| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since there are so many 'gunslinger' hate threads out there, I thought maybe it's a good time to question the 80's kungfu action monk. I can see how a Cowboy character slinging around guns would be out of place in your average sword and sorcery adventure, but what about that monk. Not the one that sits inside all day devoting all his time and faith to the lord, but the one running around adventuring, fighting monsters unarmed or using exotic weaponry, and using the mysterious ki, which is like magic but since it comes from within it's not magic.
I'm not saying martial arts didn't exist in medieval times, because they did, but so did guns. I'm saying the wuxia monk is a really out of place character that gets tossed around like it's normal. I for one have banned the monk class just out of theme that the world was based upon.
Please not that this has nothing to do with the power level or balance or any crunch like that and is entirely about the flavor and style of the monk.
I think everyone's fantasy(game wise) is different. I think brain sucking monsters from outerspace are weird but they are there. I am sure there are other things not found in popular fantasy media other than D&D/Pathfinder.
Monks are somewhat out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, they are not out of place in an entire world. I typically have a far off place where oriental style characters come from. FYI, half of the monsters are out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, minotaurs, Medusa, genies, hydras, dire animals, dinosaurs, etc.
Monks are somewhat out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, they are not out of place in an entire world. I typically have a far off place where oriental style characters come from. FYI, half of the monsters are out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, minotaurs, Medusa, genies, hydras, dire animals, dinosaurs, etc.
I agree that if you are really insistent on medieval fantasy then a lot of common D&D things have to go, but if you just have a world of magic fantasy then it gives you more to choose from. I don't think I have ever used a dinosaur as an example.
Monks are somewhat out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, they are not out of place in an entire world. I typically have a far off place where oriental style characters come from. FYI, half of the monsters are out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, minotaurs, Medusa, genies, hydras, dire animals, dinosaurs, etc.I agree that if you are really insistent on medieval fantasy then a lot of common D&D things have to go, but if you just have a world of magic fantasy then it gives you more to choose from. I don't think I have ever used a dinosaur as an example.
Like Wuxia inspired Monks.
Monks are somewhat out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, they are not out of place in an entire world. I typically have a far off place where oriental style characters come from. FYI, half of the monsters are out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, minotaurs, Medusa, genies, hydras, dire animals, dinosaurs, etc.
Kitchen Sink Fantasies can be fun sometimes. Technically Golarion is one with it's Horror, Spaceships, Guns, Wuxia, Tribes, Dinosaurs, Swords, and Sorcery. However, I find things a lot more interesting when there's a theme than when it's everything all the time.
Monks are somewhat out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, they are not out of place in an entire world. I typically have a far off place where oriental style characters come from. FYI, half of the monsters are out of place in a medieval fantasy setting, minotaurs, Medusa, genies, hydras, dire animals, dinosaurs, etc.Kitchen Sink Fantasies can be fun sometimes. Technically Golarion is one with it's Horror, Spaceships, Guns, Wuxia, Tribes, Dinosaurs, Swords, and Sorcery. However, I find things a lot more interesting when there's a theme than when it's everything all the time.
I can agree with this, to a point. When I create a themed setting, it usually means npcs, weapons, monsters, and culture are based around that theme. If the PCs don't want to be, then they are outsiders to the setting.
Spaceships?
Spaceships?
Numeria I believe... It's been a while since I've read the Campaign Setting book.
Since there are so many 'gunslinger' hate threads out there, I thought maybe it's a good time to question the 80's kungfu action monk. I can see how a Cowboy character slinging around guns would be out of place in your average sword and sorcery adventure, but what about that monk. Not the one that sits inside all day devoting all his time and faith to the lord, but the one running around adventuring, fighting monsters unarmed or using exotic weaponry, and using the mysterious ki, which is like magic but since it comes from within it's not magic.
I'm not saying martial arts didn't exist in medieval times, because they did, but so did guns. I'm saying the wuxia monk is a really out of place character that gets tossed around like it's normal. I for one have banned the monk class just out of theme that the world was based upon.
