But the player does not want to be of lawful alignment. The question for you as a DM would then be -- what sorts of things can this character do as a neutral good character that he would no longer be able to do as a lawful good character?
Wouldn't that tilt the game towards alignment being a straightjacket?
The only thing I can think of, honestly, is to preserve the historic restrictions of the D&D Monk. And, since a Pathfinder Monk is a lot more balanced than the D&D Monk, I honestly think the alignment restriction is irrelevant for class balance, flavor, tone, and anything else you want to label it.
And that's coming from a career monk player.
Mechanically, I think the only thing that would concern me is the eventual DR the monk gets. As above, if they are going to be neutral, make them choose which way their DR falls on the alignment scale.
But the player does not want to be of lawful alignment. The question for you as a DM would then be -- what sorts of things can this character do as a neutral good character that he would no longer be able to do as a lawful good character?Wouldn't that tilt the game towards alignment being a straightjacket?
That depends on how the DM who started this thread answers the question. If the answer is "nothing of any consequence", then no, alignment is not a straightjacket in his campaign. If the answer is that the player would have problems with his prior class, then we are back to the original issue. If there actually are things that the player routinely does that this DM would regard as alignment violations for a lawful good character, then and only then might alignment possibly be a straightjacket in his campaign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A chaotic monk would work just as well as a lawful monk and everything in between. I mean there are definitely those monks who belong to schools and can follow the path prescribed by their teachers who could be considered lawful. Then there are the wandering monks who have no school that they are associated with. These can be any range of alignment since they are following an individual road toward enlightenment. Heck even a few eastern religions or philosophies like Buddhism say that there are some general guid lines as to how to reach enlightenment but each persons journey is unique. So in this sense each monk is unique in their alignment because each monk from those taught in schools to wandering masters to self taught brawlers that have no formal training, have different experiences that have shaped them.
as to the argument that discipline is an automatic Lawful feature, a rogue can be chaotic yet be utterly disciplined in their lock picking or stealth. just because a person has discipline does not make them Lawful in the slightest.
Some of you have asked for a bit more detail regarding the character in question, so here goes:
The character in question is a Neutral Good (though itgmho definitely leaning towards chaotic over lawful) level 4 Human Dervish of Dawn (or Dawnflower Dervish) Bard.
Essentially she combines years (and years) of time invested in studying various forms of dance by blending it into a martial arts form that emphasizes the scimitar - ie Dervish Dance. At the moment it's described a mix of different dances with a special focus on acrobatic moves and spins.
As her mastery of her chosen combat style increases, she wants to add various ways of changing up her fighting style by swapping from dance to dance.
This would be represented by picking up Style feats, which she wants to get a good start on by taking two levels of Maneuver Monk.
The idea here, and a big part of the reason why I was inclined to handwave the alignment requirement in the first place, is that she's not seeking out a sensei in the monastery on top of a mountain in order to learn the mysterious ways of chi - she won't be spending time studying the way of the open hand, pondering the meaning of a single grain of rice, or waxing cars.
Instead she's decided to strike out on her own to study different forms of dance and martial arts, blend it together and figuring out what works and what doesn't work for her.
As for her personality herself... There is tons and tons of dedication and discipline present (as indeed I believe you'll find in many serious performers) but I'd say there's no particular pull or interest in Law over Chaos - this character is not above lying or cheating in order to get the job done, though she would never hurt anyone just to get what she wants.
That said, she is very protective of friends and family, generally helpful (if a bit cynical), ad is overall a decent person and generally tries to do the right thing if presented with the opportunity.
Someone mentioned that Monks are lawful because the monk requires dedication, discipline, and focus. I realize that if you ask 10 people to define alignments you'll most likely get at least 10 different answers, but this still surprised me. I would certainly not consider those traits tied to any particular alignment.
|
|
GURPS has no core settings and its up to the game master to provide setting. Dogs in the Vineyard has a setting but you could run it without one up to gm's internal logic. Im running a home brew that does not have alignment restrictions that uses pathfinder does that mean everything that is not run in the setting that comes with the system is just grey goo as you call it? That unless we are playing in golarion no other setting has any character or flavor simply due to removing bits of the system we dont like?
