Why is the monk lawful?


Advice

51 to 100 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Monks are Lawful so that we may have highly-organized, orderly arguments about them.

-Skeld

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because they were in 3rd edition. Note that most classes with alignment restrictions are in the crb (the Hunter is the only exception I can think of that has an alignment restriction). They were being cautious with the crb and changed little from 3.5. After their success, they were emboldened and went more with their own design ideals. Want a raging monk now? You can stay lawful and just take bloodrager levels.

I think that while most monks probably are lawful, an anarchist could still have the self discipline to become a monk yet still whole heartedly be chaotic neutral, such characters would be exceptions, but should be allowed. The only way I can explain the absolute lawful alignment restriction is to say some arbitrary force, like a deity, is the sources of all monk powers and chooses only to share them with lawful people.


Really at this point all I'm seeing in this thread is an eventual errata that will make monks lose their ki pool should they become non-lawful.

On another note, having spent a bit of time in these forums I'm starting to develop a resentment towards any aspect of Pathfinder that has to do with backwards compatibility.


Good, good, join us in the "We hate legacy rules" club. We have cookies.


Do they have slogans on them written in icing? Because that's the most important part of the flavour.


p-sto wrote:

Really at this point all I'm seeing in this thread is an eventual errata that will make monks lose their ki pool should they become non-lawful.

On another note, having spent a bit of time in these forums I'm starting to develop a resentment towards any aspect of Pathfinder that has to do with backwards compatibility.

backwards compatibility is fine, legacy for legacy's sake needs to go.


Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.

Zahir from the Legend of Korra series is the Monkiest Monk to ever Monk in modern media and he's a full-fledged anarchist, his whole schtick is that the natural order is chaos. You couldn't make a Zahir type character under the current rules.


As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

But I just joined the college a week ago, are you sure I should be the new Archmage? I don't even have over 30 in any magic skills.

I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

Grand Lodge

It takes alot of self discipline to deny ones self. To give yourself wholly to an ideal.

When you look at the monk they are designed after the shaolin monk. They lived by a belief system that they gave themselfs fully to. It is not a lifestyle for the chaotic. But one that seeks to bring order to the chaos of life.

The degree of training both physically and mentally require a code. A core rule set if you will.

Lawful doesnt always mean is this against the law itself. It can also be a code of conduct.


cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

OK, that actually makes sense as a justification. If you have to be part of this specific lawful order of monks to be a monk then it makes sense for all monks to be lawful.

The fact that the lawful requirement persisted after the "all monks are this monk right here" rule was removed is still really weird and bad though.


Claxon wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.

It kind of feels a little too much zeroing in on one aspect of Lawful too much. If you take the ordered part of Lawful that is rigid and resistant to change versus Chaotic adaptability and openness to change it suddenly seems as if Chaotic monks would be vastly superior due to their willingness to cope with any situation in comparison to someone who can only perform under a specific set of conditions.

Really Lawful and Chaotic seem to be fairly balanced in terms of their strengths and drawbacks and I find it fairly unfortunate that classes are restricted by this axis. Discipline may be harder for a Chaotic character to achieve but honestly I don't think that it's simply order that defines the Lawful alignment it's a spectrum of things and I think it possible to create a non-lawful character that has a decent respect for order but has other personality aspects that conflict with the alignment.


Actually bringing an example from the world of Pathfinder to reinforce my comment above, I think it's rather unlikely that an organization such as the Wasp Queens managed to gain a reputation of being among the foremost thieves in Golarion by shunning concepts of personal discipline, cooperation and planning. It's true that adherents of Calistria have a greater appreciation of organization in comparison to the worshippers of other Chaotic gods but all the same that serves the argument that Chaotic characters aren't necessarily opposed to structure.


Back in 3.0 the two combinations they were trying to prevent were Paladin/Bard and Monk/Barbarian. So Monks and Paladins had to be lawful and Bards and Barbarians couldn't be. I'm not sure why any classes that aren't using divine spells still have alignment restrictions, but I am aware of where they came from.

To justify this in game simply tell your players that those characters from other media are either lawful of some other class like brawler. It is now pretty hard to argue monk not brawler/ninja for any character as many many characters could be built either way.

Scarab Sages

In answer to OP's thesis question, the following is reposted from an older, much bigger post of mine:

