|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks have a religious background (as the Buddhist monks) or are just special fighters? Depends on the archetype or previous history of the pj?
For the most part monks do not have a religious background. While they follow a doctrine, or code of conduct, there is no need for a monk to have a religious background. However, many of the Irori's clergy are monks. This is because Irori was a monk who achieved enlightenment and became a god, making him a common patron diety for monks.
I think that calling monks monks was one of the earliest mistakes in D&D. The original PH came out right when martial arts films (with their awful dubbing) were impacting on the psyche of American teenagers. The Shao-Lin monk was even more desirable than the ninja and so the martial artist character became 'monk'. With hindsight, they should have been called 'martial artist' in the same way that wizards were called 'magic users' (go figure). (Incidentally, if you can get hold of the second Gamers film the GM allows one of the PCs to play a monk despite the European/Medieval environment his game is set in, but insists that he play a Xtian-style monk with a long brown cassock and a tonsure). If the monk class didn't exist and it was created without the history of being called 'monk' everyone would need it explained to them. So, no reason at all for a monk to be religious, but also no reason why they shouldn't be.
I admit, I was terribly confused when I first was being told about the classes in D&D and what a monk actually was. I was picturing Friar Tuck. But while religion certainly adds loads of flavor to a monk, plus an easy reason to be so disciplined, there is no real need for a monk to be religious.
The word usage would depend on either a Western or Eastern understanding of the word.
Well, the most exposure I ever got to an Eastern understanding was "The Karate Kid." Hence the confusion.
I think that calling monks monks was one of the earliest mistakes in D&D. The original PH came out right when martial arts films (with their awful dubbing) were impacting on the psyche of American teenagers. The Shao-Lin monk was even more desirable than the ninja and so the martial artist character became 'monk'. With hindsight, they should have been called 'martial artist' in the same way that wizards were called 'magic users' (go figure).
I always preferred the D&D Rules Cyclopedia Mystic to the AD&D Monk.
Monks have a religious background (as the Buddhist monks) or are just special fighters? Depends on the archetype or previous history of the pj?
In most settings I have seen, in most games (if not all) that I have played in 30+ years of D&D, monks have a religious background as a sect of a church associated with a deity.
Monks have a religious background (as the Buddhist monks) or are just special fighters? Depends on the archetype or previous history of the pj?In most settings I have seen, in most games (if not all) that I have played in 30+ years of D&D, monks have a religious background as a sect of a church associated with a deity.
What kind of church/Diety teaches people in a Monastery to beat people up with their fist?
|
What kind of church/Diety teaches people in a Monastery to beat people up with their fist?
Irori?
Also, potentially, Torag, Asmodeus, or Iomedae. All are very martial deities in their own ways, and having martial orders who speialize in a particular field of combat (such as unarmed) is very in-character for eaqch of them.
|
I quite agree with Elinor. The "monk" should have been called a "Martial Artist". In my home campaigns, i have tried to change the name of the class to "martial Artist".
In first and second edition the "trap finding" class was called a "Thief". When people heard the word "Thief" they thought of well pick pockets, second story men, safe crackers etc, all thieves and members of a "thieve's guild".
When Third edition came out they changed the class name "Thief" to Rogue. I think this was a great idea. Conceptually it opened up the class to all sorts of character concepts. Now a rogue can easily be imagined as a "government agent", a "military scout", a " Highway man", a "merchant", "a thief", "an Investigator", etc.
I think it would have been an excellent idea for Pathfinder to change the name of the "monk" class to "Martial Artist". Such a name change would make it much easier for people to conceptualize all sorts of character concepts. Martial Artist also more accurately describes the class, and also it will save lots of confusion for those entering the game.
For example, I was helping a friend make a character last night. My friend handn't played the game for 20 years, and she wanted to give it a try again. As she was flipping through the character classes and asking about them, she came across the monk. Her first question was if the monk illuminated manuscripts. I explained that these monks were inspired by eastern mythology and kung fu movies.
Well anyways, it would be nice to see the name of the class changed, but I doubt it will happen.