If everything is allowed, then there is no flavor to the game, or the world setting. Tattoine is Tattoine more because of what's not present on the planet than what it is present. Because it doesn't have things like Dinosaurs, or Cadillacs, or McDonalds...
How does "Its okay for monks to be chaotic" turn into Mcdonalds on Tatooine? Pretty sure Tattooine had dinosaur things anyway. We call em' aliens, but they were totally dinosaurs!
Krayt Dragons do have certain similarities to dinosaurs ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, explain to me how 'I lied a lot lately, so now I can't learn to punch people in the face harder' makes a lick of sense.
I think in the mindset of the developers, yours isn't the question they were asking, the question was "if people can learn to punch this hard, why doesn't everyone learn to punch like this" and the answer they came up with was "only people with the internal focus and discipline to exert self denial and willpower in their trainer can master this"... hence they went with "lawful" as a game mechanic to reflect that limitation.
to paraphrase a favorite philosopher "if it was easy than everyone would do it"
So, to summarize, it isn't because you lied you can't punch, it is because you lack the willpower not to lie, you lacked the capacity to learn to punch.... the rest of your question just suggests your group treats alignment changes as something that happens too abruptly.
Someone mentioned that Monks are lawful because the monk requires dedication, discipline, and focus. I realize that if you ask 10 people to define alignments you'll most likely get at least 10 different answers, but this still surprised me. I would certainly not consider those traits tied to any particular alignment..I would for the following reasons. Chaotic characters, for good or ill are self-oriented. They reject almost all forms of outside authority or direction. Lawful characters on the other hand believe that discipline and enlightenment must be found from outside oneself, as part of a universal pattern.
Discipline and enlightenment generally require one to surrender to an outside principle, or a learned master as one of the things that defines a monk as opposed to a talented fighter or martial artists, is the relationship between acolyte and master.
It's really hard to see it to the level ascribed to a monk without a lawful alignment.
I don't agree with all you said, but let's assume I do for the sake of argument - that still doesn't explain why monks need to be lawful. The monk you describe most likely would be lawful, but that doesn't mean that all monks need to be.
Take the character I outlined earlier - she's not surrendering to an outside principle or a learned master. She's trailblazing a new form of martial arts, becoming her own master and learning for herself what works and doesn't work for her. Why does that require her to be Lawful?
It's really hard to see it to the level ascribed to a monk without a lawful alignment.
For you maybe, but not for everyone. Especially with this creative license thing people have with their character. For a real life example, it could also be argued that the Miyamoto Musashi is an example of someone well disciplined and capable of having a chaotic alignment.
Again, explain to me how 'I lied a lot lately, so now I can't learn to punch people in the face harder' makes a lick of sense.I think in the mindset of the developers, yours isn't the question they were asking, the question was "if people can learn to punch this hard, why doesn't everyone learn to punch like this" and the answer they came up with was "only people with the internal focus and discipline to exert self denial and willpower in their trainer can master this"... hence they went with "lawful" as a game mechanic to reflect that limitation.
to paraphrase a favorite philosopher "if it was easy than everyone would do it"
So, to summarize, it isn't because you lied you can't punch, it is because you lack the willpower not to lie, you lacked the capacity to learn to punch.... the rest of your question just suggests your group treats alignment changes as something that happens too abruptly.
Also I believe it should be noted that a monk that changes to a non-lawful alignment can not take any more levels in monk but retains all abilities. So lying does not affect punching. Or teleporting for that matter.
wrote various interesting things on monks and being lawful, having internal focus, discipline, self denial and willpower etc
I find that mindset troubling because it implies that internal focus, discipline and/or willpower are traits tied to being Lawful.
That strikes me as a very unfortunate precedence.
I don't agree with all you said, but let's assume I do for the sake of argument - that still doesn't explain why monks need to be lawful. The monk you describe most likely would be lawful, but that doesn't mean that all monks need to be.