- Regarding Monks and Barbarians: I've come to the conclusion that their alignment restrictions shouldn't be what they are. You could argue Monks have to be Lawful because they only way they can achieve the training that makes a Monk as we know it a Monk as we know it happens to be by having it drilled into you from outside, but unless we accept that's the case, there's no particular reason a Monk can't be non-Lawful (I might be inclined to say you have to be "any Lawful OR any Chaotic", since you need either extreme discipline OR extreme and uncompromised personal will). Also, within the Pathfinder universe to date, we've already got the Martial Artist Archetype, who has no alignment restriction but also no ki powers, but we also have the Ninja, who has no alignment restrictions but does have ki (and Rogues can unlock it too by way of a particular Talent). Then there's Irori, Golarion's patron god of Monks, who, in spite of being listed as Lawful Neutral and even being included in the "Godsclaw" of Cheliax's Hellknights which is supposed to consist of the 5 most Lawful gods of all, nothing said about Him and his following suggests being Lawful: His faith is famously tolerant, he's one of only *2* of the core deities of Golarion to NOT offer the Heresy Inquisition (the only other one being Cayden Cailean, so what does that tell you?), and of course it takes quite the irreverent, egocentric personality to say "hey, I'm going to figure out how to forge my own path to becoming a f&~#ing GOD," and mean it, and then TOTALLY DO IT. Based on my poring over various D&D books from across its editions, I've also come to the conclusion that the D&D tradition (ever since 1st Edition) of "Monks must be Lawful" is grounded in a misunderstanding of Oriental culture, and the belief that it's substantially more Lawful-leaning than Western culture, which I'm convinced for a variety of reasons is incorrect - comme ci, comme ca, and then some. 2nd Edition's Legends & Lore (it's the equivalent of 3rd Edition's Deities & Demigods, and I recommend it) lists, in it's Chinese pantheon section, Lao Tzu as Lawful Neutral - INCORRECT. I like Taoism, but there's no question it's notoriously difficult to misunderstand, even by the standards of most world religions (after all, "the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao"). I found this view corroborated when I took a few Japanese classes years ago - the teacher was a grad student who was from Japan. He was a very entertaining character who talked about (well, he talked about all kinds of things) how one reason he left Japan for his higher education was because he was disgusted with Japanese people generally being (and this was his word) "sheeple," so he tried coming to America because FREEDOM, YEE-HAW! That's how he found out Americans tend to be "sheeple" too (that's what you get for not brushing up on de Tocqueville beforehand, isn't it? *wags finger*). ANYWAYS, Barbarians: Pathfinder removed the alignment restriction on Bards, yet I would much, much sooner have removed it from Barbarians, which they didn't, or even inverted. As discussed above, I reject the "emotion is Chaotic" meme entirely, and if the rationale for their alignment restriction is the whole Rage thing, I would sooner say they ought to be "any non-Chaotic" rather than "any non-Lawful" (though I'd most likely allow the possibility that they could be any - maybe certain Archetypes would be forced to have alignment restrictions one way or another, but on the whole, a Barbarian could still plenty of room to be properly Chaotic even using my definitions). The other problem with just as the "Monks are Lawful" thing is grounded in misunderstanding Oriental culture, so is the "Barbarians are non-Lawful" thing based on "Western Civilization" misunderstanding itself and other cultures. The fantasy Barbarian is based pretty much entirely on a single fictional character: Conan. I won't go into the myriad roots and historical contexts from which Conan came, nor will I be so clueless as to believe, as some sociologists who embarrass and undermine themselves by shifting from scientists to heirophants might, that the great Robert E. Howard was nothing more than a mere culture-zombie. Anyways, "barbarians" as gamers understand them could be very xenophobic and clannish - very Lawful traits. I think another wholly mistaken reason Barbarians would be considered Chaotic-leaning is their "rural/wilderness" tendencies. The thing is, I think there's a bell-curve on this issue: True hunter-gatherers are what we could call Chaotic (understand if you don't already, Avatar, ponytail-sex aside, is based on anthropological fact), but they'd actually be too gentle to generate people who fight like Conan - they'd be more likely to generate Rangers, Bards, Witches, Sorcerers, 3.5 Scouts, Kobold Quarterly's Elven Archer (Elven race or not, especially appropriate) or (okay, here's one) the 3rd-Party Serene Barbarian. Anyways, once you get more complex than hunter-gatherer lifestyle but still "rural," you go to horticultural, pastoral, agrarian, and it all becomes very, very Lawful very quickly - but should the phenomenon of the large, cosmopolitan urban environment springs up, things start to get WEIRD, and a whole new breed of Chaotic becomes possible. (I'm sorry, did I say I'd settle for offering a sampler platter? I meant I'd settle for nothing less than a multiple-course fondue dinner). Closing the chapter on Monks and Barbarians: Sure you can have Lawful Barbarians. His name's John McCain. Sure you can have Chaotic Monks. His name was Bruce Lee (PBUH): "Using no way as a way, having no limitation as limitation."


Zhayne wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Generic Villain wrote:

It's the ki. The martial artist archetype removes alignment restrictions, but also lacks ki. Why is ki lawful? Dunno. If I were to guess, I'd say, to channel ki, one has to be in a certain state of mind. Just as paladins need to be LG to use their powers, and barbarians can't be lawful to utilize rage.

In the Pathfinder world, alignment isn't just a vague abstraction - it has literal, real-world incarnations. You could think of it this way: the essence of good is sacred bonuses; the essence of evil is profane bonuses; the essence of law if ki; the essence of chaos is rage; and neutral doesn't get anything because screw 'em for being neutral (or I guess something to do with nature).

