I actually liked the 70's PJ wearing martial artist monks. I never missed an episode of Kung Fu.. Heck, the monk in my RotRL campaign has made a thematic intro using the music from the newer Kung Fu: the Legend Continues series.
As for the Lawful... I use the rule..but if I had problems with it.. I would just change it in my campaigns.
greg
I don't really have a problem with it. It just seemed arbitrary. I could understand not being chaotic to an extent, but not a requirement to be lawful.
The old 1e said that monks were lawful because they were disciplined in order to develop mastery over mind and body.
In my opinion, it's enough to say the game says they must be lawful. Given that the whole alignment system is stupid, it doesn't make sense to spend too much time and effort thinking about this. You either have to accept what the book says about alignment or you can throw the alignment crap out. I prefer the later.
The problem with finding justifications for or against the lawful alignment of monks by using D&D-based arguments is that D&D has always been inconsistent in providing a clear statement about what it means to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. This is because the books are not the word of god, and are in fact the work of lots of different humans. Also, authors who don't have a disciplined approach to the interpretation of alignment can cause even more confusion by creating an "evil" character who doesn't act very evil (because they think the story is better if they are evil) or a neutral character who acts pretty darn evil (perhaps due to a different interpretation about how bad you have to be to be evil or even due to metagame decisions (gasp!) to thwart a detect evil). This even crept into the core classes because the person who came up with the class thought the class sounded more chaotic than lawful (barbarian) or more lawful than chaotic (monk). The operative word is *sounded*. A different author could have quite easily imagined a different approach, forced all clerics to be lawful because they need to be devoted to their gods (even if the god is chaotic, the act of faithful subservience could be portrayed as lawful), forced all wizards to be non-chaotic because extreme devotion to their craft requires at least some discipline, etc.
I think in this specific instance (the issue of monk alignment), you can either say the alignment system is flawed but keep it, say it is stupid and throw it out, or adjust the parts you don't like to make it work for you. I have an alignment system I like, and monks can be any alignment.
How about because Monks attain their amazing physical mastery through ritual, vows, and profound self-discipline. They master the self, they practice relentlessly, they drive themselves beyond normal physical limits through sheer will and practicing to the peak of physical perfection. A Neutral type won't have that relentless drive and a Chaotic type won't stick to the regiment of training. A monk MUST be lawful because someone not adherent to rules and order simply wouldn't continue the training.
Just because a monk is lawful in one aspect of their life, does not mean that is necessarily the case for the decisions in the rest of their life.How about because Monks attain their amazing physical mastery through ritual, vows, and profound self-discipline. They master the self, they practice relentlessly, they drive themselves beyond normal physical limits through sheer will and practicing to the peak of physical perfection. A Neutral type won't have that relentless drive and a Chaotic type won't stick to the regiment of training. A monk MUST be lawful because someone not adherent to rules and order simply wouldn't continue the training.
Except that it's the aspect of their life THAT MAKES THEM A MONK.
Just because a monk is lawful in one aspect of their life, does not mean that is necessarily the case for the decisions in the rest of their life.How about because Monks attain their amazing physical mastery through ritual, vows, and profound self-discipline. They master the self, they practice relentlessly, they drive themselves beyond normal physical limits through sheer will and practicing to the peak of physical perfection. A Neutral type won't have that relentless drive and a Chaotic type won't stick to the regiment of training. A monk MUST be lawful because someone not adherent to rules and order simply wouldn't continue the training.
Except that it's the aspect of their life THAT MAKES THEM A MONK.
I agree 100% Lyingbastard. One doesn't become a Monk by throwing 20 punches a day. It comes from years of dedicated practice, daily.
On another note, I'm very sure a Barbarian who becomes lawful cannot rage anymore either. A monk keeps most of his abilities, so if you want to merge the two, loose your lawful alignment 1st. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to merge well.
What some of you are trying to do is look completely past the role playing aspect of these classes, trying to make a huge combat monster. I hope there is a very good reason for your character to fall so far from his dedicated life of practice, to fighting with just rage.
Also note, I am very sure that you need to be concentrating a bit while flurrying. So I don't see it working with rage.