Take the character I outlined earlier - she's not surrendering to an outside principle or a learned master. She's trailblazing a new form of martial arts, becoming her own master and learning for herself what works and doesn't work for her. Why does that require her to be Lawful?
"She's trailblazing a new form of martial arts"
I can claim I am doing the same thing from my couch... let's call it Couch-Fu. The question for the GM is 'When is this fighting style powerful enough and esoterically rich enough to pass from the game effect of a fighter with improved unarmed strike, to a mystic warrior with preternatural reflexes, superhuman speed, and the ability to punch through stone walls. If you believe any of those abilities belong in the game they presuppose some kind of connection to pseudo-magical knowledge guarded as a holy relic and only taught to those who are deemed worthy to carry on the tradition.
At what point does a dabbler who is making it up as they go along pass into that realm of game effect.
I'd say the dabbler who makes it up as they go along pass into that realm of game effect when they take their first level of monk...?
Edit: And for the record, if you ever pick up that level of monk I'd happily sign up for weekly classes in couch-fu!
|
Lemme ask you something here..
I have a monk. He is incredibly lazy, spends most of the day laying on his cot drinking sake. His appearance is rather atrocious, save for his female kimono he wears outside his normal clothing. He does run a food cart, but lacks conviction to constantly run it, and would rather just be laying there drinking his sake. He calls pretty much everything troublesome, a pain, unlucky, misfortune, that takes him away from lazing around on his cot.
Our game is homebrewed.. so what alignment is he? What Archetype?
I guess I am part of the minority that thinks the alignment restriction is fine. We aren't talking about just learning to punch someone better. We are talking about taking such a disciplined, focused approach to training yourself physically, mentally and emotionally that you gain abilities that are mystical in stature. That kind of dedication requires such a disciplined approach that the only people capable of it either start with orderly outlook on the world or develop it as part of the process.
If someone is multiclassing just so they can punch better, then let them take the unarmed strike feat.
If everything is allowed, then there is no flavor to the game, or the world setting. Tattoine is Tattoine more because of what's not present on the planet than what it is present. Because it doesn't have things like Dinosaurs, or Cadillacs, or McDonalds...
The same goes even more for fantasy. For fantasy to have a theme it must have a structure, which means that like a sculpture it's defined as much by what you chip away as the form you leave in place.
If you take alignment out of the setting, you should do so by replacing it with thematic restrictions or playstyle. An "everything goes" world has no more character or flavor in it than grey goo.
Don't even start with this complete and utter bullshit for the umpteenth time.
If your only argument relies on, in its entirety, reductio ad absurdum, you have already lost.
One could argue that the Lawful requirement is reflecting the amount of discipline needed to be a martial artist, but there are three arguments against that.
1)Alignment has more to do with your morality and a chaotic alignment does not mean that you do not have personal discipline but an outlook that values freedom over imperatives. Some real life martial art styles owe their existence to acts of resisting oppression and fighting toward freedom.
2) Wizards need a lot of focus, dedication and discipline to study basically the laws of the universe and control them. Similar things could be said for Clerics. Those classes have no such alignment restrictions, so the amount of scholastic discipline is not represented by the Lawful alignment.
3)What isn't represented is the fantasy martial arts where a major point is to be expressive with ki, each punch coming with a shout to unleash more emotion into a strike effectively choosing to allow some of your inner chaos loose.
I think a change from lawful only to simply being non-chaotic makes more sense. I really don't see a scandal in allowing a monk to be Neutral Good, True Neutral, or Neutral evil.
Edit: Also since neutral contains this definition, "Neutral is also the alignment for those who seek a centered existence, with moderation in all things, Ascetics who take no side and instead seek spiritual perfection of the self are an excellent example of this," Link for a reference. I honestly couldn't come up with a better description for a monk if I tried.