Please not that this has nothing to do with the power level or balance or any crunch like that and is entirely about the flavor and style of the monk.
Monks might be out of place in a medieval fantasy. However, virtually no iteration of D&D is a medieval fantasy. All of them have been a mish-mash of timelines, cultures, and technologies. We have giant robots, Renaissance-era plate mail, spellcasting wizards, and druids. We have viking longships, and war galleons.
So while monks might seem out of place in a medieval european game, they are far from out of place in Dungeons & Dragons.
I don't even think the monk(or for that matter ninja and samurai) as classes are innately eastern. Certainly many of the best examples are eastern, but I see no reason why you couldn't have variasian partitioners of a martial art based on dance, and bladed scarfs, who is able to tap into inter strength through the mysteries of their art.
Equally, I can see a middle eastern assassin order, who use narcotics and rigorous training to ecstatic states before battle and the kill with great stealth and cunning (Ninja)
My problem with monks is they're the only core class that feels culture specific.
Clerics, for example are obviously inspired by western culture, history and beliefs, but they are very much adaptable to other cultures just by selecting the gods of those cultures.
Monks have class features with foreign names, a set of abilities designed to create action scenes from a different genera and even a completely unique set of weapons. Why can't anyone else use monk weapons? Simple: monk weapons don't exist in their culture. The monk is assumed to be different to everybody else by the very rules, even in a setting neutral book. He screams "I'm different! I'm not from here!"
There's no reason why the monk shouldn't exist, but it seems odd that he's less easily adaptable than everyone else. He'd actually fit better if the other core classes were hoplite, sultan, witch-doctor and highwayman. It would still just about work and at least he wouldn't stand out.
|
My problem with monks is they're the only core class that feels culture specific.
Clerics, for example are obviously inspired by western culture, history and beliefs, but they are very much adaptable to other cultures just by selecting the gods of those cultures.
Monks have class features with foreign names, a set of abilities designed to create action scenes from a different genera and even a completely unique set of weapons. Why can't anyone else use monk weapons? Simple: monk weapons don't exist in their culture. The monk is assumed to be different to everybody else by the very rules, even in a setting neutral book. He screams "I'm different! I'm not from here!"There's no reason why the monk shouldn't exist, but it seems odd that he's less easily adaptable than everyone else. He'd actually fit better if the other core classes were hoplite, sultan, witch-doctor and highwayman. It would still just about work and at least he wouldn't stand out.
Ever heard of Paladins? ;-)
Given that Golarion is quite far from being a pure medieval setting, I think the Kung-Fu Monks are totally fine, as are Samurai and Ninjas.
My problem with monks is they're the only core class that feels culture specific.
Clerics, for example are obviously inspired by western culture, history and beliefs, but they are very much adaptable to other cultures just by selecting the gods of those cultures.
Monks have class features with foreign names, a set of abilities designed to create action scenes from a different genera and even a completely unique set of weapons. Why can't anyone else use monk weapons? Simple: monk weapons don't exist in their culture. The monk is assumed to be different to everybody else by the very rules, even in a setting neutral book. He screams "I'm different! I'm not from here!"There's no reason why the monk shouldn't exist, but it seems odd that he's less easily adaptable than everyone else. He'd actually fit better if the other core classes were hoplite, sultan, witch-doctor and highwayman. It would still just about work and at least he wouldn't stand out.
