|
Again, what you call 'fluff' is not code for "useless stuff a good game should ignore." It defines the tone and character of the game world, which the rules and mechanics are merely support for. As such, it is far MORE important than any arguments about balance.
Pathfinder is not a game world. Golarion is a game world. Pathfinder is a game system, and it's supposed to be setting-neutral. That means the GM controls the tone and character of the world.
'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.
Why do monk powers presuppose some zealously guarded martial secret? I could just as easily say that druidic practice, with its secret language, metal taboos, and unsurpassed shapeshifting magic, presupposes some great circle of druids (patterned the historical priestly caste of druids) guarding pseudo-magical knowledge of the natural world who only teach those they deem worthy and that therefore all druids must be lawful.
Alternatively, I could say that druidic powers are granted by a transcendent contact with a force of nature, and that this force imparts all druidic abilities and knowledge of the sacred language to the druid in a moment of mystic unity. Or I could say that most druids are formally inducted into the great circle of druids, but that some are taught by fey creatures (which are of course notoriously chaotic). Or I could say that despite being in some ways orderly, the great circle of druids is true neutral due to a focus on balance and moderation (as indeed druids are currently cast). All these explain druidic powers in a logical and flavourful way.
The idea that monks ought to be lawful because they were inspired by various martial or spiritual traditions that some people associate with the lawful alignment ignores the fact that there are other logical and flavourful explanations that might exist for those powers.
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.
... and other ideas of whether the classic monk image is necessarily lawful.
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.
What if it's not lack of willpower but lack of desire that causes you to lie? What if you don't think it's important to tell the truth, or obey the officers of the king?
Willpower no, but iternal focus and discipline are traits tied to being Lawful.
And enjoying new experiences and ideas is a trait tied to being Chaotic. Are all inventors Chaotic because they devote themselves to new ideas?
I too miss the blackguard. I don't miss the mish-a-mosh "paladins of every alignment" 3.5 tried to give us. They gave me headaches.
Admittedly so do antipaladins. Its like Jerk the character class.
I'm actually very much in favor of a Paladin for each alignment. Mostly because I think Alignment is part of a Paladin's superpower, but also because in another thread where it came up an idea came to mind of Paladins being much like the different colored Lantern Corps.
I'd like to ask what books 3.5 had for different alignment Paladins, I'd like to incorporate them in the next game I'm DMing.
I'm actually very much in favor of a Paladin for each alignment. Mostly because I think Alignment is part of a Paladin's superpower, but also because in another thread where it came up an idea came to mind of Paladins being much like the different colored Lantern Corps.
I'd like to ask what books 3.5 had for different alignment Paladins, I'd like to incorporate them in the next game I'm DMing.
I think it would be cooler to have a build your own paladin, which is what I allow kind of. Pick an alignment, pick powers based on your alignment. Every paladin is more unique, and you don't end up with just 2 types of paladins of two extremes, but even two paladins following the same alignment could be two different people.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had additional paladins, and several issues of Dragon magazine had extra versions of the paladin. The Unearthed arcana is actually on the 3.5 SRD, and I'm sure you can find the dragon magazine variants with some digging.
Pathfinder is not a game world. Golarion is a game world. Pathfinder is a game system, and it's supposed to be setting-neutral. That means the GM controls the tone and character of the world.
It may be setting neutral, but the Pathfinder Core Rules are not lore neutral. The rules definitely come with their own default fluff and meaning attached to them, particularly with the classes. They are not intended to be entirely generic even if they are intended to be fairly broad archetypal constructs. And this isn't a bad thing because they help form a lingua franca or common language for us players and fans who participate in different campaign settings and worlds.
I'm actually very much in favor of a Paladin for each alignment. Mostly because I think Alignment is part of a Paladin's superpower, but also because in another thread where it came up an idea came to mind of Paladins being much like the different colored Lantern Corps.
I'd like to ask what books 3.5 had for different alignment Paladins, I'd like to incorporate them in the next game I'm DMing.
I think it would be cooler to have a build your own paladin, which is what I allow kind of. Pick an alignment, pick powers based on your alignment. Every paladin is more unique, and you don't end up with just 2 types of paladins of two extremes, but even two paladins following the same alignment could be two different people.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had additional paladins, and several issues of Dragon magazine had extra versions of the paladin. The Unearthed arcana is actually on the 3.5 SRD, and I'm sure you can find the dragon magazine variants with some digging.
What I wanted to do was make 7 more Paladins for the other alignments and put them in a game where different nations employ a different kind of Paladin (called [color]-Paragons) I wanted to see 3.5's versions because I wasn't sure what kind of smite each alignment would have or really how on earth to make a true neutral Paladin, as well as other paladin abilities translated to other alignments. I just need some inspiration on these things before I try to build them.