The worlds that I have created and run, the PF default world, and many I have played in, all call for "active deities". In these style worlds, Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line. Your characters alignment dictates what is going to happen to them after death, and how the divine powers treat you. Taking this into account, in worlds like this, a deity would be perfectly within character to deny power to a cleric if they do not match up fairly closely to the alignment of the power (for example the "one step off" rule in PF). Your following of the religion is not based off of your interpretation of the texts, but the deity's. Much harder to cherry-pick then.Why not? Religious texts are the easiest things in the world to interpret in such a way as to cherry-pick to find something that suits the ideas, opinions, and biases that you already possess (real world examples NOT forthcoming).
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
Why would they care? They're getting their divine butt-kissing from a meaningless, impotent, irrelevant mote of dust beneath their notice. They're sucking up the energy of worship, why would they care what the vermin does with it?
For the most part, this same attitude has gone into creating the base classes. The developer team has had visions on how they want that class to be perceived/played as default, and build some of the RP in accordingly.
I consider this to be a mistake.
Someone mentioned that Monks are lawful because the monk requires dedication, discipline, and focus. I realize that if you ask 10 people to define alignments you'll most likely get at least 10 different answers, but this still surprised me. I would certainly not consider those traits tied to any particular alignment..I would for the following reasons. Chaotic characters, for good or ill are self-oriented. They reject almost all forms of outside authority or direction. Lawful characters on the other hand believe that discipline and enlightenment must be found from outside oneself, as part of a universal pattern.
Discipline and enlightenment generally require one to surrender to an outside principle, or a learned master as one of the things that defines a monk as opposed to a talented fighter or martial artists, is the relationship between acolyte and master.
It's really hard to see it to the level ascribed to a monk without a lawful alignment.
That is fluff. It is not rules. It is A way to play a monk. It is not THE way.
I note that the standard monk fluff rules uses the phrase ' self-taught brawlers ' as an example of a monk character as well.
It's really hard to see it to the level ascribed to a monk without a lawful alignment.For you maybe, but not for everyone. Especially with this creative license thing people have with their character. For a real life example, it could also be argued that the Miyamoto Musashi is an example of someone well disciplined and capable of having a chaotic alignment.
Indeed. If an individual player can only imagine Lawful monks, then he can choose to play only Lawful monks. If a DM can only imagine Lawful monks, then he can require them to be Lawful at his table.
Restrictions like this should be made at the table level, not the system level.
wrote various interesting things on monks and being lawful, having internal focus, discipline, self denial and willpower etcI find that mindset troubling because it implies that internal focus, discipline and/or willpower are traits tied to being Lawful.
That strikes me as a very unfortunate precedence.
Willpower no, but iternal focus and discipline are traits tied to being Lawful.
Could you point out where that is specified? I've just reread through everything alignment-related on PFSRD and I've read most of the other Paizo books at one point or another, and I can't recall reading that statement.
Come to think of it we might be thinking of different definitions of discipline.
I think a change from lawful only to simply being non-chaotic makes more sense. I really don't see a scandal in allowing a monk to be Neutral Good, True Neutral, or Neutral evil.
Edit: Also since neutral contains this definition, "Neutral is also the alignment for those who seek a centered existence, with moderation in all things, Ascetics who take no side and instead seek spiritual perfection of the self are an excellent example of this," Link for a reference. I honestly couldn't come up with a better description for a monk if I tried.
There's also the fact to consider ... that class is not concept, and concept is not class. You don't have to be a Monk (class) to be a monk (concept), and you don't have to be a monk (concept) to be a monk (class). Same with Barbarian and any other loaded class name. A character is not aware of his class, he only knows what he can do.
Could you point out where that is specified? I've just reread through everything alignment-related on PFSRD and I've read most of the other Paizo books at one point or another, and I can't recall reading that statement.
Come to think of it we might be thinking of different definitions of discipline.
It's really late here and i can't go over my books now, but i can tell you that i take most (not all) of my definitions about Law and Chaos from having read a lot of Moorcock's books. Oh and by not using the word law when i am thinking about Law, i use the word order instead so that i don't get mixed up by having the rules the sentient being choose to govern their societies with confuse me when i am trying to figure out something about one of the universal constants of my fantasy setting.