It sounds like your biggest issue is the language used to describe them, which isn't that hard to get around. Simply require anyone who wants to play them come up with language and fluff that fits the world and campaign. It's really not that hard to do. I recently made a character that used the monk chassis and several archetypes, and while my character sheet had the official ability names, and I used them for OOC descriptions just so people knew what I was talking about, from a strictly in character perspective, there was absolutely nothing that identified him as a "monk." I do the same for other classes as well, but for some reason, it's harder for people to visualize the "monk" class as being anything other than the eastern kung fu artist, which is not a problem with the class itself, but with people's perceptions. Even Friar Tuck is visualized as a fighter of some kind, not a monk.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a quasi-Italian Early Renaissance imperial state ruled by a council of devilish houses sents a troop of mystical enforcers specialized in unarmed combat to a quasi-Egyptian kingdom fresh off decolonization in order to fight an adventuring company somewhat comparable to Early Modern historical societies*, but composed of a smattering of fantastic races and professions, such as a magical musician and a rogue surgeon, then we must admit to missing the turnpike to "Medieval Fantasy" a couple of miles up the road.
*this is part of the The Pact Stone Pyramid scenario, btw
|
I don't even think the monk(or for that matter ninja and samurai) as classes are innately eastern. Certainly many of the best examples are eastern, but I see no reason why you couldn't have variasian partitioners of a martial art based on dance, and bladed scarfs, who is able to tap into inter strength through the mysteries of their art.
Equally, I can see a middle eastern assassin order, who use narcotics and rigorous training to ecstatic states before battle and the kill with great stealth and cunning (Ninja)
Exactly. I have a Tetori Monk based on a Shoanti tribesman with the Snapping Turtle style.I could have sworn I read somewhere that the Shoanti had alot of skilled unarmed fighters, which was part of teh reason that they shaved their heads, to have it not get in the way while wrestling/fighting.
In European medieval fantasy? They are probably out of place.
In Pathfinder's generic setting? Not at all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your having monk problems, I feel bad for you son, I got ninety-nine problems but the monk ain't one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they're out of place. I've never been crazy about their inclusion in the game or its predecessors. But they've been around so long--and I've only been in one campaign where someone ever played one--that I've learned to tolerate them. If I were the GM, I'd strongly suggest that any such characters should probably be from Tian Xia. Certainly I'd require any Ninjas or Samurai to be from that region (and I'm not crazy about them generally). And we have a house rule where the presumption is that the Gunslinger class is off limits, unless we start a campaign where they would fit--for example, we've considered doing a brief Iron Kingdoms game, and in that setting a Gunslinger would be fine.
There's no right or wrong answer here, by the way. It all comes down to personal taste. Heck, some people juggle geese.
|
|
It would be great to get a definition of "medieval fantasy" because from history alone I'm seeing a huge array of themes to pick from.
If it's meant to be Authurian, D&D has never gone off of that vibe. To the point that in 30 years of D&D I've never encountered published material that used the word "knight."
King Arthur and his knights were in the first edition Dieties and Demigods book. But then, so was Cthulhu.
4th edition actually has a fighter build called knight, in Heroes of Fallen Lands.
|
|
The class itself doesn't bother me. The choice of name, however, does. Let's face it, D&D is in large part influenced by Western European traditions. However, if someone is a follower of the ways of religious asceticism but NOT trained in kung-fu, there's no good word to describe them, because despite the fact that the word "monk" in such a setting brings to mind guys wearing burlap robs and praying a lot, the game has chosen to make it mean martial artist.
The class itself doesn't bother me. The choice of name, however, does. Let's face it, D&D is in large part influenced by Western European traditions. However, if someone is a follower of the ways of religious asceticism but NOT trained in kung-fu, there's no good word to describe them, because despite the fact that the word "monk" in such a setting brings to mind guys wearing burlap robs and praying a lot, the game has chosen to make it mean martial artist.
I have to say, I consider all class names to be Out of Character labels for a broad archetype of character. So I don't really have a problem with 'Monk' as a name(it grates a little if I am playing a very strictly western setting, but not enough to matter).
In character, however, if some one describes themselves as a monk to one of my characters in say Andoran, he will mistake them for a member of a monastic order, rather than an enlightened martial artist.
