|
Then again, if you're drawing on Celtic lore and Norse lore and Greek/Roman lore and Christian lore, you're already in such a ridiculous and asynchronous mishmash that a Monk ain't about to stick out in the least. "European" is far from a unified theme. The Tain and the Iliad and Paradise Lost and whichever version of the Arthurian legends you prefer have about as much to do with each other as they have with the Mahabharata.Druids-Ancient Celtic pre christian order: European
Bards- Class based off both the Bards of the Celts, Skalds of the Norse, and Jogulars of Medieval France--Also European.
Large Dominant empire that is a center of civilization who survives in a reduced form as a sceaming remnant. Sounds like Rome, whose rise and fall underlies modern European History.
Dwarves and Elves: Norse Myth w/ some Celtic/sidhe flavoring for the elves, even the original inspiration for the url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trow_%28folklore%29]Drow[/url].
Paladin: Class based originally on the Knights of Europe. It has evolved from that but basically the arch typical "palidin" are the Crusaders and Medieval legends like Sir Galahad.
Vampires in game: Based off Eastern European legend as interpreted through an Irishman.I could go on, and on, and on. But I make my point. The Base setting and many of the creatures pulled on first be they Dragons or Goblins or or whatever, most of them are European. I stand by my 80%.
The fact that you didn't even know that Druids were based off European history and myths, even the shapechanging in game (Song of Tuan, Ireland).
Now let's turn it around. Name 10 things that you think of as non European inspired that are not obviously inspired by something else, like the Monk, Genies etc. I bet I can show the European 'inspiration' for about 80% of them. It doesn't mean they haven't evolved. However, they're still there.
All the Best,
Kerney
That's a fair way of seeing it. But to me European includes all the those cultures that got mashed together between say 500 B.C. and 1500. By that standard I can both of us being 'right' just by slightly different definitions. I think there is a lot of this going on in this argument when we're debating in a lot of ways how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
All the Best,
Kerney
The Druid class was inspired by Celtic Druids, without a shadow of a doubt.It's not like Gygax specifically stated that to be the case... Oh, wait, yes he did, in the 1e Player's Handbook. And I assume he would be in a position to know where the inspiration for his own class came from. I'm having a hard time thinking of stronger support for your statement than that!
But like the monk not being based on real Buddhist monks, but on 1970s movie versions, the druid was based not on real Celtic druids, but on myths, legends, and tales about them. And that's the point: it's a fantasy game, not a historical game.
Thank you, couldn't agree more.
That's a fair way of seeing it. But to me European includes all the those cultures that got mashed together between say 500 B.C. and 1500. By that standard I can both of us being 'right' just by slightly different definitions. I think there is a lot of this going on in this argument when we're debating in a lot of ways how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Yet, with regards to the question of whether the Monk fits in with the genre, it's important. "European" is not a unified genre like, say, German folklore. Instead, D&D pulls from a huge number of disparate traditions, whatever the authors were familiar with, and the European ones are the ones they knew most about. We're not talking about a nice, blended, unified fantasy of singular tone. We're talking about a bizarre, pulp, tossed salad fantasy.
Keep in mind, you said 80% European. That means 20% not. One not-Europe class can cleanly fit in that 20% margin with room to spare while still being perfectly consistent with the rest of the game by your own presented logic.
|
|
Keep in mind, you said 80% European. That means 20% not. One not-Europe class can cleanly fit in that 20% margin with room to spare while still being perfectly consistent with the rest of the game by your own presented logic.
True, but I also argued in another strain of the arguement--
I think I see the flavoring in most of the core classes and some of the APG as less restrictive then you do. For example, a Barbarian could be anything from Norse to Native American (and they both of these could instead be Rangers) but also a feral begger child in a city who has learned to brawl without formal training or care for himself.Any of the Core classes, perhaps with the exception of Druid, some in the APG all can fill a much greater variety of background stories.
To me the Pathfinder Sorcerer is the most brilliantly designed class. Basically all that is required is encounter with the supernatural of some type and it didn't even happen to you. For example, a character in my game had sex w/ a Dryad and she was very appretiative. Another person could be descended from something weird. Yet another could have made a deal with the Devil, literally. Thing is, all of these backgrounds work here. The system supports all of these tropes.