But the player does not want to be of lawful alignment. The question for you as a DM would then be -- what sorts of things can this character do as a neutral good character that he would no longer be able to do as a lawful good character?Wouldn't that tilt the game towards alignment being a straightjacket?
Yeah, 'keep this alignment or you're screwed' is pretty much the definition of a straitjacket. If anybody 'doesn't know how alignment works', it's the designers who put that in the game.
|
|
Lemme ask you something here..
I have a monk. He is incredibly lazy, spends most of the day laying on his cot drinking sake. His appearance is rather atrocious, save for his female kimono he wears outside his normal clothing. He does run a food cart, but lacks conviction to constantly run it, and would rather just be laying there drinking his sake. He calls pretty much everything troublesome, a pain, unlucky, misfortune, that takes him away from lazing around on his cot.
Our game is homebrewed.. so what alignment is he? What Archetype?
Posting this up there again. Its test.
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards used to be forbidden to be lawful. Now they aren't. The sky remains the sky, and has not yet fallen.
Rangers used to have to be good. Even after they were allowed to be evil, they were forbidden to take their own race as a favored enemy unless they were evil (so, no good bounty hunters, upholding the law and bringing in wicked folk), and now that too has been dropped by the wayside, and yet, the sky, she doesn't fall.
Monks and Paladins used to be forbidden to multiclass (or to be any race other than human!). Now, again, not so much. Multiclass Halfling monk / paladins are go!
Dwarves can now be wizards. 'Humanoids' no longer have to cope with shamen and witch-doctors, but can have actual clerics and sorcerers. Fighters no longer automatically get a castle at 9th level.
The game has come a long way. The ditching of 'can't be lawful / must be lawful' from the barbarian and monk seems pretty much inevitable, as the law / chaos alignment direction continue to be red-headed stepchildren. Look at the Paladin, the 'paragon' of lawful good, who doesn't detect chaos, doesn't smite chaos, can associate freely with chaotic folk, etc. 'Lawful' is utterly meaningless to it's own *paragon,* so why should it matter to the monk?
'Discipline' and 'lawfulness' have nothing to do with each other, or the monk, based off of the *outlaw* martial artist schools of a past in which it was forbidden for peasants to bear arms or resist their masters, leading to the development of rebellious fighting schools, that taught unarmed fighting techniques and how to use various farm implements as weapons.
The barbarian 'can't be lawful' restriction is even more contradictory, thematically, as the 'barbarian' folk had much stricter codes of behavior and cultural taboos than the more open-minded and culturally diverse 'civilized' city folk of their day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bards used to be forbidden to be lawful. Now they aren't. The sky remains the sky, and has not yet fallen.
Rangers used to have to be good. Even after they were allowed to be evil, they were forbidden to take their own race as a favored enemy unless they were evil (so, no good bounty hunters, upholding the law and bringing in wicked folk), and now that too has been dropped by the wayside, and yet, the sky, she doesn't fall.
Monks and Paladins used to be forbidden to multiclass (or to be any race other than human!). Now, again, not so much. Multiclass Halfling monk / paladins are go!
Dwarves can now be wizards. 'Humanoids' no longer have to cope with shamen and witch-doctors, but can have actual clerics and sorcerers. Fighters no longer automatically get a castle at 9th level.
The game has come a long way. The ditching of 'can't be lawful / must be lawful' from the barbarian and monk seems pretty much inevitable, as the law / chaos alignment direction continue to be red-headed stepchildren. Look at the Paladin, the 'paragon' of lawful good, who doesn't detect chaos, doesn't smite chaos, can associate freely with chaotic folk, etc. 'Lawful' is utterly meaningless to it's own *paragon,* so why should it matter to the monk?
'Discipline' and 'lawfulness' have nothing to do with each other, or the monk, based off of the *outlaw* martial artist schools of a past in which it was forbidden for peasants to bear arms or resist their masters, leading to the development of rebellious fighting schools, that taught unarmed fighting techniques and how to use various farm implements as weapons.