Just because a monk is lawful in one aspect of their life, does not mean that is necessarily the case for the decisions in the rest of their life.How about because Monks attain their amazing physical mastery through ritual, vows, and profound self-discipline. They master the self, they practice relentlessly, they drive themselves beyond normal physical limits through sheer will and practicing to the peak of physical perfection. A Neutral type won't have that relentless drive and a Chaotic type won't stick to the regiment of training. A monk MUST be lawful because someone not adherent to rules and order simply wouldn't continue the training.
Except that it's the aspect of their life THAT MAKES THEM A MONK.
I agree 100% Lyingbastard. One doesn't become a Monk by throwing 20 punches a day. It comes from years of dedicated practice, daily.
On another note, I'm very sure a Barbarian who becomes lawful cannot rage anymore either. A monk keeps most of his abilities, so if you want to merge the two, loose your lawful alignment 1st. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to merge well.
What some of you are trying to do is look completely past the role playing aspect of these classes, trying to make a huge combat monster. I hope there is a very good reason for your character to fall so far from his dedicated life of practice, to fighting with just rage.
Also note, I am very sure that you need to be concentrating a bit while flurrying. So I don't see it working with rage.
What.
No.
Nobody is trying to do that. A monk/barbarian is a terrible idea as a multiclass. They have nothing that fits together. The mroe barbarian the monk takes, the worse the monk is at unarmed combat and flurry - you know, their main thing. And a barbarian dip really doesn't do much for them at all. It gives them worse saves, lowers all their monk abilities, and in return they can, for maybe 5-6 rounds a day, gain a small buff to strength and constitution that they immidiately lose and enter into fatigued.
Granted, I can't really see the fluff behind monk barbarian unless you're playing in a setting like DragonMech, but it's certainly not for the sake of making a "huge combat monster."
I don't bother with alignment because the definitions of lawful and chaotic differ from player to player. Rather than explain how I believe they work every time, I just throw it out the window.
*nods* I bet it avoids a bunch of RP stoppin' arguements, too. Someday I may borrow this method as well.
Just because a monk is lawful in one aspect of their life, does not mean that is necessarily the case for the decisions in the rest of their life.How about because Monks attain their amazing physical mastery through ritual, vows, and profound self-discipline. They master the self, they practice relentlessly, they drive themselves beyond normal physical limits through sheer will and practicing to the peak of physical perfection. A Neutral type won't have that relentless drive and a Chaotic type won't stick to the regiment of training. A monk MUST be lawful because someone not adherent to rules and order simply wouldn't continue the training.
Except that it's the aspect of their life THAT MAKES THEM A MONK.
I disagree with this entirely. Pretty much every monk I would want to use for inspiration for my chacter when playing the class I would put on the neutral or chaotic side. Easygoing and carefree in life, but totally dedicated to their training. And persuit of their training doesn't even have to be a lawful thing.
I disagree with this entirely. Pretty much every monk I would want to use for inspiration for my chacter when playing the class I would put on the neutral or chaotic side. Easygoing and carefree in life, but totally dedicated to their training. And persuit of their training doesn't even have to be a lawful thing.Just because a monk is lawful in one aspect of their life, does not mean that is necessarily the case for the decisions in the rest of their life.How about because Monks attain their amazing physical mastery through ritual, vows, and profound self-discipline. They master the self, they practice relentlessly, they drive themselves beyond normal physical limits through sheer will and practicing to the peak of physical perfection. A Neutral type won't have that relentless drive and a Chaotic type won't stick to the regiment of training. A monk MUST be lawful because someone not adherent to rules and order simply wouldn't continue the training.
Except that it's the aspect of their life THAT MAKES THEM A MONK.
Because there's nothing at all orderly about joining a monastic order, forsaking individual gains to pursue an ideal, and dedicating one's life to practice, routine, perfection, and contemplation. Nope nope nope, that's all completely casual and self-realized.
|
And yet wizards must study arcane theories and amass knowledge of the rules of magic, forsaking the world around them to delve into unknown solitudes, dedicating their life to practice, routine, perfection, and study.
And yet they aren't required to be lawful.
Quote time again.
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.
Lawful: Devoted to order, rules, heirarchy, authority, and discipline over self-expression and self-discipline.
Chaos: Against order, rules, hierarchy, authority, and discipline in favor of self-expression and self-determination.
Very confusing.
|
|
Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law
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
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.
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.
|
|
To be more direct, you stating that Chaotic characters can't maintain a discipline tells me that they are all mentally handicapped. And you still do not answer why a wizard devoted to his discipline is not required to be Lawful as well.
