vast that one can avoid the issues most existing settings have.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-10, 01:50 PM
And more importantly it has never meant anything else, D&D and D&D knockoffs notwithstanding

EDIT:
And not implication, but denotation. The term does not imply a religious mendicant it denotes one.

"Matrial artist" on the other hand is noither denoted nor implied by the word "monk", again D&D notwithstanding

Even in kung-fu movies the implication is only that this person is probably also a martial artist


There's a very strong case to be made on that point, certainly. I didn't mean to claim otherwise.

My point was just to push back against the rather aggressive denunciation from one or more other parties that had been directed against those who were taking "monk" to imply OR denote a religious focus. Does that make sense?

Psyren
2018-01-10, 01:53 PM
That makes sense. I just saw your post and went "Well monks are older than 2/3rds of alignments and about 5/6ths of the common campaign settings." I kinda have to trust other people when they say that monks are horribly clashing with the rest of the game since I really haven't run into that at all. And I definitely raise an eyebrow when they say that all hand to hand specialists have to be Asian.

Not sure about other FR sources of monkitude, but Golarion has Jalmeray as another common Monk origin spot; it is middle-east/Arabian Nights flavored. There is also a lot of hand-to-hand coming out of the Mwangi Expanse (Golarion Africa/South America) and Osirion (Egypt.)


Agreed. That's definitely a problem too. Maybe if they got rid of Kara-Tur its equivalents they'd be able to actually integrate the class into a setting instead of hand-waving it with "oh they come from not!Asia"

They use that as an affordance - not!Asia is an easy way to explain why all these people take on the ultimately impractical task of learning how to fight effectively without weapons. To quote Belkar "why not just wear armor?" The answer is to have the traditions come about similarly to how they developed in our world, a land where the common folk for whatever reason don't just resort to weapons. Some are forbidden from doing so by a feudal lord of some kind, for others it begins as a sport that is later weaponized.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-10, 02:24 PM
Agreed. That's definitely a problem too. Maybe if they got rid of Kara-Tur its equivalents they'd be able to actually integrate the class into a setting instead of hand-waving it with "oh they come from not!Asia"

I honestly liked 4e's solution, although I'd go the other way when designing a setting. In 4e monks where psionic, although they worked differently to most psionic classes, which actually fits really well. Both ki-users and psychics in D&D are meant to draw from internal power to use their abilities.

Now if we remove the Sorcerer we have an interesting dynamic. We have two ways to get Power[supTM[/sup], from inside or outside of oneself.

Power from outside yourself is called magic, and may be granted by a god, borrowed from some powerful being or principle (I like the idea of Warlocks who bargain with something nonsentient for power, for some reason), or by controlling the energy around you.

Power from inside yourself is called chi, let's say it's an ancient word for 'breath of life'. The potential is within everybody, but it has to be trained. It can manifest as either increased physical abilities or psychic powers.

It of course requires development, but it could work. My first step if I was making this the default fluff for a system (which is possible, I'm undecided on if I want to try for it) would be to rename the monk. I like the idea of going for a Chinese naming them and outright calling then Xia, although I know it'll fly over many people's heads.

Note an important part of it is that disciplines for developing chi aren't considered rare or exotic in-setting any more than magic is, to the average person it's all essentially the same.

Psyren
2018-01-10, 02:41 PM
Now if we remove the Sorcerer we have an interesting dynamic. We have two ways to get Power[supTM[/sup], from inside or outside of oneself.

Power from outside yourself is called magic, and may be granted by a god, borrowed from some powerful being or principle (I like the idea of Warlocks who bargain with something nonsentient for power, for some reason), or by controlling the energy around you.

Power from inside yourself is called chi, let's say it's an ancient word for 'breath of life'. The potential is within everybody, but it has to be trained. It can manifest as either increased physical abilities or psychic powers.

Why remove the sorcerer? They control power outside themselves too, they are just able to do that by virtue of bloodline (i.e. ultimately being descended from some monster or portentous event that gave access to that ability) rather than through extensive study like wizards.

Thrudd
2018-01-10, 03:26 PM
They use that as an affordance - not!Asia is an easy way to explain why all these people take on the ultimately impractical task of learning how to fight effectively without weapons. To quote Belkar "why not just wear armor?" The answer is to have the traditions come about similarly to how they developed in our world, a land where the common folk for whatever reason don't just resort to weapons. Some are forbidden from doing so by a feudal lord of some kind, for others it begins as a sport that is later weaponized.