The barbarian 'can't be lawful' restriction is even more contradictory, thematically, as the 'barbarian' folk had much stricter codes of behavior and cultural taboos than the more open-minded and culturally diverse 'civilized' city folk of their day.
*applause*
*applause*Bards used to be forbidden to be lawful. Now they aren't. The sky remains the sky, and has not yet fallen.
Rangers used to have to be good. Even after they were allowed to be evil, they were forbidden to take their own race as a favored enemy unless they were evil (so, no good bounty hunters, upholding the law and bringing in wicked folk), and now that too has been dropped by the wayside, and yet, the sky, she doesn't fall.
Monks and Paladins used to be forbidden to multiclass (or to be any race other than human!). Now, again, not so much. Multiclass Halfling monk / paladins are go!
Dwarves can now be wizards. 'Humanoids' no longer have to cope with shamen and witch-doctors, but can have actual clerics and sorcerers. Fighters no longer automatically get a castle at 9th level.
The game has come a long way. The ditching of 'can't be lawful / must be lawful' from the barbarian and monk seems pretty much inevitable, as the law / chaos alignment direction continue to be red-headed stepchildren. Look at the Paladin, the 'paragon' of lawful good, who doesn't detect chaos, doesn't smite chaos, can associate freely with chaotic folk, etc. 'Lawful' is utterly meaningless to it's own *paragon,* so why should it matter to the monk?
'Discipline' and 'lawfulness' have nothing to do with each other, or the monk, based off of the *outlaw* martial artist schools of a past in which it was forbidden for peasants to bear arms or resist their masters, leading to the development of rebellious fighting schools, that taught unarmed fighting techniques and how to use various farm implements as weapons.
The barbarian 'can't be lawful' restriction is even more contradictory, thematically, as the 'barbarian' folk had much stricter codes of behavior and cultural taboos than the more open-minded and culturally diverse 'civilized' city folk of their day.
joining in *applause*
Posting this up there again. Its test.Lemme ask you something here..
I have a monk. He is incredibly lazy, spends most of the day laying on his cot drinking sake. His appearance is rather atrocious, save for his female kimono he wears outside his normal clothing. He does run a food cart, but lacks conviction to constantly run it, and would rather just be laying there drinking his sake. He calls pretty much everything troublesome, a pain, unlucky, misfortune, that takes him away from lazing around on his cot.
Our game is homebrewed.. so what alignment is he? What Archetype?
Duunno if there's a Shinigami Captain archetype there buddy.
|
|
Duunno if there's a Shinigami Captain archetype there buddy.Posting this up there again. Its test.Lemme ask you something here..
I have a monk. He is incredibly lazy, spends most of the day laying on his cot drinking sake. His appearance is rather atrocious, save for his female kimono he wears outside his normal clothing. He does run a food cart, but lacks conviction to constantly run it, and would rather just be laying there drinking his sake. He calls pretty much everything troublesome, a pain, unlucky, misfortune, that takes him away from lazing around on his cot.
Our game is homebrewed.. so what alignment is he? What Archetype?
*snickers* Yes.. some of him is that.. But I've actually combined all the laziest characters together into one, added some of my own flare to it.
The character is a flowing Monk, And is only L cause the rules demand it. Even though, he is far from a fully 'disciplined' character. The Chaotic assassin is FAR more disciplined than he is, due to her devout devotion to her god.
His entire creation is to.. 'go with the flow' Something that is far more neutral possibly even chaotic, and fits the archetype very well.
Duunno if there's a Shinigami Captain archetype there buddy.
A good number of anime characters would probably fit the chaotic monk description. Dragon Ball Z, Ranma 1/2, Yu Yu Hakusho; Pretty sure those three all have disciplined characters who are defined by chaotic nature, and I'm sure the list would go on. Been a while since I've delved into that sort of thing though.(Edit: If I remember right nearly everyone in Ranma was a disciplined fighter and was awful at being lawful or good...)
We do have a 3rd party archetype for a psychic using his own custom weapons/armor/shields and possibly even spirit cannons though...