Anecdote, my first character was a street urchin turned circus acrobat that developed his own fighting style out of his performance routine. Used the Monk class. How does Lawful fit that character?
I disagree with this entirely. Pretty much every monk I would want to use for inspiration for my chacter when playing the class I would put on the neutral or chaotic side. Easygoing and carefree in life, but totally dedicated to their training. And persuit of their training doesn't even have to be a lawful thing.
Umm can we have some names/examples?
Anecdote, my first character was a street urchin turned circus acrobat that developed his own fighting style out of his performance routine. Used the Monk class. How does Lawful fit that character?
Awesome, but its not a 'monk as written'... and thereisn lies the problem.
The 'Monk' could/should be replaced with something else that doesn't look like a 70's kung-fu film. ie 2nd Ed gladiators etc.
I don't understand. He had Tumble, was quick on his feet, and fought without a weapon or armor. How is that not a Monk as written?
Awesome, but its not a 'monk as written'... and thereisn lies the problem.
All the requirements to be a monk is to be able to Tumble, be quick on your feet and fight without weapon and armor?
I'm a MONK!
Oh look I got this rogue here that tumbles around quickly and took unarmed strike and doesn't wear armor because of his high Dex! He's a MONK!
A Wizard! Look he took ranks in tumble and is quick while fighting without armor or weapon -- he must be a MONK!
This barbarian that has improved unarmed strike that fights without armor must be a MONK as well!
A ranger trying to get closer to a "natural" world! MONK!
Okay so sarcasm aside just having improved unarmed strike =/= make you a monk. Having monk levels makes you a monk.
The idea is that monks get what they get because of a superior level of discipline and lawfulness that a person that isn't lawful simply couldn't maintain. Just as a Paladin must be lawful good in order to get his perks.
Yes as a nonlawful person someone might have a lot of trouble understanding this -- however I don't see that nonlawful person then doing what the monk can do. Why? Because they were too busy asking and not bothering because "This is stupid" Instead of focusing in and doing the training again like the monk did.
I don't understand. He had Tumble, was quick on his feet, and fought without a weapon or armor. How is that not a Monk as written?
Awesome, but its not a 'monk as written'... and thereisn lies the problem.All the requirements to be a monk is to be able to Tumble, be quick on your feet and fight without weapon and armor?
I'm a MONK!
Oh look I got this rogue here that tumbles around quickly and took unarmed strike and doesn't wear armor because of his high Dex! He's a MONK!
A Wizard! Look he took ranks in tumble and is quick while fighting without armor or weapon -- he must be a MONK!
This barbarian that has improved unarmed strike that fights without armor must be a MONK as well!
A ranger trying to get closer to a "natural" world! MONK!
Okay so sarcasm aside just having improved unarmed strike =/= make you a monk. Having monk levels makes you a monk.
The idea is that monks get what they get because of a superior level of discipline and lawfulness that a person that isn't lawful simply couldn't maintain. Just as a Paladin must be lawful good in order to get his perks.
Yes as a nonlawful person someone might have a lot of trouble understanding this -- however I don't see that nonlawful person then doing what the monk can do. Why? Because they were too busy asking and not bothering because "This is stupid" Instead of focusing in and doing the training again like the monk did.
He said he had monk class levels.
YAY! Alignment fight!!!
For my setting, I switched things up a bit and had a variety of monk orders, each with their own alignment. It makes some sense that monks be lawful, but not so much that there shouldn't be monks of other alignments.
Anecdote, my first character was a street urchin turned circus acrobat that developed his own fighting style out of his performance routine. Used the Monk class. How does Lawful fit that character?Awesome, but its not a 'monk as written'... and thereisn lies the problem.
The 'Monk' could/should be replaced with something else that doesn't look like a 70's kung-fu film. ie 2nd Ed gladiators etc.
So what your saying is that all Clerics must be in a church, and all wizards must have a tower, and all druids have to live out in the middle of nowhere?
Monk
For the truly exemplary, martial skill transcends the battlefield—it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind. These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade. These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers. Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be.
No where in the description does it say they have to be a part of an order. It doesn't really apply any fluff at all, except a dedication to perfecting themselves. Why can't chaotic characters have that passion?