They are not intended to be entirely generic even if they are intended to be fairly broad archetypal constructs. And this isn't a bad thing because they help form a lingua franca or common language for us players and fans who participate in different campaign settings and worlds.
They suck at being broad concepts if being a chaotic monk is a problem though. It is bad if people actually questioning playing a chaotic guy who punches things because the core rule book things the only guy who can specialize in punching things and being unarmored is specially the monk, who is lawful!
They are not intended to be entirely generic even if they are intended to be fairly broad archetypal constructs. And this isn't a bad thing because they help form a lingua franca or common language for us players and fans who participate in different campaign settings and worlds.They suck at being broad concepts if being a chaotic monk is a problem though. It is bad if people actually questioning playing a chaotic guy who punches things because the core rule book things the only guy who can specialize in punching things and being unarmored is specially the monk, who is lawful!
My CE Catfolk Brawler disagrees with this precedence.
My CE Catfolk Brawler disagrees with this precedence.
He fights unarmed and unarmored? Does it really excuse monks being lawful only and all of their class features being off limits? Especially since you had to wait on the archetype kind enough to give you an alternative, instead of just making monks open to all alignments in the first place?
My CE Catfolk Brawler disagrees with this precedence.He fights unarmed and unarmored? Does it really excuse monks being lawful only and all of their class features being off limits? Especially since you had to wait on the archetype kind enough to give you an alternative, instead of just making monks open to all alignments in the first place?
He does. With a little help from a 2 level dip in master of many styles. And I am on the side that says Monks should not have an alignment restriction like Lawful only. There are just simply too many ways to explain how a monk could get their powers and too many arguments as to what "disciplined" means. A monk is in no way attached to a god and can behave however he likes in every day life as long as he maintains training as far as I'm concerned. As long as he meditates or goes through some other regiment daily there should be no problem. Just as the Wizard must get 8 hours of rest to prepare spells and gets to ignore alignment restrictions.
'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.Why do monk powers presuppose some zealously guarded martial secret? I could just as easily say that druidic practice, with its secret language, metal taboos, and unsurpassed shapeshifting magic, presupposes some great circle of druids (patterned the historical priestly caste of druids) guarding pseudo-magical knowledge of the natural world who only teach those they deem worthy and that therefore all druids must be lawful.
Continuing to play devil's advocate here.
The only reason I would suggest that presupposition for Monks is the game includes options for PC classes who want to fight unarmed, but are not monks. Any class can pick up improved unarmed strike and that is how a 'hero' fights with fists, but the monk class outshines the basic 'brawling' available to everyone in a way that suggests a significant difference of style and power.
This is a chicken vs egg argument. I wasn't suggesting that the fact that the lawful alignment restriction is what gives the monk it's powers, I'm suggesting that the original authors designed a power difference between unarmed non-monk and unarmed monk, came up with a fluff reason to justify that difference, and tried to create a mechanic in the game to match the fluff and settled on an alignment restriction.
to expand, (or to troll incessantly if you prefer) there isn't a feat I can take as a fighter that is "half-assed spellcasting" which allows me to showcase what the power level of a wizard or druid without the discipline that makes them a wizard or druid would look like, but that feat does exist for unarmed combat.
|
to expand, (or to troll incessantly if you prefer) there isn't a feat I can take as a fighter that is "half-assed spellcasting" which allows me to showcase what the power level of a wizard or druid without the...
I would argue that "half-assed spellcasting" is exactly what Arcane Strike is. Granted, you have to have spellcasting ability or a SLA to take it, but the feat specifically states you take a tiny fragment of arcane power and imbue it into an attack. There are also feats, traits, and rogue talents that let you take a cantrip as a SLA.
They suck at being broad concepts if being a chaotic monk is a problem though. It is bad if people actually questioning playing a chaotic guy who punches things because the core rule book things the only guy who can specialize in punching things and being unarmored is specially the monk, who is lawful!
Actually, I think what you are looking for here is a monk with the martial artist archetype (Ultimate Combat). The archetype description explicitly states that they may be of any alignment.
And gets rid of 90% of the Monk stuff in return.
And gets rid of 90% of the Monk stuff in return.
This.
I can recreate flurry of blows with a fighter that uses unarmed strikes and 2 weapon fighting and as for damage dice I can easily find the static damage to make up for it and more. But. No Ki, no abundant step, no fuse styles, no animal aspects etc... So. Believe it or not the monk's best abilities are not in fact unarmed fighting. Other classes can do it better. So the martial artist archetype for people who want to play a non-lawful "Monk" is almost worthless.
Cleric and Druids... get there power from an outside force. Alignment restriction make sense, as they lose everything almost, when they fall out of there alignment/go against there god.