Man I must have missed that Lawful only restriction on the Ninja class then.

Oh yeah, it's right there next to how Monks lose their ki pool if they stop being Lawful.

And where they're expressly forbidden from gaining an increase to their ki pool by increasing their Wisdom modifier.

And how neither they nor anyone else who's neither a Monk nor Lawful can take the Style feats or things like Elemental Fist that are ki in everything but name.

...

Oh right. Not a one of those things is actually the case.

Your skill at missing the point is impressive. Is it a natural talent, or did you have to practice?

If Ki is the essence of Law, then anybody, of any class, anywhere, who had a Ki Pool would have to be Lawful. Thus, is Generic Villain's hypothesis about the nature of the Monk's alignment restriction utterly disproven, as we have a class with a Ki pool with no such restrictions.

...

Um...

I know.

Hence my deliberate listing of other assumptions that would seem to be in line with (but in fact debunk) Generic Villain's claim that it's because of the Ki.

And then, just to make sure people knew it was sarcasm, I added the last bit. Bards used to have to be non-Lawful, now they can multiclass with Paladin. Samurai used to have to be Lawful, now they can multiclass with Barbarian. Anyone and their grandmother, without being a Monk or being Lawful, can take Elemental Fist or Fist of Serenity (name?) that, thematically speaking, uses Ki (even if it doesn't use Ki from a strictly games-mechanic sense). And even though a non-Lawful, non-Martial Artist Monk can no longer take levels of Monk and thusly improve the "half Monk level" aspect of his Ki pool, he can still get a higher Wisdom modifier and thus increase the "plus his Wisdom modifier" aspect of his Ki pool.

I am well aware of how Generic Villain's theory doesn't pan out. I was providing additional examples to illustrate that.

So to answer your question, since I'm demonstrating very poor talent at missing the point, I apparently need to start practicing.

Also, I'd apologize for not going the extra step of using a sarcasm tag, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic (and if you are, you didn't use one either. Gooses and ganders.)

Liberty's Edge

p-sto wrote:
Actually bringing an example from the world of Pathfinder to reinforce my comment above, I think it's rather unlikely that an organization such as the Wasp Queens managed to gain a reputation of being among the foremost thieves in Golarion by shunning concepts of personal discipline, cooperation and planning. It's true that adherents of Calistria have a greater appreciation of organization in comparison to the worshippers of other Chaotic gods but all the same that serves the argument that Chaotic characters aren't necessarily opposed to structure.

Cooperation and planning aren't Lawful traits. At all. Self-discipline is to some degree, but only to some degree.

Grand Lodge

Scythia wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

But I just joined the college a week ago, are you sure I should be the new Archmage? I don't even have over 30 in any magic skills.

I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

What happened if you had two monks in the group?

Mortal Kombat?


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Oh yeah that's a perfectly logical-Ohai Drunken Master how are you?

I do have to say that Drunken Master always struck me as a conceptually weird archetype of a Monk. Wonder if it came from somebody who loved WarCraft III/World of WarCraft and the Pandaren Brewmaster? (Those don't seem particularly Lawful either.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Master


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Scythia wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

But I just joined the college a week ago, are you sure I should be the new Archmage? I don't even have over 30 in any magic skills.

I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

What happened if you had two monks in the group?

Mortal Kombat?

They had to start rival sects, one becoming the North Star, the other Southern Cross.


Rynjin wrote:


Man I must have missed that Lawful only restriction on the Ninja class then.
Generic Villain wrote:


Also, just remembered that ninjas get ki. So there goes that theory.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Rynjin wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

Those monks could be closer to the Martial Artist type.

The normal monk gets class features like Still Mind, which require great amounts of self-discipline. Basically, the monk's abilities largely draw from an incredible degree of self-control and self-mastery, a level which is nearly impossible to achieve without being lawful.

Oh yeah that's a perfectly logical-Ohai Drunken Master how are you?

I dunno, most movies/entertainment/stories/whatever that focus on Drunken Masters often deal with the concept that they face the danger of being 'too drunk' and that only with practice and self-discipline can they maintain the perfect buzz and not fall into alcoholism and simply be too hammered to function.

I'm not saying that, therefore, all Monks must remain Lawful and the restriction is fine but, at least, there is a way that even the Drunken Master can fit.

And, as always, I like to suggest thinking of Law vs. Chaos in terms of consistency vs. compromise.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
p-sto wrote:
Actually bringing an example from the world of Pathfinder to reinforce my comment above, I think it's rather unlikely that an organization such as the Wasp Queens managed to gain a reputation of being among the foremost thieves in Golarion by shunning concepts of personal discipline, cooperation and planning. It's true that adherents of Calistria have a greater appreciation of organization in comparison to the worshippers of other Chaotic gods but all the same that serves the argument that Chaotic characters aren't necessarily opposed to structure.
Cooperation and planning aren't Lawful traits. At all. Self-discipline is to some degree, but only to some degree.