What kind of church/Diety teaches people in a Monastery to beat people up with their fist?Monks have a religious background (as the Buddhist monks) or are just special fighters? Depends on the archetype or previous history of the pj?In most settings I have seen, in most games (if not all) that I have played in 30+ years of D&D, monks have a religious background as a sect of a church associated with a deity.
To answer that question:
What kind of church/Diety teaches people in a Church to put on armour and beat people up with a mace/spear/dagger/club/staff?
In other words, monks make as much sense as clerics.
The original martial arts were developed for self-defence. I see no reason why they would be different in a fantasy world.
Halflings didn't exist in European myths. Europe wasn't polytheist.
That is because Halfings really existed.
They found their bones in Australia.
Europe wasn't polytheist.
Actually, it was very polytheist up until Christianity was made the state religion of Rome, and even then many of the various cults lasted for centuries. By the early middle ages Europe was split between the monotheist Christians and the polytheistic pagans.
A lot of the pagan beliefs and practices carried on 'underground' right up into recent times, when the modern religion of wicca was built on their practices and beliefs. Interestingly the 'underground' culture concept has another, eastern counterpart that has grown very popular in the martial arts context: the Japanese ninja, who developed their martial arts from Chinese antecedents as their culture was oppressed, and they were banned from owning martial weapons - hence weapons like the kama and kusarigama based on farming implements.
So yes, Europe has always been polytheistic to one extent or another.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it was very polytheist up until Christianity was made the state religion of Rome, and even then many of the various cults lasted for centuries. By the early middle ages Europe was split between the monotheist Christians and the polytheistic pagans.
Uh...speaking as a Pagan, but also a student of history, I'm afraid that's just not true. Polytheistic practices were indeed universal pre-Christianity, but the Catholic Church did a very, very, good job of converting people to their particular brand of Christianity and coopting Pagan practices into Christian ones (equating saints to particular deities, coopting holidays such as Halloween and Christmas, etc.).
Thus some pagan practices certainly survived, as did certain pagan beliefs (the Fair Folk, for example)...but usually at least somewhat coopted by Christian dogma (the Fae's yearly tithe to hell, again for example). And actual polytheism? There's really not a lot of evidence in support of it's continued practice. It may have survived in isolated pockets (again, no proof I'm aware of of this, but it seems plausible enough) but it was certainly far rarer than the publically acceptable alternative of Christianity by the early middle ages.
A lot of the pagan beliefs and practices carried on 'underground' right up into recent times, when the modern religion of wicca was built on their practices and beliefs.
Again, not so much. Wicca's a constructed religion, and (relatively) recently at that, in large part by Gerald Gardner. And while it's practices certainly take something from earlier varieties of European paganism, they owe at least as much to incorrect Victorian beliefs about such religions, and even more to various Eastern religions (particularly Hinduism and certain elements of Buddhism).
I'll note that this in no way makes it less of a legitimate faith, but implying it is the direct descendant of pre-Christian European faiths is simply incorrect.
Interestingly the 'underground' culture concept has another, eastern counterpart that has grown very popular in the martial arts context: the Japanese ninja, who developed their martial arts from Chinese antecedents as their culture was oppressed, and they were banned from owning martial weapons - hence weapons like the kama and kusarigama based on farming implements.
This statement really only has two major things wrong with it: Any reference to ninja, and the implication that this is a general statement about martial arts. The Japanese did develop Karate specifically, for basically the reasons listed, but the Japanese people who did so were very definitely not ninja (who were assassins, and didn't need unarmed combat so much as concealed weaponry), and nowhere near all similar martial arts (even in Japan) were developed in the same manner.
Actually, it was very polytheist up until Christianity was made the state religion of Rome, and even then many of the various cults lasted for centuries. By the early middle ages Europe was split between the monotheist Christians and the polytheistic pagans.Uh...speaking as a Pagan, but also a student of history, I'm afraid that's just not true. Polytheistic practices were indeed universal pre-Christianity, but the Catholic Church did a very, very, good job of converting people to their particular brand of Christianity and coopting Pagan practices into Christian ones (equating saints to particular deities, coopting holidays such as Halloween and Christmas, etc.).