Paladin... in essence is a cleric -4 levels, but still tapping into there gods "Force", for there other divine power. They also almost lose everything when they drop alignment/there god.
.......................
Monk and Barbarians = does not make any since.
PHB p 60 = Ex-Monk = A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but Retains All Monk Abilities.
Ex-Barbarian = N/A, nothing, not even a side note entry for them.
So, by raw, you just need to keep changing your alignment all the time, Lawful when you want to gain monk levels, any non lawful, when you want to gain barbarian levels.
|
|
Being able to ignore all DR is not worthless. Being immune to Ability Damage, Fatigue, and Exhaustion is not worthless. Fast Movement is not worthless. Monk AC bonus are not worthless. Defensive Roll is not worthless. Having increased unarmed damage, and being able take fighter only feats enhancing it is not worthless.
Yes Brawler fighter is very good at unarmed combat. But Martial Artist can be just as good and have a very different flavor.
Being able to ignore all DR is not worthless. Being immune to Ability Damage, Fatigue, and Exhaustion is not worthless. Fast Movement is not worthless. Monk AC bonus are not worthless. Defensive Roll is not worthless. Having increased unarmed damage, and being able take fighter only feats enhancing it is not worthless.
Yes Brawler fighter is very good at unarmed combat. But Martial Artist can be just as good and have a very different flavor.
Both of them have the same flavor if I feel like it.
|
Willpower no, but iternal focus and discipline are traits tied to being Lawful.
Me, I always thought that Inquisitors come across as being very disciplined...
Which is why, in my group, they are not allowed to be Chaotic. Paizo missed that one, but enforcing the rules of your faith on others who dare to break them is not compatible with a chaotic alignment.
Again, what you call 'fluff' is not code for "useless stuff a good game should ignore." It defines the tone and character of the game world, which the rules and mechanics are merely support for. As such, it is far MORE important than any arguments about balance.
Did you hear that everyone? If you follow the rules as written, and allow Inquisitors to be chaotic in your games, you're tone-deaf...
Being able to ignore all DR is not worthless. Being immune to Ability Damage, Fatigue, and Exhaustion is not worthless. Fast Movement is not worthless. Monk AC bonus are not worthless. Defensive Roll is not worthless. Having increased unarmed damage, and being able take fighter only feats enhancing it is not worthless.
Yes Brawler fighter is very good at unarmed combat. But Martial Artist can be just as good and have a very different flavor.
Oh, it's a GOOD archetype, but it's not the same thing as having a non-Lawful Monk.
It's replaces so much it's almost its own class.
Being able to ignore all DR is not worthless. Being immune to Ability Damage, Fatigue, and Exhaustion is not worthless. Fast Movement is not worthless. Monk AC bonus are not worthless. Defensive Roll is not worthless. Having increased unarmed damage, and being able take fighter only feats enhancing it is not worthless.
Yes Brawler fighter is very good at unarmed combat. But Martial Artist can be just as good and have a very different flavor.
Oh, it's a GOOD archetype, but it's not the same thing as having a non-Lawful Monk.
It's replaces so much it's almost its own class.
I'm a firm believer that the martial artist should be a fighter archetype if any. It's already been allowed fighter only feats.
Question: What if I, as a DM, cannot justify and alignment restriction in a setting. For example I had a setting where there was The Kamijuken and the Rinjuken, two martial art schools represented by the style feats. The Butadan Rinjuken was a style that focused on ferocity and unleashing yourself from the constraints of that civilization has placed on the natural lust for blood using the boar style, kind of a Chaotic thing.
Also Chaotic is that much like Capoeira the origins of both Juken are made to face against slavery and oppression. Chaotic isn't unhinged, unbalanced, undisciplined or unruly, they are believers in personal freedom from the constraints of another's moral imperative and democracy. In light of that I believe that Butadan Rinjuken can be a monk thing but Monks have a lawful restriction meaning that by the more rigis stereotypes evil monks wouldn't be practicing an martial arts style created for freedom, because LE is all over slavery and oppression.
I'm a firm believer that the martial artist should be a fighter archetype if any. It's already been allowed fighter only feats.Being able to ignore all DR is not worthless. Being immune to Ability Damage, Fatigue, and Exhaustion is not worthless. Fast Movement is not worthless. Monk AC bonus are not worthless. Defensive Roll is not worthless. Having increased unarmed damage, and being able take fighter only feats enhancing it is not worthless.
Yes Brawler fighter is very good at unarmed combat. But Martial Artist can be just as good and have a very different flavor.
Oh, it's a GOOD archetype, but it's not the same thing as having a non-Lawful Monk.
It's replaces so much it's almost its own class.