Monk fills Asian Wuxia tropes but that is all it fills. Yes, I could be an enlightened Pugulist but why can't I be a backroom brawler who isn't enlightened about anything except for the quality of the beer?
Yes, I could design my backroom brawler as a 'fighter'. But I don't feel it's well served by those mechanics. The monk class on the other hand serves the character concept better mechanically but requirements, like a lawful alignment nix it. The flavoring gets in the way.
Instead, I think such a character should be within the same class, though though with a very different 'bloodline/training style' and just like a cleric of Desna is very different then a cleric of Asmodeus.
That is why I prefer broad classes. That is why for me the Monk is too specific. You're free to disagree. But hopefully you see what I'm saying.
So I don't mind a monk. I just prefer the class that the Monks are to not as preflavored kung pao. I say this as someone who is playing a hot Asian Paladin "Samurai".
All the Best,
Kerney
But like the monk not being based on real Buddhist monks, but on 1970s movie versions, the druid was based not on real Celtic druids, but on myths, legends, and tales about them. And that's the point: it's a fantasy game, not a historical game.
This is more or less my point.
D&D is not realistic or historical. Nor has it ever been. The only time this is touted or demanded is right before or after "I banned this class I dislike because..."
As for monks, quite frankly, they aren't eastern enough. They'd be a much better class if they actually were rooted in wuxia legend, much as the paladin is much more defined as a holy warrior when he is a lawful good crusader rather then "A fighter that, I dunno, heals people sometimes I guess"
This is more or less my point.
D&D is not realistic or historical. Nor has it ever been. The only time this is touted or demanded is right before or after "I banned this class I dislike because..."
As for monks, quite frankly, they aren't eastern enough. They'd be a much better class if they actually were rooted in wuxia legend, much as the paladin is much more defined as a holy warrior when he is a lawful good crusader rather then "A fighter that, I dunno, heals people sometimes I guess"
+1
http://www.celticheritageqc.org/
Apparently they had a few cities, but I don't want to play a game based on historical fact. I don't care about history. They keep changing history.
Monks are cool.
Bruce Lee is cool.
Dragons, genies, magus, druids are cool.
AD&D 1E is cool.
Pathfinder is cool.
Bow ties are cool.
None of these need westernized or europeanize with new terms.
But what needs done is to have the Beholder pathfinderized from Hasbro.
Nuff Said.
|
|
Monks are cool.
Bruce Lee is cool.
Dragons, genies, magus, druids are cool.
AD&D 1E is cool.
Pathfinder is cool.
Bow ties are cool.None of these need westernized or europeanize with new terms.
But what needs done is to have the Beholder pathfinderized from Hasbro.Nuff Said.
Why not let the Beholder, and a Mind Flayer for that matter, loose in the Hasbro offices and there they can negotiate their release from 4E.
All the best,
Kerney
My only objection is at the first post comparing D&D's high fantasy with that of Lord of the Rings.
Lord of the Rings is not like D&D's high fantasy at all, what with hordes of magic items and powerful spellcasters coating the landscape like a magical wall to wall carpeting. LotR had GODS in the story, but they didn't do much. Plus, most of the physics from the real world applied, making it decidedly a neat line between high and low fantasy, just on the high side of the fence. D&D has no real fantasy equivalent because the pacing would be terrible in a book where the characters all nearly die in one scene and are fine in the next. We'd have no idea what to expect, which rocks for a game, but makes for a very stupid story that looks like the writer is pulling things out of you know where.
I can see comparisons being made, but not in terms of overall genre comparison.
Also: Why not turn monks into pugilists who gain their powers from philosophy? No eastern influence, give them giant moustaches and have them raise their fisticuffs. Problem solved.
Monks are cool.
Bruce Lee is cool.
Dragons, genies, magus, druids are cool.
AD&D 1E is cool.
Pathfinder is cool.
Bow ties are cool.None of these need westernized or europeanize with new terms.
But what needs done is to have the Beholder pathfinderized from Hasbro.Nuff Said.
to say nothing of the rule of cool.
|
There are numerous examples of historical schools of bare-handed fighters in Europe and the Middle-East. In fact, in many historical cultures including european ones, bare-handed fighting has a very deep meaning, far beyond a sport or a brawl. It is the purest way of competing with your opponent, as you aim at besting him, not at killing him (though it may happen).