The class itself doesn't bother me. The choice of name, however, does. Let's face it, D&D is in large part influenced by Western European traditions. However, if someone is a follower of the ways of religious asceticism but NOT trained in kung-fu, there's no good word to describe them, because despite the fact that the word "monk" in such a setting brings to mind guys wearing burlap robs and praying a lot, the game has chosen to make it mean martial artist.
D&D is in large part influenced by everything. Heck, western european influence actually seems pretty mild when you consider all the space aliens and robots running around in D&D.
That being said, the same could be said for cleric. Why isn't anyone pissing themselves because we're using a class more suited to the knights templar and using a name that actually implies a scholarly fellow who copies books all day in a monastery and has a desk job between prayers?
would be out of place in your average sword and sorcery adventure
Fun fact everybody, the OP never mentions golarion(SP?). Yet many of you seem to be offering their two cents about how they fit there.
Interesting
- Torger
|
|
That being said, the same could be said for cleric. Why isn't anyone pissing themselves because we're using a class more suited to the knights templar and using a name that actually implies a scholarly fellow who copies books all day in a monastery and has a desk job between prayers?
Because they do not know kung fu!
would be out of place in your average sword and sorcery adventureFun fact everybody, the OP never mentions golarion(SP?). Yet many of you seem to be offering their two cents about how they fit there.
Interesting
- Torger
It's almost as if it is the assumed setting, since it's the flagship setting.
That being said, the same could be said for cleric. Why isn't anyone pissing themselves because we're using a class more suited to the knights templar and using a name that actually implies a scholarly fellow who copies books all day in a monastery and has a desk job between prayers?Because they do not know kung fu!
Good answer. :P
If your having monk problems, I feel bad for you son, I got ninety-nine problems but the monk ain't one.
Yo, you be stealin' my lines like a bard be stealin' the rogue's spotlight. Be watchin' yo self.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your setting is purely based upon European medieval fantasy, possibly it does not suit, unless you reflavor ki as a different kind of faith ability (since they are monks after all).
However, the only games I've played where the setting closely resembles medieval Europe are Ars Magica and Chivalry and Sorcery. And indeed, I've never seen kung fu monks in those games.
If your setting is based upon the entire Earth in the... oh, let's say 1300s (the late middle ages), then sure, because there were martial arts predating and existing through that period in many cultures throughout the world.
No D&D or Pathfinder game I've ever played resembles medieval Europe save for a few etymological connections and social structures borrowed from medieval literature. Most high fantasy settings seem to be a mishmash of anything from Renaissance up to the Modern era, stirred in with a very strong dose of ancient cultures (who were ancient and low tech, but still more advanced than medieval cultures). So since D&D/Pathfinder doesn't resemble medieval Europe, I can't say monks don't belong since those settings are very much in their own paradigm.
I consider my homebrew setting to be roughly 1700s in terms of tech level and philosophy (with also a strong dose of ancient cultures like ancient Greece and Rome), and only very roughly so because magic affects the world so differently than how real life developed, and there are no firearms (but magic replaces that level of combat technology, if not exceeds it), because that's just what I wanted out of my world. I do have monks (allow the monk class) in my setting, and have a backstory about why they exist in that world which I hope makes a fair amount of sense. I hope generally speaking my world has a sense of internal continuity to it and feels "of a piece." And I think that's ultimately the desire for any setting -- you have to judge game setting by game setting. If something feels out of place in one setting, it might not feel out of place in another. I have a feeling why people object to, say, Gunslinger, is because it was added on afterwards, not included in the setting as a given from the get-go. Monk on the other hand has been included in D&D (and by extension, Pathfinder) for a very long time, so it's part of many of D&D's established settings and "feels" like it should be there because of that, even if it doesn't resemble a social role from a particular place and time in our own history.
Depending on the setting and the theme, almost any of the major 'fantasy' elements of the game can be out of place. Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerors can all be out of place in certain kinds of settings. Druids and paladins too. I think only barbarians, Fighters, Spelless Rangers, Rogues, and Barbarians are completely setting neutral. Everyone else...it depends on the setting. So yes a monk can be out of place in some fantasy settings. But the same can be said about most of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your having monk problems, I feel bad for you son, I got ninety-nine problems but the monk ain't one.Yo, you be stealin' my lines like a bard be stealin' the rogue's spotlight. Be watchin' yo self.