So you're on board with the position that Chaotic monks makes sense in terms of having the necessary discipline to become a monk? It's kind of hard to tell based on what you decided to focus in on there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Scythia wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

But I just joined the college a week ago, are you sure I should be the new Archmage? I don't even have over 30 in any magic skills.

I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

What happened if you had two monks in the group?

Mortal Kombat?

They had to start rival sects, one becoming the North Star, the other Southern Cross.

You don't need to explain to someone who is already dead. :P


Scythia wrote:


I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

A vestige still remains in the Green Faith Acolyte prestige class from Paths of Prestige. To achieve levels 8-10 in that class, the character needs to challenge the regional archdruid, great druid, and grand druid, respectively.

I'm also glad there's no "must beat up another character of a rank higher than you to advance in level" restriction on the base classes, but I kind of like the option to still exist. I still have fond memories of Jaheira challenging the local Shadow Druid boss in Baldur's Gate 2. That was an optional side quest though, and Jaheira didn't have to complete it to increase her druid level.

Remember when only non-humans could multiclass? Man, earlier editions loved arbitrary nonsense.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.

Zahir from the Legend of Korra series is the Monkiest Monk to ever Monk in modern media and he's a full-fledged anarchist, his whole schtick is that the natural order is chaos. You couldn't make a Zahir type character under the current rules.

Anarchist or Revolutionist? Not familiar with the series at all so don't know the character, but are they trying to bring an end to order or just establish their own? The guy overthrowing the evil dictator doesn't rule out him being Lawful or Evil (Your reign of terror is over. Now a new reign of terror, my reign, begins).


Arachnofiend wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.

Zahir from the Legend of Korra series is the Monkiest Monk to ever Monk in modern media and he's a full-fledged anarchist, his whole schtick is that the natural order is chaos. You couldn't make a Zahir type character under the current rules.

So? OMG I can't make this character as one specific class! The world is coming to an end! We must change the rules!

Besides which, none of the avatar "monks" would really be the monk class. I'm sorry that Pathfinder doesn't represent this particular type of fantasy well. It happens a lot.

p-sto wrote:

It kind of feels a little too much zeroing in on one aspect of Lawful too much. If you take the ordered part of Lawful that is rigid and resistant to change versus Chaotic adaptability and openness to change it suddenly seems as if Chaotic monks would be vastly superior due to their willingness to cope with any situation in comparison to someone who can only perform under a specific set of conditions.

Really Lawful and Chaotic seem to be fairly balanced in terms of their strengths and drawbacks and I find it fairly unfortunate that classes are restricted by this axis. Discipline may be harder for a Chaotic character to achieve but honestly I don't think that it's simply order that defines the Lawful alignment it's a spectrum of things and I think it possible to create a non-lawful character that has a decent respect for order but has other personality aspects that conflict with the alignment.

I feel like your taking lawful to the extreme. One needn't be completely resistant to all change, however a lawful person would attempt to resolve issue through familiar avenues before attempting something new. Also, you're conflating chaotic action with a willingness to change and success. Just because one is willing to change more quickly, does not necessarily mean that they will be more successful. Knowing when not change (and thereby overreact to situation) can be just as important.

Honestly I feel like this thread is just a bad as some people in the rogue thread and let me explain here. People get so up in arms about class names in the game, they want to play a "rogue" and see the class name and think they must absolutely go this way. But they don't consider the myriad of classes which can fulfill the same concept. At this point several classes have gained access to flurry and the ability to fight unarmed well.Don't get to attached to a name. Also remember former monks don't lose their abilities. You can always be a monk, take monastic legacy, change alignment, multiclass into another character and round out your character concept.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Monks are lawful because they are created in monasteries. If you abide from a code you get from an organisaiton without, rather than within your own principles, then you're lawful.

It's also basically tradiion handed down through four editions of the game. The man you really need to ask that question will need to be reached via a Ouija board or seance.


I don't know, I was hoping that the culmination of my posts was giving the impression that I viewed any specific alignment as being quite varied. The extreme example was intended to counter the extreme position that only Lawful characters have the discipline to be a monk.

And thank you, so if I want to be a chaotic monk and continue expanding my ki pool then my only option is monk/ninja. I then cap the positive benefits of monk vows or forgo monk vows completely to get still mind for the benefit of monastic legacy. Sorry if I don't find that all that satisfying in terms of availability of character concepts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
p-sto wrote:

I don't know, I was hoping that the culmination of my posts was giving the impression that I viewed any specific alignment as being quite varied. The extreme example was intended to counter the extreme position that only Lawful characters have the discipline to be a monk.

And thank you, so if I want to be a chaotic monk and continue expanding my ki pool then my only option is monk/ninja. I then cap the positive benefits of monk vows or forgo monk vows completely to get still mind for the benefit of monastic legacy. Sorry if I don't find that all that satisfying in terms of availability of character concepts.