That is a myth/misunderstanding (which apparently was held by the setting designers). The original fighting skills of warrior monks was with the common weapons of war that everyone uses (spears especially but also swords etc). Like everywhere in the world, they were armored in battle as much as their finances would allow (which for most common people the world over was very little). The special Chinese style unarmed fighting methods we attribute to them derived partially from health and spiritual exercises and partly from more sportive pursuits like you said.

Shaolin monks first and foremost were known for great spear and staff techniques (back when they were actually fighting in battles). The legends of their supreme unarmed skills came about later, after firearms were more common and they weren't called on as warriors any more.

It is questionable how or where most unarmed fighting methods were used, outside of civilian self-defense situations. Even then, weapons were common- there is no time when all blades and sticks were outlawed or confiscated. Of course, amazing athleticism not directly tied to fighting that comes from their dedicated training would be useful in many scenarios.

Psyren
2018-01-10, 04:04 PM
Oh I wasn't claiming historical accuracy or anything. As you mentioned - if a myth, urban legend or incomplete picture of history is taken seriously by game designers, it will find its way into their creations eventually, much like the "clerics only use maces" thing. But if the question is "why do they feel the need to create not!Asia to justify monks being present" that is still a valid answer.

GungHo
2018-01-11, 09:56 AM
It is questionable how or where most unarmed fighting methods were used, outside of civilian self-defense situations. Even then, weapons were common- there is no time when all blades and sticks were outlawed or confiscated. Of course, amazing athleticism not directly tied to fighting that comes from their dedicated training would be useful in many scenarios.
In the case of things like jujutsu, it was "oh damn, I dropped/broke my spear/sword, there's a guy coming at me with a spear/sword, I really need to stay alive long enough to get another spear/sword because there's also some other guys with spears/swords coming and they're not friends and I can't outrun all of them."

Thrudd
2018-01-11, 11:36 AM
In the case of things like jujutsu, it was "oh damn, I dropped/broke my spear/sword, there's a guy coming at me with a spear/sword, I really need to stay alive long enough to get another spear/sword because there's also some other guys with spears/swords coming and they're not friends and I can't outrun all of them."

Totally. Wrestling/grappling skills are also something that are used even while you're still armed, like when clashing, getting in a bind, tripping, kicking etc. It's just a part of fighting, in general.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-11, 04:34 PM
Why remove the sorcerer? They control power outside themselves too, they are just able to do that by virtue of bloodline (i.e. ultimately being descended from some monster or portentous event that gave access to that ability) rather than through extensive study like wizards.

I had a specific world outline in my head when writing that, which including nobody getting power for nothing. Even divine magic was assumed to only be given to those that worship a god and/or advance the god's cause.

I agree they can fit in, but I have a dislike for their fluff and so tend to write them out of settings. I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to a Sorcerer who gained their powers from some sort of magical accident or mutation, but not just from bloodline.

War_lord
2018-01-11, 05:46 PM
Both interesting factoids - AD&D not being translated before FF debuted is understandable. As for the Black Belt thing, I wonder why they did that? Maybe they were worried Western audiences would see "monk" and immediately think Friar Tuck?

Nintendo USA at the time had very strict censorship rules concerned adult or controversial topics, mentioning "Monks" would be a violation of the "no religion or religious symbolism" rule.

Segev
2018-01-11, 05:50 PM
Both interesting factoids - AD&D not being translated before FF debuted is understandable. As for the Black Belt thing, I wonder why they did that? Maybe they were worried Western audiences would see "monk" and immediately think Friar Tuck?

For years, playing AD&D 1e and 2e, I did think "Friar Tuck" rather than "Kung Fu," and was baffled why brown-robed scholars were able to use their bare hands to do such massive damage. I don't know why "eastern monk" never occurred to me in all that time, but it took seeing the picture in the 3.0 PHB for it to click with me. It was a big "oh! THAT kind of monk!" epiphany for me.

But this has forever left me with the amusing mental image of brown-robed mendicants walking along with tonsure-style haircuts and just reaching out to casually tap monsters for massive damage.

tyckspoon
2018-01-11, 05:53 PM
Nintendo USA at the time had very strict censorship rules concerned adult or controversial topics, mentioning "Monks" would be a violation of the "no religion or religious symbolism" rule.

