It occurs to me that monks (generally being a Kung Fu Bruce Lee martial artist kind of character) don't really belong in a high fantasy setting in a way if you really look at the genre, High Fantasy having it's origins from Tolkien's books (at least it appears that way)... and as kick butt as it would have been to see Frodo trying in vain to outrun a squad of high flying orc monks shouting kiais as they tried to take the ring back to the east (Mordor is in the east... get it? *crickets chirp* Nothing? Huh.), I just couldn't really see it fitting the genre.
Monks exist because folks in 2nd ed liked playing Oriental Adventures characters so much that they integrated it into 3.0 D&D as a core class. In hindsight, and I know many people who play monks may disagree, but was that a good choice thematically? I know it's tough for my players to play monks in my games due to the repetitiveness of the whole "oh, he came from the east with no quantifiable backstory there because the party will never go there so it's irrelevant" thing.
I'd love to know what other folks think. Are martial arts too "eastern" for a sword and sorcery/high fantasy genre game?
As a side note, I remember back in 2nd ed when per the Oriental Adventures book -everyone- wanted to have somehow gotten ahold of a katana for their character because statistically (by that book) it was a superior weapon. Yes I know that was not the case in real life, but man do I remember "katana fever" in D&D...
Monks don't fit every campaign- they really don't fit into Tolkien. But many campaigns take place in a world that has countries not based on Europe (all of my home brew had an Asian analogue) and a fantasy world doesn't have to follow the patterns created be history. The monastic orders of Europe could have developed martial arts, there's not reason they couldn't have. they just didn't.
If they don't fit your campaign don't have them. I have a DM that doesn't allow them or druids (he has a hate-on for druids, can figure out why...)
.
I'd love to know what other folks think. Are martial arts too "eastern" for a sword and sorcery/high fantasy genre game?
Martial arts meaning kung fu?
Because the term martial arts is any art of martial combat. Both East and West.The name Monk does mean Eastern in context, but Martial Artist as a class name is neutral.
To be honest a martial art is any organized fighting tradition. Fencing and Boxing are martial arts. that said the monk is an eastern flavored class- it combines many concepts from several asian martial arts and rolls it together. That said, a fantasy culture could be based on both eastern and western ideas.
I would like to point out that the terms Mage and Magus come from the middle east origionaly...
Monks exist because folks in 2nd ed liked playing Oriental Adventures characters so much that they integrated it into 3.0 D&D as a core class. In hindsight, and I know many people who play monks may disagree, but was that a good choice thematically? I know it's tough for my players to play monks in my games due to the repetitiveness of the whole "oh, he came from the east with no quantifiable backstory there because the party will never go there so it's irrelevant" thing.
Actually, the Monk was put back into the game in 3.0 after being pulled out in 2nd edition (although it did show up again in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook for Greyhawk). It was put back into the core book for 3.0.
Thematically? Well, in a way, yes. Because D&D doesn't have to be Tolkien-esque fantasy. It can be oriental fantasy, it can be whole-world fantasy, it can be European, Russian, British, Native American, Greek, Roman or Stone Age. You could play a Mongol-themed campaign, or African, or even Indian or something that has nothing to do with Earth history (the original Dark Sun setting, for ex.).
So, simply as an example of what's possible it fits well. In a Tolkien-esque fantasy world? Maybe not. But who knows? There's a whole other world out there in Middle Earth. There could be monks in other parts of the world.
It's the DM's choice for his campaign ultimately. Just like allowing clerics, wizards or paladins.
|
For those that say the monk doesn't really belong in a high fantasy setting, I say look no further than the Bloodguard from The Thomas Covenant series. I'm not a big fan of those books, but I loved the Bloodguard. Sure the Pathfinder monk has obvious Asian origins, but that doesn't always have to be the case.
Also, while the overtones of the Monk class seems eastern in flavor, if you check you will find a multitude of countries have many different forms of unarmed combat that monks could represent.
For example the French kick boxing of Savate, the South American Capoeira or Nigerian Dambe you can find any sort of unarmed martial art that can be a 'monk' character from a setting of your choice.
The question is not are monks appropriate but are unarmed martial artists appropriate and the answer is yes. While the most well know due to movies are the eastern martial arts even a quick look at Wikipedia will show you that there have been martial arts all over the world. Just flavor your monk appropriately and your fine.
|
|
Thematically? Well, in a way, yes. Because D&D doesn't have to be Tolkien-esque fantasy. It can be oriental fantasy, it can be whole-world fantasy, it can be European, Russian, British, Native American, Greek, Roman or Stone Age. You could play a Mongol-themed campaign, or African, or even Indian or something that has nothing to do with Earth history (the original Dark Sun setting, for ex.).