I can certainly see how close it is to the eastern "Monk" traditions.
|
|
Monks will make good pugilists the moment someone can explain to me why a pugilist, by just the virtue of beng a pugilist, should be able to dimension door.
Also: Why not turn monks into pugilists who gain their powers from philosophy? No eastern influence, give them giant moustaches and have them raise their fisticuffs. Problem solved.
Good reason to remove Dimension Door or to make it something like a 'bloodline/combat style' power.
Problem solved, plus more cool options=everybody happy---wait that'll never happen. I mean the everybody happy part.
All the Best,
Kerney
|
|
Monks will make good pugilists the moment someone can explain to me why a pugilist, by just the virtue of beng a pugilist, should be able to dimension door.
For the same reason that a Shaolin monk can.
"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."
Taken from PFSRD and i believe same from the core rule book. If you look at the part in parenthesis it explains why in this game they are called monks. The sentence right after that says a monk can be a "self-taught brawler" not very in keeping with eastern monks is it? The idea is its only eastern if you want it to be. Perhaps there could be a better name for it but monk is iconic and that's what we have so its up to each player to decide how eastern his/her monk is.
Monks will make good pugilists the moment someone can explain to me why a pugilist, by just the virtue of beng a pugilist, should be able to dimension door.
Also: Why not turn monks into pugilists who gain their powers from philosophy? No eastern influence, give them giant moustaches and have them raise their fisticuffs. Problem solved.
If he was JUST a pugilist he wouldn't, he'd be a fighter with improved unarmed strike, but he's not a fighter, he's a monk, and his ability/desire to look deeper in himself and finding some answer within that unlock that little secret.
My dwarven monk is going to be 100% non eastern (not because of any racism but becasue he's a dwarf) and when he dimension doors behind someone and they say "how in the hells did you do that?" he'll say "i know a few tricks"
|
|
There are numerous examples of historical schools of bare-handed fighters in Europe and the Middle-East. In fact, in many historical cultures including european ones, bare-handed fighting has a very deep meaning, far beyond a sport or a brawl. It is the purest way of competing with your opponent, as you aim at besting him, not at killing him (though it may happen).
I can certainly see how close it is to the eastern "Monk" traditions.
I've said it before, I'll do so again. "Martial Arts" and "bare-handed fighting" are -not- synonyms.
Why? I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be considered synonyms other then the tradition of 60+ years of Wuxia movies and an unspoken predjudice that being a Buddhist or Samurai make you somehow naturally superior to your non asian counterparts.
Since we've been using Wuxia and Bruce Lee as examples from popular culture, why don't we use two other examples. Why shouldn't Blanka and Zangief translate into Pathfinder any less well then Chun Li and Ryu.
All the Best,
Kerney
Monks will make good pugilists the moment someone can explain to me why a pugilist, by just the virtue of beng a pugilist, should be able to dimension door.
Look at it this way: he anticipates trouble up ahead, from long experience, and before anyone else figures out what he's up to, he has already closed in -- flawlessly slipping past any obstacles in the way. We're just using the pre-existing dimension door rules as a convenient mechanical shortcut to represent something that isn't necessarily a spell, but that doesn't require us to invent a whole new subset of rules. Rename the ability "preemptive movement" and the problem is solved.
If this somehow can't be made to work, it's a failure on the part of the players' imagination, not necessarily on the part of the rules.
Oh noes, fighters can't have nice things! D:
Ceiling Cat does not agree.
There are numerous examples of historical schools of bare-handed fighters in Europe and the Middle-East. In fact, in many historical cultures including european ones, bare-handed fighting has a very deep meaning, far beyond a sport or a brawl. It is the purest way of competing with your opponent, as you aim at besting him, not at killing him (though it may happen).
I can certainly see how close it is to the eastern "Monk" traditions.
I've said it before, I'll do so again. "Martial Arts" and "bare-handed fighting" are -not- synonyms.
Not all barehanded fighting is martial arts, not all martial arts are bare handed fighting. However the two can be the same, just not always.
No one style is better than the other, and eastern is not inherently better than western. Each have their own merits and limitations.
Being a monk in game terms is not about the unamred strike(notice its unamred strike not kung fu strike) its about the philosphies and they way the approach combining spirit and body.
I've said it before, I'll do so again. "Martial Arts" and "bare-handed fighting" are -not- synonyms.Why? I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be considered synonyms other then the tradition of 60+ years of Wuxia movies and an unspoken predjudice that being a Buddhist or Samurai make you somehow naturally superior to your non asian counterparts.