Thus also explaining why the top-level White Mage blast spell in that game was rather confusingly titled 'Fade'.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-11, 06:08 PM
For years, playing AD&D 1e and 2e, I did think "Friar Tuck" rather than "Kung Fu," and was baffled why brown-robed scholars were able to use their bare hands to do such massive damage.

In the highly anticapted blockbuster of the summer, Arnold Schwarzenegger is...FRIAR TUCK. It's the Robin Hood origin story we've all been waiting for! "Tuck you, jerkbag."

[QUOTE=Segev;22744651]I don't know why "eastern monk" never occurred to me in all that time, but it took seeing the picture in the 3.0 PHB for it to click with me. It was a big "oh! THAT kind of monk!" epiphany for me.

Did the 3.0 PHB have a different monk than Ember? Ember looks a bit more African inspired to me.


But this has forever left me with the amusing mental image of brown-robed mendicants walking along with tonsure-style haircuts and just reaching out to casually tap monsters for massive damage.

Hey, if we're already playing in Not-Europe, Screw History Edition, why not add this in? I could see holy warriors and protectors of artifacts being monks of a god of Kicking Butt and Having Bad Hairdos.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-11, 06:21 PM
Hey, if we're already playing in Not-Europe, Screw History Edition, why not add this in? I could see holy warriors and protectors of artifacts being monks of a god of Kicking Butt and Having Bad Hairdos.
I'm going to make that canon in my setting. The monks who are trained in the most traditional monastery will all be identified by their bad hairdos. But they'll unleash holy hell on people who don't respect the 'do.

Psyren
2018-01-11, 06:43 PM
Nintendo USA at the time had very strict censorship rules concerned adult or controversial topics, mentioning "Monks" would be a violation of the "no religion or religious symbolism" rule.


Thus also explaining why the top-level White Mage blast spell in that game was rather confusingly titled 'Fade'.

I don't know if I buy this reasoning, there were tons of games on the NES with that kind of stuff. Castlevania was practically littered in crosses for instance. I remember they didn't certify the Bible games, but those were horribad anyway.


For years, playing AD&D 1e and 2e, I did think "Friar Tuck" rather than "Kung Fu," and was baffled why brown-robed scholars were able to use their bare hands to do such massive damage. I don't know why "eastern monk" never occurred to me in all that time, but it took seeing the picture in the 3.0 PHB for it to click with me. It was a big "oh! THAT kind of monk!" epiphany for me.

But this has forever left me with the amusing mental image of brown-robed mendicants walking along with tonsure-style haircuts and just reaching out to casually tap monsters for massive damage.

Funnily enough, you could build that kind of monk if you wanted :smallbiggrin:

I myself never thought that, but I was introduced to monks long before I got into D&D. I can't remember where first - it might have been Final Fantasy V and VI, or maybe Diablo Hellfire.

Tinkerer
2018-01-11, 06:58 PM
I don't know if I buy this reasoning, there were tons of games on the NES with that kind of stuff. Castlevania was practically littered in crosses for instance. I remember they didn't certify the Bible games, but those were horribad anyway.


If you'll notice in the early localisations it was actually called a boomerang. Yes, the cross that you throw is called a boomerang. They would go to considerable extremes to actually avoid any religious connections although a few would inevitably slip through.

Bohandas
2018-01-11, 07:05 PM
Another issue is that it's not even totally true to its source material. In Journey to the West (a novel which served as the inspiration for several kung-fu movies as well as Dragonball Z) Sun Wukong is a much more formidable martial artist than Xuanzang

Knaight
2018-01-11, 07:20 PM
Another issue is that it's not even totally true to its source material. In Journey to the West (a novel which served as the inspiration for several kung-fu movies as well as Dragonball Z) Sun Wukong is a much more formidable martial artist than Xuanzang

In that Xuanzang is not in any meaningful way a combatant at all - or if he is, it's at a human scale and thus completely negligible given the likes of Wukong, Baijie, his horse, or Wujing.

If we want to talk about source material, a better classic would be Water Margin. Most of the characters aren't monks, but there's a couple of examples of bandits who later become monks and one fighting monk who becomes a bandit. Lu Zhishen in particular fits the archetype. I doubt either were of particular relevance to the designers though, with the Kung Fu TV show seeming a bit more likely.