Pretty much this for me. As as far as I'm concerned, D&D hasn't been "Western European" by default for a long time. It has never been that by default for me during my time playing it. That and, as said upthread, monks don't have to be from an Asian analogue.
For me, martial artists are as much a part of my generic fantasy-land expectations as barbarians, wizards, and paladins.
|
Actually if you want to use Tolkien as your sole force for inspiration for D&D, by the way it is not, then you would most definitely have and use monks.
If you pay any attention to LotR's you would notice many references to Easterlingsand their conflicts in places like the battle of Pelennor fields.
Monks of the supernatural type of chop socky or Wuxia have been played since the basic book of 1st ed. Ad&d.
|
Monks were in 1e, though I don't remember anyone ever playing one.
I think Monks could be made to fit in a quasi-medieval fantasy setting by just changing the weapons and some of the terminology.
Sickles, quarterstaves, hand-axes, flails, scythes, etc. -- weapons associated with simple agrarian/pastoral tools.
Change "Ki" points to "Spirit" points or something...
Think Friar Tuck instead of Kung Fu.
That's it exactly. Nearly everything about the Monk screams the Eastern version... it'd be cool if they "generic'd" the class up a bit and gave them some non-Eastern weapons to use.
Think Friar Tuck instead of Kung Fu.
I am playing a Monk like that right now. His martial art is wrestling (lots of Grappling). I know historically European Monks didn't practice martial arts, but it works for me! :)
They can use Short Swords and Hand Axes, even Crossbows. Pretty 'Western' stuff...
|
|
Monks were in 1e, though I don't remember anyone ever playing one.
I think Monks could be made to fit in a quasi-medieval fantasy setting by just changing the weapons and some of the terminology.
Sickles, quarterstaves, hand-axes, flails, scythes, etc. -- weapons associated with simple agrarian/pastoral tools.
Change "Ki" points to "Spirit" points or something...
Think Friar Tuck instead of Kung Fu.
Suddenly having visions of Porky Pig as Friar Tuck.....
You could make him a greek wrestler...
|
|
Think Friar Tuck instead of Kung Fu.I am playing a Monk like that right now. His martial art is wrestling (lots of Grappling). I know historically European Monks didn't practice martial arts, but it works for me! :)
They can use Short Swords and Hand Axes, even Crossbows. Pretty 'Western' stuff...
Savate
Canne de CombatFencing
Pankration (taken by the way from Greece to India by Alexander the Great)
Wrestling
Boxing
Sambo
To name a few. Change the Ki pool name to something else and adjust the monk weapons a bit, blammo you have a new class that is more western in feel.
|
|
If you want a great example of non-Eastern monks, try R.A. Salvatore's DemonWar series. The Abellican Order were renowned for their unarmed fighting prowess (and their use of gem magic as well). In addition the world of Corona also had the Jhesta-tu which were what we would consider Asian-flavor monks.
Now I've got the image of a Greased up Porky Pig in hand and leg-wraps, stuttering. "Taste my wr-r-wr-r, my wr-wr-r-wr, ah, C-come and get it!"
Much love for Bouncing Spell, most certainly handy for those lesser spells that don't see much attention, glad to see the Drunken Rager/Master is in (must get copy of APG). My eyes are glued to this thread.
|
That's it exactly. Nearly everything about the Monk screams the Eastern version... it'd be cool if they "generic'd" the class up a bit and gave them some non-Eastern weapons to use.
Nothing forces you to use the printed flavor. My monk is a street urchin who joined the circus and turned his acrobat routine into a fighting style. Nothing Eastern about it. And you don't get much more non-Eastern than a length of chain. :)
If you want a great example of non-Eastern monks, try R.A. Salvatore's DemonWar series. The Abellican Order were renowned for their unarmed fighting prowess (and their use of gem magic as well). In addition the world of Corona also had the Jhesta-tu which were what we would consider Asian-flavor monks.
Ahhhh I totally forgot about the Demonwar Trilogy! You're right, that's a solid example of western martial artist monks. Good books, btw.