You DO have the Martial Artist archetype if being lawful is your deal breaker.


Claxon wrote:


So? OMG I can't make this character as one specific class! The world is coming to an end! We must change the rules!

That was my first thought too, though with way less snark. No, the Pathfinder ruleset cannot make an exact copy of every sort of character in history or fiction, and from my perspective, that's a feature rather than a bug. Games are defined as much by their limits as their possibilities. I mean I'd love to play a game of chess where I could win by just hurling expired produce at my opponent until s/he concedes, but that might detract somewhat from the nuances of chess.

LazarX wrote:


Monks are lawful because they are created in monasteries. If you abide from a code you get from an organisaiton without, rather than within your own principles, then you're lawful.

It's also basically tradiion handed down through four editions of the game. The man you really need to ask that question will need to be reached via a Ouija board or seance.

I agree with your second statement much more than your first. You could easily have a monastic tradition of rogues, fighters, wizards, even barbarians if you wanted to stretch the concept, but that doesn't imply they'd all be lawful. Most of them? Sure, but there's always outliers.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

In answer to OP's thesis question, the following is reposted from an older, much bigger post of mine:

- *immense wall of text

Dude, you seriously need to learn the art of paragraphing your text. If I wanted to climb walls, I'd sign up for Army Boot Camp.


LazarX wrote:
p-sto wrote:

I don't know, I was hoping that the culmination of my posts was giving the impression that I viewed any specific alignment as being quite varied. The extreme example was intended to counter the extreme position that only Lawful characters have the discipline to be a monk.

And thank you, so if I want to be a chaotic monk and continue expanding my ki pool then my only option is monk/ninja. I then cap the positive benefits of monk vows or forgo monk vows completely to get still mind for the benefit of monastic legacy. Sorry if I don't find that all that satisfying in terms of availability of character concepts.

You DO have the Martial Artist archetype if being lawful is your deal breaker.

But Martial Artist changes so much of the basic Monk class such as Ki and other 'mystic' abilities.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dread Knight wrote:
LazarX wrote:
p-sto wrote:

I don't know, I was hoping that the culmination of my posts was giving the impression that I viewed any specific alignment as being quite varied. The extreme example was intended to counter the extreme position that only Lawful characters have the discipline to be a monk.

And thank you, so if I want to be a chaotic monk and continue expanding my ki pool then my only option is monk/ninja. I then cap the positive benefits of monk vows or forgo monk vows completely to get still mind for the benefit of monastic legacy. Sorry if I don't find that all that satisfying in terms of availability of character concepts.

You DO have the Martial Artist archetype if being lawful is your deal breaker.
But Martial Artist changes so much of the basic Monk class such as Ki and other 'mystic' abilities.

Then follow the third route.... ask your GM for a class variance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As has been said before - Legacy. When the monk class was originally created (way back in AD&D 2nd edition) there wasn't the variety of character options and concepts that are available today.

All monks came from monastic orders, where they spent long days training and practicing self discipline. They all received exactly the same abilities in exactly the same progression. Very orderly and structured.

Even after character options opened up in 3rd edition, the basic concept of the Monk as someone who gained their abilities from a strict regimen of physical training and self discipline remained.

Later supplements and then Pathfinder opened up many other Monk character concepts and added non-lawful required classes and monk archetypes with similar abilities. Monasteries and monastic lifestyle now only represent a small segment of the total monk population. :p

I really think the Lawful requirement does more to limit the monk than add "required roleplaying flavor" to it these days.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine? wrote:

Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back. … There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.
Ethics Option 1: A level of Organization wrote:

Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.

Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force.
Ethics Option 2: A Question of Sanity wrote:

Some DMs will want Law and Chaos to mean essentially "Sane" and "Insane". That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Chaos is funny. In fact, insanity is generally about the least funny thing you could possibly imagine. An insane person reacts inappropriately to their surroundings. That doesn't mean that they perform unexpected actions, that's just surrealist. And Paladins are totally permitted to enjoy non-sequitur based humor and art. See, insanity is when you perform the same action over and over again and expect different results.

In this model we get a coherent explanation for why, when all the forces of Evil are composed of a multitude of strange nightmarish creatures, and the forces of Good have everything from a glowing patch of light to a winged snake tailed woman, every single soldier in the army of Chaos is a giant frog. This is because in this model Limbo is a place that is totally insane. It's a place where the answer to every question really is "Giant Frog". Creatures of Chaos then proceed to go to non Chaotically-aligned planes and are disappointed and confused when doors have to be pushed and pulled to open and entrance cannot be achieved by "Giant Frog".
If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. For reactions to be sufficiently inappropriate to qualify as insanity, one has to go pretty far into one's own preconceptions. Actual mental illness is very sad and traumatic just to watch as an outside observer. Actually living that way is even worse. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between good and bad. That and there is a certain segment of the roleplaying community that cannot differentiate absurdist humor from insanity and will insist on doing annoying things in the name of humor. And we hate those people.
Ethics Option 3: The Laws of the Land wrote:

Any region that has writing will have an actual code of laws. Even oral traditions will have, well, traditions. In some campaigns, following these laws makes you Lawful, and not following these laws makes you Chaotic. This doesn't mean that Lawful characters necessarily have to follow the laws of Kyuss when you invade his secret Worm Fort, but it does mean that they need to be an "invading force" when they run around in Kyuss' Worm Fort. Honestly, I'm not sure what it even means to have a Chaotic society if Lawful means "following your own rules". This whole schema is workable, but only with extreme effort. It helps if there's some sort of divinely agreed upon laws somewhere that nations and individuals can follow to a greater or lesser degree. But even so, there's a lot of hermits and warfare in the world such that whether people are following actual laws can be just plain hard to evaluate.

I'd like to endorse this more highly, since any time you have characters living up to a specific arbitrary code (or not) it becomes a lot easier to get things evaluated. Unfortunately, it's really hard to even imagine an entire nation fighting for not following their own laws. That's just… really weird. But if you take Law to mean law, then you're going to have to come to terms with that.
Ethics Option 4: My Word is My Bond wrote:

Some DMs are going to want Law to essentially equate to following through on things. A Lawful character will keep their word and do things that they said they were going to. In this model, a Lawful character has an arbitrary code of conduct and a Chaotic character does not. That's pretty easy to adjudicate, you just announce what you're going to do and if you do it, you're Lawful and if you don't you're not.

Here's where it gets weird though: That means that Lawful characters have a harder time working together than do non-lawful characters. Sure, once they agree to work together there's some Trust there that we can capitalize, but it means that there are arbitrary things that Lawful characters won't do. Essentially this means that Chaotic parties order one mini-pizza each while Lawful parties have to get one extra large pizza for the whole group – and we know how difficult that can be to arrange. A good example of this in action is the Paladin's code: they won't work with Evil characters, which restricts the possibilities of other party members.
In the world, this means that if you attack a Chaotic city, various other chaotic characters will trickle in to defend it. But if you attack a Lawful city, chances are that it's going to have to stand on its own.
Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law wrote:
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.
Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law wrote:
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic.
I Fought the Law wrote:
Regardless of what your group ends up meaning when they use the word "Law", the fact is that some of your enemies are probably going to end up being Lawful. That doesn't mean that Lawful characters can't stab them in their area, whatever it is that you have alignments mean it's still entirely acceptable for Good characters to stab other Good characters and Lawful characters to stab other Lawful characters (oddly, no one even asks if it's a violation of Chaotic Evil to kill another Chaotic Evil character, but it isn't). There are lots of reasons to kill a man, and alignment disagreements don't occupy that list exclusively.
Code of Conduct: Barbarian wrote:
A Barbarian who becomes Lawful cannot Rage. Why not? There's no decent answer for that. Rage doesn't seem to require that you not tell people in advance that you're going to do it, nor does it actually force you to break promises once you're enraged. It doesn't force you to behave in any particular fashion, and no one knows why it is restricted.
Code of Conduct: Bard wrote:
If anyone can tell me why a concert pianist can't be Lawful I will personally put one thing of their choice into my mouth. Music is expressionistic, but it is also mathematical. Already there are computers that can write music that is indistinguishable from the boring parts of Mozart in which he's just going up and down scales in order to mark time.
Beating Back Chaos wrote:

Long ago "Law" and "Chaos" were used euphemisms by Pohl Anderson for Good and Evil, and that got taken up by other fantasy and science fiction authors and ultimately snow-balled into having a Chaos alignment for D&D. If you go back far enough, "Chaos" actually means "The Villains", and when it comes down to it there's no logical meaning for it to have other than that – so the forces of Chaos really are going to show up at your door to take a number for a whuppin at some point. Depending upon what your group ends up deciding to mean by Chaos, this may seem pretty senselessly cruel. If the forces of Chaos are simply unorganized then you are essentially chasing down hobos and beating down the ones too drunk to get away. If Chaos is insanity than the Chaos Hunters in your game are essentially going door to door to beat up the retarded kids.