And you asked for some examples. The ones I can picture readily all come from anime, Sura no Toki and Kenshin. The main characters of Sura no Toki are all light hearted and care free. They place a great importance on living unbound by rules and living your own life as you see fit. They also enjoy martial arts, and become completely different people once serious battles start. In Kenshin, Sanoske is a martial artist who is loud, brash and arrogant, but spends hours training his technique to a point where he can explode boulders with his fist. None of these characters are lawful. Some I would put at chaotic, others at neutral, but none of them are lawful, but they would all use the monk class.
He said he had monk class levels.
The issue for me is that people are saying "Monks shouldn't have to be lawful!" and are completely ignoring the fact that you don't have to have monk levels in order to fight unarmed, unarmored with tumbling while moving quickly.
for xJoe3x story:
Ok so the guy was trained by monks but hated it. This would be a perfect example of a rogue taking the feat improved unarmed strike. He never really accepted or fulfilled the training only "going through the motions" to get out of the beatings. He didn't really accept the training and rejected most of what it was that let the monks do what they did.
He said he had monk class levels.The issue for me is that people are saying "Monks shouldn't have to be lawful!" and are completely ignoring the fact that you don't have to have monk levels in order to fight unarmed, unarmored with tumbling while moving quickly.
for xJoe3x story:
Ok so the guy was trained by monks but hated it. This would be a perfect example of a rogue taking the feat improved unarmed strike. He never really accepted or fulfilled the training only "going through the motions" to get out of the beatings. He didn't really accept the training and rejected most of what it was that let the monks do what they did.
I guess it depends on what they want from the monk. They might have to take the class for certain things.
He said he had monk class levels.The issue for me is that people are saying "Monks shouldn't have to be lawful!" and are completely ignoring the fact that you don't have to have monk levels in order to fight unarmed, unarmored with tumbling while moving quickly.
No, I fully accept that any class can unarmed fight. That does not mean that the rule isn't stupid. Its a completely arbitrary addition to the class that does not add anything, and it prevents you from creating characters using the most appropriate class, and thus getting abilities that fit your concept. I also hate the non-lawful barbarian alignment restriction too, for the same reason. The Paladin has a strict code of conduct he must follow that grants him his powers, which come dirrectly from a god. The Barbarian and Monk do not have anything similar. The Paladin's restriction is to promote roleplay. The Monk's and Barbarian's inhibit it. The Paladin's class abilities are all alignment based, and wouldn't make sense on a player with a different alignment. The same cannot be said of the Barbarian or Monk.
The Monk fluff, as I posted above, has no mention that you must belong to an order. It talks about intense training. There is no reason this should be restricted to lawful people only. People don't seem to have a problem with players playing civilized barbarians, why do they have a problem with a-typical monks? There is actually more fluff restrictions in the barbarian description than in the monks.
|
|
The idea is that monks get what they get because of a superior level of discipline and lawfulness that a person that isn't lawful simply couldn't maintain. Just as a Paladin must be lawful good in order to get his perks.
Yes as a nonlawful person someone might have a lot of trouble understanding this -- however I don't see that nonlawful person then doing what the monk can do. Why? Because they were too busy asking and not bothering because "This is stupid" Instead of focusing in and doing the training again like the monk did.
Oh look, we're back to the 'Chaotic people have a mental handicap and can't focus on one thing' bit again.
...You could argue for any of the good alignments for the above character. Strong personal codes? Lawful good. Willingness if not eagerness to throw down the corrupt rulers of the land? Chaotic good. Wishing only to bring about good and peace, regardless of those that do and don't rule the countryside? Neutral good. But while the paladin has a code of conduct, the monk...doesn't. The paladin gives a reason for it's alignment. The monk doesn't have any use or mention of Xia codes or Bushido or Buddhist philosophy or any of that. The monk is just a really uptight dude who punches people while wearing pajamas.
.
The monk is just a really uptight dude who punches people while wearing pajamas.
That is one hilarious picture- it's almost like a regular steroid user running around adventuring in his nighties.
I think the difference between the monk and other classes is that the monk try to become herself perfect in mind and body.
It's not a matter of focusing yourself in a single task, training or something. But a matter of improving yourself instead of improving your knowledge of the Universe, improving your moves, or improving any skill. Since the monk try to become perfect, her moves become perfect, her knowledge become perfect, and so on ; but that was never her goal, at best it was her means to improve herself.