The thing is, 99% of the examples of martial arts monks are Eastern kung fu/shaolin types, and I'm pretty sure the class was based off those 99%... the weapon proficiencies and the ki pool are the main reasons.
You could indeed alter the class to "westernize" it, but there are a lot of DMs out there that won't allow anything that isn't core rules as written. I certainly don't expect Paizo to publish an alt Monk class with a more western feel, but it would be really awesome if they did.
That's it exactly. Nearly everything about the Monk screams the Eastern version... it'd be cool if they "generic'd" the class up a bit and gave them some non-Eastern weapons to use.Nothing forces you to use the printed flavor. My monk is a street urchin who joined the circus and turned his acrobat routine into a fighting style. Nothing Eastern about it. And you don't get much more non-Eastern than a length of chain. :)
Why am I picturing your urchin with a roit cockney accent? *Laughs*
Depends on "the genre."
Tolkien, no. But D&D is only partially Tolkien inspired (arguably, wizards that can actually cast fricking spells aren't Tolkienesque) and it's come a long way. The "genre" is really what your own campaign world makes the genre.
I don't like mixing "obviously Asian inspired" monks in with general European nation, no. But there's a lot of other historical inspiration for unarmed and semi-unarmed fighting - from Little John (friar with staff!) to ethnic fighting techniques - pankration, etc.
In my campaign right now there's a guy who is a Bonuwat Mwangi monk, who does Maori type uanrmed fighting as his implementation of martial arts.
It's also reasonably easy to shift the exact monk powers and weapon selection to match something more setting appropriate.
|
|
Why am I picturing your urchin with a roit cockney accent? *Laughs*If I could do it consistently I'd go for it. XD
"Please sir, may I have some more?"
"You may have more when you can snatch it from my hand."
"Please sir, may I have some more?"
"You may have more when you can snatch it from my hand."
Beautiful.
And on that note, I really think a traditional religious european monk has a place in the game. Limited wpn proficencies, lay on hands and mercies ala paladins, some limited spell like abilities (bless, remove curse/disease, etc) and 6 or 8 skill points would be awesome. Sort of a mix of bard and cleric if you will.
"Please sir, may I have some more?"
"You may have more when you can snatch it from my hand."
Beautiful.
And on that note, I really think a traditional religious european monk has a place in the game. Limited wpn proficencies, lay on hands and mercies ala paladins, some limited spell like abilities (bless, remove curse/disease, etc) and 6 or 8 skill points would be awesome. Sort of a mix of bard and cleric if you will.
You mean a modified version of the Adept?
You mean a modified version of the Adept?"Please sir, may I have some more?"
"You may have more when you can snatch it from my hand."
Beautiful.
And on that note, I really think a traditional religious european monk has a place in the game. Limited wpn proficencies, lay on hands and mercies ala paladins, some limited spell like abilities (bless, remove curse/disease, etc) and 6 or 8 skill points would be awesome. Sort of a mix of bard and cleric if you will.
Maybe... (I haven't looked too closely at the adept to be honest.)
I was however thinking of a couple of different trees they could pursue similar to rogue tricks or barbarian rage powers.
-Influence - where they exert the power of organized religion on the local powerholders and commoners to get favors, reduced prices on gear, charisma bonuses against NPC's etc
-Piety - giving them more non-offensive spells (both frequency and variety) for spell like abilities from the cleric list, maybe also divine bonuses to saves
-Knowledge - skill focus as bonus feats and a new version of bardic knowledge (fewer knowledges, but a couple of other skills)
Monks as they are most commonly interpreted, no. All of the common conceptions of the monk is of the Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan variety, and don't fit squarely into the Occidental societies typical of most PF/D&D games.
That being said, it doesn't mean that the class cannot be fit into the game, it just means that you need to change your conception. As with all the classes, the monk is just a collection of abilities that combine in one (relatively) well-balanced package. There is nothing that says there needs to be any mysticism or philosophy driving the monk, that is all purely RP.
In one of the PF campaigns I have been in recently, I played a monk, just to see how the new monk rules stacked up against 3.5, particularly in regards to combat maneuvers. In order to fit the (vaguely) occidental feel I expected from the campaign, I stripped out the idea of any monastic order or philosophy, and just looked at his raw abilities. What I saw was an athlete and a brawler. So, my character became an over-competitive barroom tough with a heart of gold. He drinks a lot, tries to solve all his problems with his fists and feet, and knows next to nothing about 'philosophy'.