The key is essentially to not overthink it. Chaos was originally put into the fantasy genre in order to have bad guys without having to have black hatted madmen trying to destroy the world. So if Team Chaos is coming around your door, just roll with it. The whole point is to have villains that you can stab without feeling guilty while still having villains to whom your characters can lose without necessarily losing the whole campaign world.
Code of Conduct: Monk wrote:
No one can explain why Monks are required to be Lawful, least of all the Player's Handbook. Ember is Lawful because she "follows her discipline", while Mialee is not Lawful because she is "devoted to her art". WTF?! That's the same thing, given sequentially as an example of being Lawful and not being Lawful. Monk's training requires strict discipline, but that has nothing to do with Lawfulness no matter what setup for Law and Chaos you are using. If Lawfulness is about organization, you are perfectly capable of being a complete maverick who talks to no one and drifts from place to place training constantly like the main character in Kung Fu – total lack of organization, total "Chaotic" – total disciplined Monk. If Law is about Loyalty, you're totally capable of being treacherous spies. In fact, that's even an example in the PHB "Evil monks make ideal spies, infiltrators, and assassins." And well, that sentence pretty much sinks any idea of monks having to follow the law of the land or keeping their own word, doesn't it? The only way monk lawfulness would make any sense is if you were using "adherence to an arbitrary self" as the basis of Law, and we already know that can't hold.
Code of Conduct: Paladin Again wrote:
This has to be repeated: Paladins don't get Smite Chaos. They are not champions of Law and Good, they are Champions of Good who are required to be Lawful. If your game is not using Word is Bond Ethics, Paladins have no reason to be Lawful. Paladins are only encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in if those laws are Good. They are actually forbidden by their code of conduct from following the precepts of Evil nations. The Paladin shtick works equally well as a loner or a leader, and it is by definition distinctly disloyal. A Paladin must abandon compatriots.

Source link.

Shadow Lodge

There's also an aasimar trait worth noting here that allows you to be neutral and take monk levels. Enlightened warrior, from blood of angels.


Generic Villain wrote:
Scythia wrote:


I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

A vestige still remains in the Green Faith Acolyte prestige class from Paths of Prestige. To achieve levels 8-10 in that class, the character needs to challenge the regional archdruid, great druid, and grand druid, respectively.

I'm also glad there's no "must beat up another character of a rank higher than you to advance in level" restriction on the base classes, but I kind of like the option to still exist. I still have fond memories of Jaheira challenging the local Shadow Druid boss in Baldur's Gate 2. That was an optional side quest though, and Jaheira didn't have to complete it to increase her druid level.

Remember when only non-humans could multiclass? Man, earlier editions loved arbitrary nonsense.

It would be okay to have as an optional social rank type thing. Then it's more of a role-playing aspect. Just so long as it doesn't cap level growth.

Yeah, leveling in AD&D had all kinds of extra conditions. Demi-humans had max level caps by specific class, while humans could dual class through as many levels as they liked of every class if they had the stats to qualify. Also, training to level.


p-sto wrote:
Eryx, really my main problem with the alignment restriction is that it gets boring after a while. I suppose I have a bit of a soft spot for monks. Of the six PFS characters I've made three have either been monks or taken monk dips. Personally it's boring to have every character with the same personality and it gets a little tiresome trying to come up with multiple interpretations of the same alignment. I've already gotten to the point where I've decided on playing a monk that will struggle discipline required and as a result will frequently be taking atonements.

There are literally an unlimited number of Lawful personalities. I mean one of my favorite characters is a Lawful Good paladin who's a complete @$$hole. He's self-righteous, arrogant, and thinks he's the only one capable enough to succeed. None of those personality traits keeps him from being Lawful Good. A monk has even more leeway. I get wanting to play the young monk struggling with his ordered mind, but doesn't it make sense that if he can't get his mind right, he wouldn't be able to access the powers? You can flavor your atonement as having to spend more time with your Sensei.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

You can be a naturally caring person who helps others out of the kindness of your heart and defends the innocent. You can also have a free spirit that puts freedom and individuality right up there with protecting nature on your priority list.

But if you put Chaotic Good on that character sheet, you're not gonna be a Druid.

That's the problem.

You're too much focused to moral quandaries to care properly about nature.

I always fount the extreme alignments (LE CE LG CG) to be more concerned about alignments themselves compared to the neutral axes.

A druid stars about nature, so he's NN. The ha can be some personal preferences on morals, then you have the drift in one of the two axes. But after that you care more about what is morality rather than nature and so you go off focus about what you truly believe in.

It's even actually better than 3.5 where the Druid was limted only to NN


Jodokai wrote:
I get wanting to play the young monk struggling with his ordered mind, but doesn't it make sense that if he can't get his mind right, he wouldn't be able to access the powers?

The chaotic young monk doesn't actually lose access to any of his abilities.

Ninjas can be scatter brained bums with Ki pools.

Not good enough.


Dannorn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.

Zahir from the Legend of Korra series is the Monkiest Monk to ever Monk in modern media and he's a full-fledged anarchist, his whole schtick is that the natural order is chaos. You couldn't make a Zahir type character under the current rules.
Anarchist or Revolutionist? Not familiar with the series at all so don't know the character, but are they trying to bring an end to order or just establish their own? The guy overthrowing the evil dictator doesn't rule out him being Lawful or Evil (Your reign of terror is over. Now a new reign of terror, my reign, begins).

Anarchist. He has no intention of taking power after killing the Earth Queen and makes an announcement to the people to ensure they know that they now have absolute freedom.

Claxon wrote:

So? OMG I can't make this character as one specific class! The world is coming to an end! We must change the rules!

Besides which, none of the avatar "monks" would really be the monk class. I'm sorry that Pathfinder doesn't represent this particular type of fantasy well. It happens a lot.