Let me open by saying 'If your having rogue problems, I feel bad for you son, I got ninety-nine problems but the rogue ain't one.'
And go onto say
Tune, NSFW if a few "naughty" words will get you in trouble
NPC: Scrubious pip, whats your opinion of paizo roleplaying?
Scrubious Pip: I...um..I don't think their's that much going on..I ..don't get me wrong, there is some great stuff, there are some amazing players, but a lot of people are just doing the same thing over and over again. It just gets a bit monotonous.
roleplay is art
dont make another god wizard, be smart
take it back to the start
like gary and dave use passion and heart
Dont get me wrong, im not dissing trent monk
Im just using his guide as a single example
it was the first big hit of its kind in the boards
all that last rubbish with power in mind, not heart
Boards's full of optimum builds and argument, think they should all have DPR gold to bring home
prancing about like they're the next big thing cos their cousins got solid fog and their mate daryll can sing
these kids getting above their stations and saying, there a vessel through which a higher power's conveying
"my control spell is a miracle, godsent"
my name is scroobius pip and i say forget all that nonsense
their sharacter concepts is like spirital osmosis in that everything they say evaporates into boasts, its a joke
ive read and i cant even find one quote which is worth using as a reference or even as a footnote
yeah, most of these kids could get their spells out and kill me, but how many have the skill to inspire and thrill me?
I've got a spell book i keep biscuits in it, it works into your brain leaving big fat blisters in it.
who am i better than, im better than i used to be, im gonna keep on getting better so you better just get used to me
if you think thats a cop out then hear my point truthfully cos chances are deep down this is how you used to be
if you aim is to be as good as scroobius pip, once you finally achieved it then your standards will slip
but if your goal is only to improve on yourself then the quest is never over no matter how big your wealth by level.
roleplay is art
dont make another god wizard, be smart
take it back to the start
like gary and dave use passion and heart
Since there are so many 'gunslinger' hate threads out there, I thought maybe it's a good time to question the 80's kungfu action monk. I can see how a Cowboy character slinging around guns would be out of place in your average sword and sorcery adventure, but what about that monk. Not the one that sits inside all day devoting all his time and faith to the lord, but the one running around adventuring, fighting monsters unarmed or using exotic weaponry, and using the mysterious ki, which is like magic but since it comes from within it's not magic.
I'm not saying martial arts didn't exist in medieval times, because they did, but so did guns. I'm saying the wuxia monk is a really out of place character that gets tossed around like it's normal. I for one have banned the monk class just out of theme that the world was based upon.
Please not that this has nothing to do with the power level or balance or any crunch like that and is entirely about the flavor and style of the monk.
I find this attitude staggeringly strange. I mean no offense here but really the idea that an unarmed fighter is out of place in any timeframe is just odd. Martial arts Are not exclusively the province eastern civilizations. The French developed Savat, a form of kick boxing. The ancient Greeks were huge devotees of wrestling. Boxing is so old it's origins are unclear. Unarmed combat is as old (or older) than armed combat.
The term Medieval is not appropriate in relation to d20 games unless you limit class choices in the Core rules to fighters, rogues and barbarians any class with spells are out. You'll need to nix most heavy armor, and several weapons too.
In Medieval Europe:
Clerics were politicians who accused any one practicing "magic" as heresy.
Wizards and Sorcerors were typically con men.
Druids were virtually extinct by the middle dark ages.
Paladins were just well heeled fighters in service to the church.
Rangers were fighters.
Bards were bards just no supernatural abilities.
As soon as you add magic as a real supernatural force, historical accuracy is out the door. Magic also invalidates many features of the time that medieval purists adore like castles (useless with teleport). I appreciate the desire to make a game where medieval
superstition is more than just that. But to ignore unarmed martial arts as out of place in a society where violence was common and skill at combat determined station, please.