Other classes have a different approach ; for example a wizard try to control the Universe, using his knowledge of the Universe (and the knowledge of the way the Universe will react to some incantation, magical word, etc), but she never try to be the source of her own power : she only try to control another source of power. The monk try to be the source of their own power.
Improving yourself is quite a Lawful way of living ; chaotic way of living is more "I have flaws, and I don't care - they doesn't prevent me to master my art, and I accept myself the way I am". (and, do I have to precise that it's only my own interpretation of alignment ? Which is not universal, you don't have to remind me about that ?)
Still, I find the monk mechanic is very clumsy. Some abilities have a good flavor : Still Mind, overcoming DR, Purity of Body, etc, and the capstone (the monk reach a perfect state, so that she's no longer an humanoid...). But many others are only "pajama kung-fu guy", which should be accessible to anyone without alignment restriction. And it doesn't even make any sense that every single people who try to reach perfection are all kung-fu fighter (or doesn't get any power from their personal improvements)...
Just because you try to improve yourself doesn't mean that you are lawful, and I can just as easily give non-lawful characters the same powers and make the flavor still fit. For instance, a chaotic character figures out how to make his body do what he wants, and so he never has to age and poison can't figure out how to affect him.
I still feel like you are putting the class in a pigeon hole that it doesn't need. One that hurts more than helps.
Oh look, we're back to the 'Chaotic people have a mental handicap and can't focus on one thing' bit again.The idea is that monks get what they get because of a superior level of discipline and lawfulness that a person that isn't lawful simply couldn't maintain. Just as a Paladin must be lawful good in order to get his perks.
Yes as a nonlawful person someone might have a lot of trouble understanding this -- however I don't see that nonlawful person then doing what the monk can do. Why? Because they were too busy asking and not bothering because "This is stupid" Instead of focusing in and doing the training again like the monk did.
Honestly if not having in you to completely commit to something is a handicap then yes. Personally I think the thought that not being able to commit to something is a handicap is more than a little insulting. I didn't say just chaotic people and I didn't say that it's not an overzealous commitment on the part of the lawful person.
In Fact it could be the exact opposite -- the lawful person might be the handicapped one being all OCD and therefore unable to leave the training alone. At any rate this is a supposition on your behalf and doesn't actually fit into the alignment discussion at all -- your argument on this is a logical fallacy by the way: The specific one is the Fallacy of Composition (because what I'm discribing has characteristics simliar to some forms of retardation, or insanity then it must mean everyone of this time is retarded or insane, it could also be a false dilemma).
But in the long run it's the same thing that causes the lawful person to inherently want to follow laws and respect traditions and that causes the chaotic person to automatically question laws and give a second look at traditions. The chaotic person might not disobey all laws, but he certainly doesn't see a need for them. Where as the lawful person generally sees laws as necessary for the continuing of everything.
The question doesn't really reduce down to "This is a stupid thing and has no bearing" this reduces down to "I hate alignment and don't have a use for it's mechanics in my game."
That doesn't mean such mechanics aren't worthy or don't work -- but then I don't expect you chaotic people to understand that either.
EDIT:
IN FACT in pathfinder Law and Chaos are not just personal decision: They are forces of universal importance that people, gods, and things align themselves with. They are more than simply "I'm more inclined to follow the law, and he's less inclined"
The follow support and espouse different philosophies and methods for doing tasks.
I refer to the following:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
These titles don't just give arbitrary rules -- they are supposed to help follow and support the character's personality and worldview. Yes the rogue above (he isn't really a monk) refuted parts of the training and regiment that the monks espoused -- that's part of what made their system work. Without that extra bit he's still not a monk.
I still think there is a vast gulf between being lawful and being Lawfully aligned...
The question doesn't really reduce down to "This is a stupid thing and has no bearing" this reduces down to "I hate alignment and don't have a use for it's mechanics in my game."
No, its entirely that the mechanic gets in the way and does not have a bearing on the character. While I am not the biggest proponent of the alignment system, I believe it has a strong and valid use. Very rarely do I have any problem putting an alignment on my character concept. The problem is that a completely arbitrary class restriction that has no bearing on gameplay is interfearing with my character concept. I can conceptualize and justify non-lawful monks and lawful barbarians.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
These titles don't just give arbitrary rules -- they are supposed to help follow and support the character's personality and worldview. Yes the rogue above (he isn't really a monk) refuted parts of the training and regiment that the monks espoused -- that's part of what made their system work. Without that extra bit he's still not a monk.