First of all, this post is unnecessarily rude. Secondly, Zahir is a wisdom based martial artist. He would be built perfectly as the Monk/Kineticist hybrid archetype that's going to come out in Occult Adventures, or at least he would be without that arbitrary alignment restriction.


Senko wrote:
First off please try to keep this from becoming the standard alignment debate 101, what I'm after here is believeable reasons for why the monk class has to be lawful that can convince me and that I'd feel comfortable using them on a player. I ask because recently I've been watching a number of eastern movies and the martial artists in them don't seem all that lawful between . . .
Quote:
1) Fighting the government.

That has nothing to do with being "Lawful" in the alignment sense.

Quote:
2) Fighting amongst themselves.

That has nothing to do with being "Lawful" in the alignment sense.

Quote:
3) Stealing secret techniques from each other.

That has nothing to do with being "Lawful" in the alignment sense.

Quote:
4) Lying to other people and deceiving them into fighting so they don't have to.

That has nothing to do with being "Lawful" in the alignment sense.

Quote:
5) Running large drug smuggling rings.

That has nothing to do with being "Lawful" in the alignment sense.

"Lawful" in the alignment sense in pathfinder does not mean "Obeys the law" it means disciplined, methodical, and/or has a code that they follow


BigDTBone wrote:

Lawful

Not Lawful

One of these guys fails. I'll let you guess once before you click.

The one that isn't proficient in needle throwing, duh.

Any idiot with a casual grasp of physics or ballistics will tell you that hitting straight is really important. Otherwise a lot of the energy is going to go into spinning the projectile.

Since the Mythbusters only had a baseball pitcher to test with they should have just clocked the needle and then fired it *straight* at that velocity with an air cannon or other calibrated launcher, but they're more interested in getting their episodes made within schedule and budget than in actual scientific rigor.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I get wanting to play the young monk struggling with his ordered mind, but doesn't it make sense that if he can't get his mind right, he wouldn't be able to access the powers?

The chaotic young monk doesn't actually lose access to any of his abilities.

Ninjas can be scatter brained bums with Ki pools.

Not good enough.

Well if you want specific details of the character concept it's a Hungry Ghost Monk receiving his training from the Dark Archive. I'm thinking there are good odds that once he hits level 5 he's going to be getting in the habit of taking prisoners after battle, heal them to full health then perform multiple coup de graces using non-lethal to feed the hunger of his ki pool until it's either topped up or until his victim fails a fort save.

Not lawful conduct by any means and while he will feel remorse if things go wrong his masters certainly don't care. Really the only thing the atonements could possibly represent are his guilt. The character probably will end up dipping a couple levels of ninja but since the core concept is monk and I really can't justify a lawful alignment it feels little like cheating.


Rynjin wrote:
Good, good, join us in the "We hate legacy rules" club. We have cookies.

Monks and Paladins all Lawful because your archenemies, the Love 'Dem Legacy Rules Club, is Lawful.


Anyway the reason of why the monk is Lawful should be taken from the Taoism. The Ying-Yang duality in D&D/PF has a close similar in the Law-Chaos one and the Monks attain their supernatural power from the Ying, the passive one, by suppressing their emotions when possible, while Ninjas attaine power from the Yang through emotions.
The Tao even stemmed the duality from Light Side and Dark Side of the Force, that while the movies pegged as Good vs Evil, some passages and the expanded universe make clear that is Yin and Yang and Jedis are exponents of Yin while Sith are of Yang while the Force is clearly the Ki

So in a sense the true ninjas in PF are the Barbarians :P


p-sto wrote:

Well if you want specific details of the character concept it's a Hungry Ghost Monk receiving his training from the Dark Archive. I'm thinking there are good odds that once he hits level 5 he's going to be getting in the habit of taking prisoners after battle, heal them to full health then perform multiple coup de graces using non-lethal to feed the hunger of his ki pool until it's either topped up or until his victim fails a fort save.

Not lawful conduct by any means and while he will feel remorse if things go wrong his masters certainly don't care. Really the only thing the atonements could possibly represent are his guilt. The character probably will end up dipping a couple levels of ninja but since the core concept is monk and I really can't justify a lawful alignment it feels little like cheating.

More than Chaotic that conduct is Evil. Such a Hungry Ghost Monk is more likely to be LE (or LN if he's truly sorry of what he's doing).

Anyway the official Golarion god of torture is LE so you'll be ok :P

Moreover slavery and exploiting of prisoners is associated to LE alignment more than any other of the Evils.


Well I definitely consider it a chaotic evil act but I suppose it's up to interpretation. Thing is evil monks are just fine past first level. The restraint shown is really for two reasons. One I think the guilt aspect combined with the lack of self-control is interesting. Also this is a PFS character so I'm probably going to be walking a fine line trying to keep this character PFS legal. GM discretion on the alignment restriction would be nice but obviously not an option at the moment.

51 to 100 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Why is the monk lawful? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.