D&D hasn't been medieval since 1st edition. 2nd edition was clearly set to the Rennaisance period. The following editions have traveled even further away from the incredibly dull and limiting feudal system. Medieval Europe was the product of a single
continent spanning church and the "divine right of kings", two constructs that almost never appear in even home-brewed campaigns. How many of these "medieval" games use a single church? I haven't played a RPG in 15 years that didn't use a polytheistic pantheon of divine beings, even the campaigns where some DM insisted on some pseudo medieval European purism.
The issue with the "Wuxia Monk" is that we've all watched one to many chop socky flicks. I have never understood why it is that this one particular class stifles the imagination and creativity of so many people that are generally creative otherwise. In the last ten years I've used the Core Monk to represent:
Street Gangs
Temple Guards
Religious Assasins
The household staff of a Soverign
Government trained spy force
Thugs
Librarians
Political dissidents (which is very close to the class's historical origins)
No other class gets pigeon holed in to one singular ideal like the monk, not even classes like the Druid which are even more specific in their historical context.
Part of the issue is the design; the monk is the only class designed defensively. My personal feeling is that the games I've played in where the DM pulls the "not in my game" card is that they don't like the class due to it's lack of weaknesses to pick on. These are the GMs who always target the fighter's will save or drop endless AoE on the cleric. It's not the flavor of the class but the alterations in their planning that they dislike. Fighting unarmed isn't really a stretch, neither is it necessary. Monks can fight with weapons. If the DM dislikes the weird Core monk weapons, remove them. There is nothing broken with using a dagger or shortsword to flurry with. Now that graping feats have come along the Greco Roman Wrestler monk is legit for play in the purist's medieval campaign. The archetypes for monk cover huge ground, one of these fit into even the most obsessively period sensitive game.
Seriously, what seems sillier? A unarmed, unarmored guy attacking a full-plated, greatsword wielding knight or the same knight attacking a 50ft long, flying, fire breathing, 4 ton reptile? I know which scenario I think is crazier.
Monks aren't any more out of place in a medieval European game than djinns or efreets. Or cyclopses or medusas, for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teleport doesn't invalidate castles.
seeing as how we only play in golarion now, i love it. i dont like the other settings because it was medival europe with magic. i still like eberron, but most of my group does it, and we can get quasi-rune punk/steampunk in golarion, just have to add it in (which our current game is steampunk due to our last games outcome). i didnt feel any difference in going to different regions. but golarion is more realistic in my point of view to how the world would really be with the different ethnic groups of humans, different traditions and style of magic and combat. you dont classify all of 1250 earth europe do you? why would you do that to the rest of the world?
therefore i think monks are fine and i love their flavor even more now since there is an asian continent and they have migrated/been born in the inner sea region.
|
The Monk was around in 1E outside of Oriental Adventures but I'm still not a big fan. Monk, Samurai, Ronin, WuJen -- oddly enough, I don't mind Ninja. I guess we really can't explain why our own verisimilitude accepts one unrealistic or out-of-place thing but not others.
For years, though, I've been vehement in my attack of the 3.0 PHB -- one of the worst rules books in D&D's history, actually, THE worst. How Andy Collins was given the responsibility of writing that one when he had absolutely no design talent whatsoever is quite beyond me. And that is where the Monk -- today's Monk, not the 1E "monk" -- originates. (Grab Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved to find the REAL 3E PHB; you'll see.)
I wish the Monk were not part of the Pathfinder Core Book.
. . . . Though, if one were to design a medium BAB, unarmed combat Class with Sneak Attack, lots of skill points, and then tons of all the "Monk," "Ninja," and "Shadow Dancer" Class Abilities, balanced of course, I'd love it. Call it the Assassin. Or heck, call it the Ninja, even.