Thus some pagan practices certainly survived, as did certain pagan beliefs (the Fair Folk, for example)...but usually at least somewhat coopted by Christian dogma (the Fae's yearly tithe to hell, again for example). And actual polytheism? There's really not a lot of evidence in support of it's continued practice. It may have survived in isolated pockets (again, no proof I'm aware of of this, but it seems plausible enough) but it was certainly far rarer than the publically acceptable alternative of Christianity by the early middle ages.
Isolated pockets definitely did survive here and there here in the UK, and there are still traditional witches who learned their art from parent to child down the generations. Of course their validity is impossible to verify, as the Catholic churche (and later the Anglican and Puritan churches) made very sure that any that did survive did so because they hid themselves very well.
A lot of the pagan beliefs and practices carried on 'underground' right up into recent times, when the modern religion of wicca was built on their practices and beliefs.Again, not so much. Wicca's a constructed religion, and (relatively) recently at that, in large part by Gerald Gardner. And while it's practices certainly take something from earlier varieties of European paganism, they owe at least as much to incorrect Victorian beliefs about such religions, and even more to various Eastern religions (particularly Hinduism and certain elements of Buddhism).
Again, not so much. Wicca's a constructed religion, and (relatively) recently at that, in large part by Gerald Gardner. And while it's practices certainly take something from earlier varieties of European paganism, they owe at least as much to incorrect Victorian beliefs about such religions, and even more to various Eastern religions (particularly Hinduism and certain elements of Buddhism).
I'll note that this in no way makes it less of a legitimate faith, but implying it is the direct descendant of pre-Christian European faiths is simply incorrect.
Gardner did a lot of travelling around Europe, seeking out the few remaining pockets of paganism that there were, looking for traditional witches and co-opting their practices into modern wicca, along with large doses of eastern mysticism. Wicca is a modern constructed religion it is true, but it is based upon some very ancient beliefs. One Amerindian shaman described modern wiccans as clawing back their old ways from the darkness of history, as compared to their own unbroken lineage.
Interestingly the 'underground' culture concept has another, eastern counterpart that has grown very popular in the martial arts context: the Japanese ninja, who developed their martial arts from Chinese antecedents as their culture was oppressed, and they were banned from owning martial weapons - hence weapons like the kama and kusarigama based on farming implements.This statement really only has two major things wrong with it: Any reference to ninja, and the implication that this is a general statement about martial arts. The Japanese did develop Karate specifically, for basically the reasons listed, but the Japanese people who did so were very definitely not ninja (who were assassins, and didn't need unarmed combat so much as concealed weaponry), and nowhere near all similar martial arts (even in Japan) were developed in the same manner.
I did not mean to imply this was a general statement about martial arts, but clearly you are unacquainted with the history of ninjitsu, which is unrelated to karate save that it stems from the islands of Japan, and both were developed under oppressive circumstances.
Ninjitsu stems from the traditions and practices of a melting pot of cultures and ideas in the central mountains of Hakaido, Japan. Some of these influences were traditional Japanese yamabushi, and some of them came from China in the form of exiles seeking refuge. As foreigners, these people were eta to the ruling Japanese classes, and treated as the lowest echelon of society. As such, they set up home in the remotest regions in the face of discrimination and persecution. They used a combination of locally developed combat styles and Chinese martial arts when they needed to fight, and as they were frequently outnumbered and outgunned learned to make the most of strategy, tactics, psychology and guerilla warfare. These skills later found employ in the civil wars that racked Japan as intelligence agents. I recommend Ninjutsu History and Tradition by Dr Massaaki Hatsume if you wish to know more.
|
|
Isolated pockets definitely did survive here and there here in the UK, and there are still traditional witches who learned their art from parent to child down the generations. Of course their validity is impossible to verify, as the Catholic churche (and later the Anglican and Puritan churches) made very sure that any that did survive did so because they hid themselves very well.
Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge this as a very likely possibility (I'm just enough of a scientist not to say certainty, since, as mentioned, there's no proof). I'm just of the (rather well-supported) position that they were very much in the minority.
Gardner did a lot of travelling around Europe, seeking out the few remaining pockets of paganism that there were, looking for traditional witches and co-opting their practices into modern wicca, along with large doses of eastern mysticism. Wicca is a modern constructed religion it is true, but it is based upon some very ancient beliefs. One Amerindian shaman described modern wiccans as clawing back their old ways from the darkness of history, as compared to their own unbroken lineage.