He does know right from wrong, and what the gods are all about (his ma told him at her knee), and he doesn't hold with people who cause trouble for no reason. He doesn't get into fights when it isn't the right thing to do. He never throws the first punch in the bar, but when the fight starts, he makes sure it doesn't get too rough. He can run faster, climb higher, and swim better than everyone around him, and he knows it. He's also obscenely healthy, and will eventually be able to draw on his prodigious health to get a 'second wind' whenever he really needs it.
Bottom line is, look at the abilities (for ANY class) without RP fluff. You can mold them to fit the concept or the campaign fairly easy, it just takes a little work and imagination.
Quite frankly, the monk as it exists now isn't eastern in the slightest. I see no traces of Buddhist aesthetics, I see no mention of taboos or religious practices, I see no insight into the characters' beliefs or understandings of the universe.
The monk is as western as it gets - that is to say, it's an absolutely terrible copy of an even more terrible racist 70's kung fu genre. Not really Paizo's fault, it's the sins of the forefather (lookin' at you, 1e)
As for the "genre" being Tolkien-esque, god no. When someone says they're doing a "EUROPE ONLY" game, that's my sign to leave. "High fantasy" as is categorized by settings such as Forgotten Realms is the worst gaming experience imaginable.
For those that say the monk doesn't really belong in a high fantasy setting, I say look no further than the Bloodguard from The Thomas Covenant series. I'm not a big fan of those books, but I loved the Bloodguard. Sure the Pathfinder monk has obvious Asian origins, but that doesn't always have to be the case.
+1.
Back in the 1.e days I adapted The Land and ran a short-lived campaign. Great fun.The Bloodguard were awesome. Monks on steroids!
Seriously good read, too. I highly recommend the first trilogy and I liked the second too.
Lord Foul's Bane is a helluva title too, thats what first hooked me.
To me the only thing that makes them Asian is the weapon list. Monks can fit any culture or setting if ya want them to
Well, we're all rather intelligent beings, Let's see what we can do to turn the "monk" into a "priest" without stepping on the Cleric's toes overmuch.
First thing that can be subbed out is the "Fast Movement". It's got static increases, so why not trade it for the Paladin's "Lay on Hands", using Wisdom as the modifier to the 3+x/day?
I like the AC bonus counting as maybe the "Armor of Faith" flavor, so I'm not suggesting anything.
Keep the BAB and Saves, but the "Special" category is where I admit inexperience. Sub "Flurry" for limited spellcasting? A Domain, perhaps? Maybe a tailored spell list? Priest could be heals/buffs (but also Bane/Doom, but does that tread on the Witch's territory?)
Still Mind, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Mind/Soul can stand along with the others later (timeless body, empty body, perfect self) probably as a function of "Living the Example", with Wholeness of Body counting as a benefit to the Priest using his "Lay on Hands" on himself which would double the amount of healing received?
Slow Fall's got increments that are begging for something, but I can't think of what I'd like to say "Channel Energy", but it doesn't feel right... Lose evasion and sub imp evasion for Mettle/Tenacity?
I'm out of ideas atm.. anyone care to offer suggestions?
|
I wouldn't mind seeing a primal sort of 'monk' that subbed out the various faux Asian things (particularly the weapons) for animalistic fighting styles. The 'monk' becomes more of a hermit that lives in the woods to commune with nature, and master the grappling techniques of the bear, the swift and deadly strikes of the viper, the evasive combat style of the weasel, etc. Everything is based off of animal traits, and includes some supernatural effects, at higher levels, as the lessons of the bird allow incredible leaps and the lessons of the adder teach one to 'poison' another spiritually with precise strikes.
The 'monk' increases in speed as she runs with the wolves, and soon can outrun even the leaping gazelle, and while she evades strikes with the grace of the hummingbird, her skin also becomes thick, like that of the crocodile (replace the monk's per level improvements to AC with natural armor bonuses of equal value).
Unarmed attacks emulate the claws of the panther or the fangs of the wolf, and can inflict slashing or piercing damage, perhaps replacing some other monk utility.
Such a 'monk' would work well alongside barbarians, rangers and druids, as a more natural-themed sort of character, using the fighting techniques of the natural world to test and challenge themself against the world, without plating up in bulky armor or constructing artificial weaponry.
At the risk of getting all Airbender-y, the most advanced adepts of these arts might PrC into classes that give them actual supernatural ties to the natural elements, adopting the fighting style of fire or water, air or earth.