Come to think of it, Samurai seem disciplined to me, as well. All about honor and their warrior code.
But, I guess they're just undisciplined rabble, since they can be of any alignment...
You might want to look up actual day to day samurai.
Large amounts of them never saw battle, lived as poets and artists, coasted on status, degenerated to banditry, worked peasant level jobs such as umbrella making etc.
It's easy to see why they're all alignments. Samurai pretty much meant you owned land, swords, and had the authority to order around the lower classes. And many had even less than that.
Hara-Kiri : Death of a Samurai really highlights the plight of the less glorious samurai and it's on Netflix for streaming right now.
Highly recommended.
Come to think of it, Samurai seem disciplined to me, as well. All about honor and their warrior code.
But, I guess they're just undisciplined rabble, since they can be of any alignment...
You might want to look up actual day to day samurai.
Large amounts of them never saw battle, lived as poets and artists, coasted on status, degenerated to banditry, worked peasant level jobs such as umbrella making etc.
It's easy to see why they're all alignments. Samurai pretty much meant you owned land, swords, and had the authority to order around the lower classes. And many had even less than that.
Hara-Kiri : Death of a Samurai really highlights the plight of the less glorious samurai and it's on Netflix for streaming right now.
Highly recommended.
by that logic they shouldn't have most of their abilities.
by that logic they shouldn't have most of their abilities.
If we compared everything to their real world counter parts killing a dragon would be a whole lot harder. I always thought knights were actually pretty dirty and could outright ignore their orders with low justice if I remember right, in particular the lower ranks such as Chevalier. Slightly different game in pathfinder. A lot of what you see in fiction is romanticized, which isn't a bad thing.
Monks are lawful because their disciplines require... well, discipline. A regimen. Strict adherence to a specific path of routines, practices, rituals, etc. Whether it would unbalance the game is unimportant; it would violate the tone of the monk.
And tone trumps mechanics every time--at least, in our group it does.
Personally, I see this as representing ONE kind of 'monk,' and it represents them quite well.
It's not the kind of monk I personally enjoy.
My personal belief is that you can be disciplined and have a routine without being strictly lawful. Masters may not teach 'unlawful' types in REAL LIFE... however, I prefer playing in a FANTASY world.
The fantasy worlds of Jackie Chan, Van Damme, Chuck Norris, and Bruce Lee mostly. Almost every character they have ever played had 'discipline' but went against the rules or laws or advice of elders to wreck holy vengeance for some slight or other.
When I say I want to play a monk... I mean that I want Flurry of Blows, I want Stunning Fists, I want my AC THROUGH THE ROOF!!! That's the character I have in mind. The Nightwing and Daredevil martial Artists who kick butt and take names.
I was very excited to see the 'Martial Artist' lose the alignment restriction, but frankly it lost too much else to fit my needs. I agree with the OP's player that Master of Many Styles is my favorite monk class.
And honestly... Learning Monkey style takes strict discipline... Learning tiger style requires GREAT focus... Snake style? Same thing....
Taking all these ancient techniques passed down over generations from master to student... and mixing and matching them in unheard of combos? that's a pretty chaotic thing to do :D
The 'tone' of the class is really what you say the tone is. If you want a crouching tiger/hidden dragon monk? then say so... if you want Jackie Chan bouncing down three walls and rolling under a cart to punch 4 people at once.... while drunk?? Play that :)
Paladins are LG, they have a strict code and religious restrictions... and I wholeheartedly favor that restriction. Monks? Not nearly as much. If you can get the player to agree to never multiclass with anything that would normally be outlawed? then I wouldn't have ANY issue with a NG or CG monk.
Why? The only one that is actually related to discipline would be weapon expertise.
Any samurai can own a horse, or a banner, or make a boastful challenge.
Resolve can just be stubborn will, "I was born a samurai! I can't be beaten by you commoners!"
is it evil to leech there ki yet?
No. Leeching Ki isn't inherently evil, at least not until your group decides it is. Not big on anything being inherently evil. You might want to look for the thread asking if drinking blood is evil. That was a mess.