Oh, absolutely, to some degree anyway. But it's Eastern influences are at least as strong as it's European ones (soft polytheism and reincarnation being the obvious ones). Which makes calling it out as a direct heir a little shaky. Especially as compared to some other belief systems that lack many of those foreign influences (Asatru comes immediately to mind).
I did not mean to imply this was a general statement about martial arts, but clearly you are unacquainted with the history of ninjitsu, which is unrelated to karate save that it stems from the islands of Japan, and both were developed under oppressive circumstances.
Ninjutsu:
I'm familiar (intellectually speaking) with ninjutsu, though I admittedly wasn't aware of this particular origin story for it. Largely because there are several different arts claiming to be ninjutsu, often of extremely dubious authenticity, so I've never made a real study of it.
Now, in fairness, doing a bit of research, I probably should've been aware of this particular story, as it does appear to stem from by far the most credible of these schools, but 'most credible' and 'credible' are entirely different things. It's worth noting that Dr. Hatsumi is actually the founder of the school in question, and thus not precisely an unbiased source as to it's pedigree, and his claims are widely disputed.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's incorrect or untruthful, but it does mean that his claims should probably not be accepted uncritically.
Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge this as a very likely possibility (I'm just enough of a scientist not to say certainty, since, as mentioned, there's no proof). I'm just of the (rather well-supported) position that they were very much in the minority.
Agreed, they were very much in the minority!
Oh, absolutely, to some degree anyway. But it's Eastern influences are at least as strong as it's European ones (soft polytheism and reincarnation being the obvious ones). Which makes calling it out as a direct heir a little shaky. Especially as compared to some other belief systems that lack many of those foreign influences (Asatru comes immediately to mind).
I would hesitate to call it a direct heir as well, but it is the only mainstream modern descendent. I don't disagree that it has many eastern influences, as well.
I'm familiar (intellectually speaking) with ninjutsu, though I admittedly wasn't aware of this particular origin story for it. Largely because there are several different arts claiming to be ninjutsu, often of extremely dubious authenticity, so I've never made a real study of it.
Now, in fairness, doing a bit of research, I probably should've been aware of this particular story, as it does appear to stem from by far the most credible of these schools, but 'most credible' and 'credible' are entirely different things. It's worth noting that Dr. Hatsumi is actually the founder of the school in question, and thus not precisely an unbiased source as to it's pedigree, and his claims are widely disputed.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's incorrect or untruthful, but it does mean that his claims should probably not be accepted uncritically.
This is true, but his instructor, Toshitsuga Takamatsu, is a figure about which a great deal is also known and who had several western students, so Dr Hatsume himself certainly didn't found the school of Togakure ryu ninjutsu, although he did bring it into the modern age as an international organisation.
In the west, martial arts certainly have a chequered history of instructors changing their 'style' (or rather the name of it) to suit current fads. Some unscrupulous karate or jujutsu instructors re-styled themselves as kung fu instructors when that art became popularised, for example. This makes finding the origins of traditional arts difficult, and more so with an art like ninjutsu that in the past has emphasised stealth and secrecy.
That's the problem with investigating real secret organisations - there are few reliable records of them, because they were secret...
|
|
Nowadays, Okinawa is part of Japan, but that wasn't the case for most of their history. So, to call an art which is indigenous to Okinawa and dates back for centuries, as -Japanese- art is simply not true.
True enough, and my apologies. I didn't want to get into the details of that particular distinction...but I really should've done it anyway.
You can argue as to the extent that isolated pockets of polytheism existed in Europe after the Christian conquest. But, what you can't do is argue that polytheism was as widespread and acceptable as it is in the default DnD world.
From the middle ages onwards, yes. For the dark ages less so, and before then polytheism was the norm. Had Christianity not reared it's head, it probably still would be as it is in, for example, India today. You have to admit, having polytheism makes the D&D world much more interesting.