Flying beasts that get tamed invalidate castles. Castles in the sense of Mott and Bailey are hosed by dragons. Economically, the expense of castles as a military defense in a world of griffon mounted wizards is a stretch. While citadels in a populated area make some sense, treasure would be better used on other things than huge castles. Castles took years to erect, and huge sums of money, moreso without slave ( or serf) labor. Although giant labor might speed this stuff up.
Also I have a group of players who can make teleport effects invalidate virtually any defensive structure.
Your entire argument is invalidated by the very limits on magic, the fact that griffons aren't common and bows and arrows.
Teleport handles 1 person per caster level. Caster's tend to make up 2~3% of the population. While the average NPC is going to be between levels 3~7. The 'key players' go from 7~13 with the rare few that go beyond being able to be specifically named and generally incapacitated. Also teleport is inexact and you need to know where you are going.
Dragons are nice -- part of the problem with that is again range (they suck at a great distance which would be required) and the fact they are supposed to threaten castles. Also they are rare.
In a world where you take the basic assumptions of the game world and completely throw them out the window you still forget one major thing -- everything on the outside attack has it's counter on the inside. Dimensional lock, and the like.
Honestly it's simply a very ludicrous position to take and shows a lack of actual thought behind the scenario.
In addition you are completely ignoring the fact that most castles were wood, and didn't take nearly that long to complete. In fact the only ones that really took an extreme amount of time were the 'masterwork' versions and even then they were still typically finished fairly quickly (well within a lifetime).
Finally you are ignoring the massive number of effects and ways to vastly cheapen the building of a castle, and the number of things that a castle still defends against that are far more common than magical effects.
Nope.
The world(s) of DnD and Pathfinder are not midevil europe. And for that, I'm thankful.
I agree, there are a lot of things that are different from medieval times, and I'm glad I don't have to be a historian to play. I'm not sure what they were back in the day but in the games I've played in literacy rates and woman equality have been by todays standards.
One of the first things I noticed in trying to play in a fantasy game was time, I guess there was a time when people didn't all have watches or clocks every where. I remember in one of my first games my friends and I said we would meet the NPCs at a certain place in an hour. One of my friends was like, but we don't have watches, none of our characters might even know what "hours" or such are. After a lot of thought we just said screw it, we have wrist watches, we meet the NPCs in an hour.
Your entire argument is invalidated by the very limits on magic, the fact that griffons aren't common and bows and arrows.
Teleport handles 1 person per caster level. Caster's tend to make up 2~3% of the population. While the average NPC is going to be between levels 3~7. The 'key players' go from 7~13 with the rare few that go beyond being able to be specifically named and generally incapacitated. Also teleport is inexact and you need to know where you are going.
Dragons are nice -- part of the problem with that is again range (they suck at a great distance which would be required) and the fact they are supposed to threaten castles. Also they are rare.
In a world where you take the basic assumptions of the game world and completely throw them out the window you still forget one major thing -- everything on the outside attack has it's counter on the inside. Dimensional lock, and the like.
Honestly it's simply a very ludicrous position to take and shows a lack of actual thought behind the scenario.
In addition you are completely ignoring the fact that most castles were wood, and didn't take nearly that long to complete. In fact the only ones that really took an extreme amount of time were the 'masterwork' versions and even then they were still typically finished fairly quickly (well within a lifetime).
Finally you are ignoring the massive number of effects and ways to vastly cheapen the building of a castle, and the number of things that a castle still defends against that are far more common than magical effects.
to add to the substance, not saying that teleport does/does not invalidate castles, there could be groups of individuals inside the castle with standing orders to do nothing but to take action against teleporting /wall walking/wall phasing intruders.
plus, there may not be that many high level characters on the battle field. if there are, you may only have very few mages that are at the level that they are able to cast teleport, and then they have to have the spell prepared/known. and if you are a high level character on the battle field, chances are, 9 times out of 10, there is somebody in that castle the same level or higher level than you are.
just adding that into what we already know.