OOH!! You've inspired me! *rummages for a quote*
Okay, now, there are four main classifications of methods;
what are called the Classical Styles. These are Earth, Air,
Fire and Water. And Void, but that's a special case. Each
classical style is marked by its own particular approach to
opposition, meaning that each style moves in a particular way
and chooses attacks and defenses by a particular method.Earth is unsubtle -- it relies on its power and resilience to
either put its opposition in an untenable position and smash
it, or simply to wear it down by attrition.Water is gradual --it takes its time and flows through its
opposition, finding weak points or creating them by erosion,
and then building strength to exploit them.Air is indirect -- it stays out of the way and draws its
opposition into making a mistake, or simply overextends it by
forcing it to cover more than it has resources for.Fire, lastly, is focused -- it gathers all its strength into
a single burst that cannot be withstood.
It makes sense, but having these styles would require benefits to them. Bonus Damage for Fire, Additional DR for Earth, Maybe an Increasing Mechanic for Water (Offensive/Defensive Metered Foot?), Bonus Speed for Air as well as Wind/Lightning Stance?
Ok, so why is the alignment stipulation that you have to be Lawful if not to feed into the "I must be rooted in the tao" Eastern Martial Artist aspect? That doesn't really flow too well for the "Barroom Brawler" concept imo. Then again, I hate that Barbarians can't be Lawful... I could totally see a Lawful Neutral Barbarian who cares about honor above all else.
The discipline necessary to achieve the things the monk gains as he levels. Most of the monk's abilities come from developing him/herself beyond most normal capabilities through rigorous regular training. Chaos (Impulsiveness) would (by the definition, at least) would not be able to focus enough to maintain the training. At least, that is how I interpret it.
That said, the APG thread has a Brawler type for the Barbarian, I believe, and probably one for the fighter as well.
In a quite western style (as wll as dungeonpunk influenced) like the Warcraft one, there are monks in the Scarlet Crusade, a western-style organization (they are sort of religious phanaticals, have paladins and priest and mages along with monks).
They fit very well - se the dungeon "scarlet monastery". I'm pretty sure the authors quoted with nostalgia Greyhawk, and did a goood job.
Said this, it depends from the DM. In some of my games, the DRUID don't fit well with a setting full of ninjas (rogues), samurai (fighters), sohei (paladins), yamabushi (sorceres), and monks (monk).
;)
Ok, so why is the alignment stipulation that you have to be Lawful if not to feed into the "I must be rooted in the tao" Eastern Martial Artist aspect? That doesn't really flow too well for the "Barroom Brawler" concept imo. Then again, I hate that Barbarians can't be Lawful... I could totally see a Lawful Neutral Barbarian who cares about honor above all else.
Well, for starters, because the tao isn't really rooted in purely lawful activity. That's more Confucianism, which is lawful to the g@%++&n max. Heck, Buddhism is called the Middle Way for a reason.
The lawful bit was again due to "Monks are those crazy asian kung fu guys who all live in monestaries, right?" One could easily look at many different eastern religions that do indeed have monasteries and conclude them to be chaotic rather then lawful. Or just bypassing alignment altogether (Lookin' at you, Zen, with your crazy lawful-chaotic alignment).
The problem with trying to hold monks as being an actual eastern character rather then "Terrible 70's kung fu" character is that it doesn't hit most the notes needed for an eastern martial arts style. Look at the weapons. Where's the spear, the multiple types of sword, the short blade, the club? The only true martial arts weapon they have is the dang staff - and they hold it wrong! No, their weapon choice again comes straight out of the 70's - these wacky eastern peasant weapons that fit in nowhere.
Ugh. I hate monks :|
I recently played a LawfulEvil Dwarven Monk... He was a Top-Ranking gladiator who killed countless adversaries with his bare hands.
Is that D&D enough? I mean, most classes fit an overall concept, but the flavor and backgrounding of the character, in the end, is up to the player.
Just as much as a Rogue can be a stupid, strong and sturdy thug, it can be a weakling afraid of fighting with an enormous amount of tricks up his sleeve.
Same goes for the monk.
|
|
Really the only complaint about the Monk is the name. I wish it was something else, but I really don't know what could replace it. Martial Artist is a really bad replacement for it.
Even if there was a another name appended to it like "Akashic Monk" would make me happier, but even my example is a poor one. "Sky Monk" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Given my understanding of how the Monk came about in Greyhawk, makes me more forgiving on the setting issues. And when I look at the whole of Paizo's setting, it doesn't really strike me as being very "Tolken". It's much more pulp than Tolken. Sure some Tolken bleeds in, but is just a taste.