Isolated pockets definitely did survive here and there here in the UK, and there are still traditional witches who learned their art from parent to child down the generations. Of course their validity is impossible to verify, as the Catholic churche (and later the Anglican and Puritan churches) made very sure that any that did survive did so because they hid themselves very well.Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge this as a very likely possibility (I'm just enough of a scientist not to say certainty, since, as mentioned, there's no proof). I'm just of the (rather well-supported) position that they were very much in the minority.
Actually the largest European country of XIV century - Grand Duchy Of Lithuania was half pagan (large part of modern Ukraine that was under Lithuanian rulership then was Orthodox) only being officially christianized after alliance and union with Poland against common threat of Teutonic Order in 1387.
|
|
Actually the largest European country of XIV century - Grand Duchy Of Lithuania was half pagan (large part of modern Ukraine that was under Lithuanian rulership then was Orthodox) only being officially christianized after alliance and union with Poland against common threat of Teutonic Order in 1387.
I actually didn't know that, and it's really pretty cool. Thanks for the info. :)
That said (and to clarify), I was specifically referring to an ongoing presence that never actually converted (not even into the modern day), not a particular area that held out longer than most prior to conversion.
But we're not talking about the Dark Ages. The default DnD world has very sophisticated castles, very sophisticated religions, large established nations, etc.You can argue as to the extent that isolated pockets of polytheism existed in Europe after the Christian conquest. But, what you can't do is argue that polytheism was as widespread and acceptable as it is in the default DnD world.From the middle ages onwards, yes. For the dark ages less so, and before then polytheism was the norm. Had Christianity not reared it's head, it probably still would be as it is in, for example, India today. You have to admit, having polytheism makes the D&D world much more interesting.
To the best of my knowledge, no-one has put a date on it. It has elements of everything from Classical era through to the Renaissance period. There are rules for bronze age and even stone age weaponry, as well as advanced firearms.
Plus, as mentioned, this was just in western Europe. The further north and east you went, the more pagan things could became.
D&D can be flavoured to any culture/setting you want, and mostly what people want is a grab-bag of all the interesting bits.
Cool. We agree!
You can argue as to the extent that isolated pockets of polytheism existed in Europe after the Christian conquest. But, what you can't do is argue that polytheism was as widespread and acceptable as it is in the default DnD world.From the middle ages onwards, yes. For the dark ages less so, and before then polytheism was the norm. Had Christianity not reared it's head, it probably still would be as it is in, for example, India today. You have to admit, having polytheism makes the D&D world much more interesting.
Technically Catholism does have polytheistic mechanisms. People pray to Saints, not to a direct god.
These Saint basically act as multiple gods.Same as in FR, you don't pray to AO, you pray to Bane or Lloth.
|
|
Actually, when I visited Estonia, I was amazed at how strong of a Pagan vibe there was.
I'm stressing that its mythology was nothing like the default DnD world, but a pagan vibe was still there.
Sure, but it's a reconstructed religion adopted originally in the 1920s and 1930s in an attempt to establish a separate national identitity, not an unbroken continuity of belief.
I'm not arguing that the world of today doesn't have significant Pagan populations in a number of areas (I'm living proof that Pagans in the modern world exist, after all), I'm stating that there's no definitive proof of an ongoing Pagan tradition. It's all reconstructed religions based on old texts, not a continuing pattern of worship.
That's not bad per se (well, it's unfortunate historically, but hardly followers of such reconstructed religions' fault), and (as mentioned) I'm perfectly willing to believe in isolated exceptions, but there's no proof of any completely unbroken Pagan traditions from Christianity's introduction in an area up through the present day. There probably are some such examples, but not on any widespread or proveable basis.
That's all I'm saying.
Technically Catholism does have polytheistic mechanisms. People pray to Saints, not to a direct god.
These Saint basically act as multiple gods.
Same as in FR, you don't pray to AO, you pray to Bane or Lloth.
Catholics would disagree. :)
Specifically, they'd argue that (unlike such FR gods) saints have no real power of their own. If you pray to them, they basically beseech God to do something on your behalf, as opposed to doing anything themself (as a God might). So they're more incorporeal Clerics than they are actual Gods. :)
I'm personally inclined (as a polytheist) to think that's a primarily semantic distinction, but I can see where they're coming from.