You're missing the point. Martial arts is, literally, the art of combat. A traditional western-style fencer is, undeniably, a martial artist despite using a weapon.
You're missing the point. Martial arts is, literally, the art of combat. A traditional western-style fencer is, undeniably, a martial artist despite using a weapon.I've said it before, I'll do so again. "Martial Arts" and "bare-handed fighting" are -not- synonyms.Why? I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be considered synonyms other then the tradition of 60+ years of Wuxia movies and an unspoken predjudice that being a Buddhist or Samurai make you somehow naturally superior to your non asian counterparts.
exaclty, Warrior-Artist.
not kung fu master or karate expert, he's martial focused character who takes his "style" to an art form.
No one style is better than the other, and eastern is not inherently better than western. Each have their own merits and limitations.
There's an old movie about Commodore Perry's arrival in Japan. One of the young British officers is terrified to learn that he has insulted one of the samurai and is expected to fight a sword duel. His commander says to him, "Relax, you're the best fencer on the ship," and he sputters, "But he's a samurai! With that big curved sword! I don't know how to cope with that!" And the commander replies, "You don't need to worry about that. In any duel, the better swordsman will always win -- regardless of style."
|
|
You're missing the point. Martial arts is, literally, the art of combat. A traditional western-style fencer is, undeniably, a martial artist despite using a weapon.I've said it before, I'll do so again. "Martial Arts" and "bare-handed fighting" are -not- synonyms.Why? I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be considered synonyms other then the tradition of 60+ years of Wuxia movies and an unspoken predjudice that being a Buddhist or Samurai make you somehow naturally superior to your non asian counterparts.
That is my point. He is a Martial artist and can be represented as a pure fighter or Fighter/Rogue w/ the duelist prestige class. That fencer is a fencer because the player plays him as such. In addition he has very little baggage, can be of any alignment, and can have any abilities the Player can come up with with any combination of Multiclassing he cares to come up with.
Still, he is believable as a "fencer". That is the essence of my point.
It is why "martial artist" is a good name for 2nd pathfinder edition decendent of the Monk class. Just like Rogue has evolved from the traditional 'thief', which it can still be if the player chooses into something that can also be a high Charisma con man, a martial character, a Ninja, and anything else a player cares to think of.
That is what I'm arguing for for the "Monk". It seems like we are to some extent seeing in a simular fashion, just arguing about how it should come about.
All the Best,
Kerney
Except there's already a "Martial Artist" class because the term is pretty much a synonym for "Fighter."
I've said it before, I'll do so again. "Martial Arts" and "bare-handed fighting" are -not- synonyms.
Could you explain your reasoning?
On the face of things, this is true, because many martial arts involve armed combat. Many martial arts also emphasize the the avoidance of unnecessary combat.
But I continue to disagree with the assertion that boxing is not a martial art. Hogwash!
boxing is a martial art.
perhaps amrtial artist would be a better name, but it doesn't convey the combination of mind, body, and spirit that is intended.
I still want to see a base class less based on Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Kung Fu and more on unarmored, dirty brawling with a western feel.
As a side note, I do believe that Monks certainly fit the genre more than Psionics do.
I still want to see a base class less based on Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Kung Fu and more on unarmored, dirty brawling with a western feel.
You'd like my revised monk class -- you can swap out the super high jumps and dimension doors and stuff for things like DR or energy resistance or pounce. Not every monk in our homebrew game is required to choose "purity of bowels" at level 13, or whatever.
I'd love to see it, Kirth!
When compared to other classes in the core rulebook i would say that monks do feel out of place and that they would not be one of my choices for a base class. I think that a lot of the names of their abilities make them too specifically Oriental in flavor. Perhaps if instead of Monk it was named Brawler or something and they changed Ki to something less Asianish they would fit in better but i still find them unnecessary. I would agree that most of the other classes are very Western European/ Tolkienesque over all. Monks are an awkward fit at best and belong in an Oriental setting rulebook in my opinion. However i agree with the argument that not all the monsters in the Bestiary are Western European/ Tolikenesque in flavor which allows the Monk to fit in a little better.
That said I would say that Monks do not really fit into standard D&D but Pathfinder has integrated them much better and has given them more of a place in the campaign setting.