So I cannot create a monk order that is about following your own path, creating your own way, and doing what is right.
"Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
"Only freedom can unlock your true potential. You must free your soul. We can show you a way, but you will have to learn it on your own." Sounds like a great philosophy for an order of monks to me, but completely prevented by the rules.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
These titles don't just give arbitrary rules -- they are supposed to help follow and support the character's personality and worldview. Yes the rogue above (he isn't really a monk) refuted parts of the training and regiment that the monks espoused -- that's part of what made their system work. Without that extra bit he's still not a monk.
So I cannot create a monk order that is about following your own path, creating your own way, and doing what is right.
"Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have...
Couldn't you show the Ciphers from Planescape as being more or less non-lawful monks? "Action without thought" and "Do not think; do" and all that. I know they had the clause of any neutral alignment.
I still think there is a vast gulf between being lawful and being Lawfully aligned...How so if you are lawful as a person your alignment is supposed to reflect that.
Big L, little l
I will always do what my random "What do I do" generator tells me.
I am lawful as I will always do what it says. However I am not Lawful as described by an artificial game construct because some actions may lead me to Chaotic behaviour as described by an artificial game construct.
I am a lawful monk as I follow a strict regime which will allow me to pull off neat tricks and enter Nirvana. I always go to sleep early and wake early everyday to practice my Art. Nothing will stop me from being true to my personal path to enlightenment. I am at one with my self and the world around me.
However because I only care for my self, dislike all authority and activly fight against it I am not Lawful.
This is directed at Prof Cirno:
What would you do with the monk class? How would you change it to reflect your views of what a monk 'should' be?
For the record, I really like the things you have to say in this thread, and is, perhaps, one of the only reasons I'm following it at the moment.
Couldn't you show the Ciphers from Planescape as being more or less non-lawful monks? "Action without thought" and "Do not think; do" and all that. I know they had the clause of any neutral alignment.
Was thinking that earlier too. Yes, I believe they would be a great example of monks of any alignment.
This is directed at Prof Cirno:
What would you do with the monk class? How would you change it to reflect your views of what a monk 'should' be?
For the record, I really like the things you have to say in this thread, and is, perhaps, one of the only reasons I'm following it at the moment.
Putting them behind spoilers since oh god this is long.
Well, mechanically, I drastically prefer the swordsage class :3. But for those of those who dislike ToB, I've removed the alignment neccesity altogether. Honestly, when you think of monk-style villains, they're typically hilariously chaotic evil ;p. Also, here's a copy/paste of some things my group has done:
"Fighters should always have 'PUNCH TO THE FACE' as an option." - ProfessorCirno, known genius
As my group very much dislikes the ToB, I don't really have that option (though my group is close-minded with some books, i'm not). But I really like your 'fixes' to the monk, and the game in general (enchanting). To be honest, I half expected several 'home brew' classes that you created for your games. =)
I'm curious. What other "class fixes" do you have? Assuming a "core" came, that is?
A P.M. system would be great for things like this, instead of threadjacking other's threads.. lol
RE the OP: I don't see an issue with removing the "Lawful" requirement.
We've been toying with seperating wealth from magical items, or at least, the "Big 6" from MIC. Wealth is instead kept as an abstract - it doesn't buy magical gear. Keep in mind, mundane gear can be pretty awesome; keeps, manors, thieves' guilds, wizard towers, oiled up servant men, half-elf maids.
Magic items likewise come in three flavors. The "Big 6" from MIC are simple character buffs they "buy" with their <whatever> points for themselves. Other wonderous items like boots that let you fly or the ROD OF ROPES, the best item ever, can be flat our purchased and used normally.
There's a bit in the homebrew section on it, and my comment is here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/anAlternativeToMagicItemsPleaseReview&pa ge=1#33
Lastly, items that players want to buy that I deem really cool? They don't buy the item. They buy the quest.
One thing a DM of mine did in one game where we had a paladin was let the paladin "buy" a Holy Avenger. But instead of flat out buying the sword, he "bought" a series of rumors in a local town of a nearby crypt that had fallen into disarray, with the former champion that was buried there being corrupted and enslaved by a demon. We go in, do the quest, and at the end, he gets a Holy Avenger as a part of it. It's a pretty awesome idea that I've been thinking of wholesale stealing from him.
That's really awesome actually. Mind if I use that, Prof?