So basicly, I like the class, I hate that the class name steals so much from a rich concept of fantasy and historical lore, The western monk was very importaint to real history and its all but eclipsed in d20. And I'm just to lazy to do anything about it, mostly because I just run PFS games.
Personally, when the time comes and they do discuss the Tian Xia lands I hope there is a sidebar about easter mystics spreading out about the globe and spreading thier teachings about their art to students around the world and then just disappearing. And then those students take those lessons and molding them into all the differant styles that would exist in the world that is Golaron today.
I never have been crazy about Monks. They would be more interesting if they had a few more Western characteristics about them.
There is one thing that always drove me insane about Monks. They have access to all these really cool weapons, but their class features make these weapons obsolete within a few levels. I've never understood that, and I never will.
|
|
Monks go ALL the way back in Dungeons and Dragons. The first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players' Guide describes the class. A monk did not often live to see second level, and they weren't allowed to keep treasure, but they were there.
As for comparing PF to LOTR, dwarf women in PF don't even have beards! I mean, come on! LOTR does not have gnomes or kobolds or good dragons, and elves don't have those absurd ears.
LOTR is LOTR. Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Yes, the late Mr. Gygax and the others at TSR used LOTR as inspiration for the world of Greyhawk, but only as inspiration, not as a template to be slavishly copied.
And I like playing a monk character. So there. Nyaah.
|
That's it exactly. Nearly everything about the Monk screams the Eastern version... it'd be cool if they "generic'd" the class up a bit and gave them some non-Eastern weapons to use.
Simple houserule I use, kama does not exist, sickle is a monk weapon in the description of sickle add the line, "sometimes referred to as a kama..." since the sickle is also known as a kama I don't need to change monk proficiencies or modules, because if it says kama, it's a sickle. This means you're a lot more likely to come across a monk weapon in game other than the quarterstaff.
It occurs to me that monks (generally being a Kung Fu Bruce Lee martial artist kind of character) don't really belong in a high fantasy setting in a way if you really look at the genre, High Fantasy having it's origins from Tolkien's books (at least it appears that way)... and as kick butt as it would have been to see Frodo trying in vain to outrun a squad of high flying orc monks shouting kiais as they tried to take the ring back to the east (Mordor is in the east... get it? *crickets chirp* Nothing? Huh.), I just couldn't really see it fitting the genre.
D&D is not Tolkien. In fact, by modern standards, Lord of the Rings is fairly low-fantasy; Gandalf pretty much only casts one spell on-screen, and that's an exorcism. Mostly, he just stabs people. About the only magic items among the entire party are a ring of invisibility and a few cloaks of elvenkind.
While the fantasy genre as we know it may have been born from the works of Tolkien, D&D and the genre in general have long since grown beyond them. Look at the stuff going on in 3.5/PF; a mid-level character's expected to have a whole Iron Man suite of magic items, mages are chucking spells left and right, robocrabs are a core magic item, giant robotic demon spiders are a core enemy, centaur robocop is a core monster, you can plane shift to heaven to have tea with gods and be back in time for supper, you've got critters from mythologies all over the world, east and west.
D&D is not Tolkien's fantasy. It's pulp fantasy, closer to Exalted than to Lord of the Rings. Monks quite firmly belong in pulp fantasy.
If you're going for Tolkien, then Burning Wheel is a far truer game to the source material.
And on that note, I really think a traditional religious european monk has a place in the game. Limited wpn proficencies, lay on hands and mercies ala paladins, some limited spell like abilities (bless, remove curse/disease, etc) and 6 or 8 skill points would be awesome. Sort of a mix of bard and cleric if you will.You mean a modified version of the Adept?
The Archivist is pretty much the western monk class.
My only complaint about the Monk class is that there has never been a good class mechanic written in any core book. This is crazy because there has been good monk class material written in non-core (eg, Best of Dragon (gold cover)). The current monk class needs heavy rewrite and I'd start by stealing heavily from the psionic warrior.
It amuses me that a lot of the best Monks (at least in 3.5) are the ones who have 1-4 levels in the class then stick to other classes. Ascetic Hunter, Ascetic Rouge, Tashalatora. Just take one of those and progress your unarmed strike with Ranger/Rogue/Psychic Warrior.