Ive been writing up some thoughts about classes in a long essay and one conclusions I made was that Monk and Ninja shouldn't exist if archetypes exist. The short story is that Rogues have a Ninja archetype making the existence of a Ninja alt class dumb. not that Ninja is a bad class but the fact that it's there is dumb.
With Monk I wound up killing Monk Fighter and Barbarian and making two classes called Fighter and Warrior.
The theory was that if Monk is not defined very well and when they are they're defined badly. Also Monk and Barbarian suffer from replicating a trope that is too rigid when they should be representing a mode of character that is flexible. I started by differentiating Fighter and Barbarian. A Fighter uses weapons and becomes skilled with them, a Barbarian powers through with his rage and body. following that logic I defined Fighter as someone who uses technique as deadly weapon and Barbarian (now called Warrior because Barbarian is too loaded of a name) as someone who makes their body into a weapon. From there I split Monk into those two classes, Fighters absorbing style feats as weapon group style feats (including unarmed styles.)among other things, and Warriors absorbing the concept of bodily energy being controlled to turn their bodies into a deadly force (turning rage into kind of a ki pool) They do mirror each other in that one goes into style stances for different buffs and the other goes into a 'trance' that can be defined as a berserker's rage or a still mind, one being of mundane technique that through archetypes can segue into martial arts and the other that can segue into 'training so hard that you shoot lazers'.
The point is that I felt that method of looking at Monk allowed to explore more modes of 'martial artist' while Monk, even with it's long list of super mixable archetypes does not do because of the Lawful alignment. it cant even mimic real life martial art philosophies. I'm sorely disappointed that I can't do monk like Fung Wan characters because of alignment restrictions (and monks sucking a bit) and the restriction isn't there because of the logic of intense discipline (so many other classes require that) but for the same reason for it's name. It's representing one kind of thing. The same way Barbarian is representing one kind of thing.
|
|
Eh, removing alignment is one thing. Completely homebrewing classes is something else entirely. If you are going to change pathfinder that much, why not just play a game that already separates fluff from mechanics? There are several to choose from that are all much more free in character concept creation than Pathfinder ranging from rules heavy like GURPS or HERO to rules light like FATE.
I think when it comes down to the alignment restrictions of monk (and anything like that) you really need to decide what YOU want the Monk to represent in your world / game.
Whenever I run a game I allow any form of monk as it reflects how I want the monk to play. Personally I am of the opinion that if the Monk had any form of alignment restriction it should be True Neutral but that's based on the view of the Monk that I have.
There really isn't any wrong answer here and any problem with the DR or Fist Alignment stuff can be solved with some minor adjustments here or there.
|
|
The only reason I would suggest that presupposition for Monks is the game includes options for PC classes who want to fight unarmed, but are not monks. Any class can pick up improved unarmed strike and that is how a 'hero' fights with fists, but the monk class outshines the basic 'brawling' available to everyone in a way that suggests a significant difference of style and power.
This is a chicken vs egg argument. I wasn't suggesting that the fact that the lawful alignment restriction is what gives the monk it's powers, I'm suggesting that the original authors designed a power difference between unarmed non-monk and unarmed monk, came up with a fluff reason to justify that difference, and tried to create a mechanic in the game to match the fluff and settled on an alignment restriction.
From what I've heard, the Unarmed Fighter archetype outshines the monk at brawling, he just doesn't get fancy bonuses like disease immunity. So the difference is not in power, just types of abilities.
But why that fluff reason to explain the monk's mystic powers? What makes "lawfulness" better or more necessary than other fluff reasons? Why not, for example, say that a monk by definition spurns material goods and give them the actual ability to function without gear? The class suggests it should be gear-independent (even though it isn't), there's already the seeds of aestheticism with monks losing flurry and AC bonuses when armoured, and it also makes sense compared to the druid, which is partly distinguished from the cleric by being unable to wear metal armour.
Or if that's too difficult, why not just say "a monk trains the mind together with the body" and leave it at that? There's no real explanation for the differences between witches and wizards mechanically aside from "a wizard gets power from long study, a witch gets it from a mysterious patron." The designers didn't feel the need to make the wizard lawful or the witch nongood.
It may be setting neutral, but the Pathfinder Core Rules are not lore neutral. The rules definitely come with their own default fluff and meaning attached to them, particularly with the classes. They are not intended to be entirely generic even if they are intended to be fairly broad archetypal constructs. And this isn't a bad thing because they help form a lingua franca or common language for us players and fans who participate in different campaign settings and worlds.Pathfinder is not a game world. Golarion is a game world. Pathfinder is a game system, and it's supposed to be setting-neutral. That means the GM controls the tone and character of the world.
And I like those - as suggestions. I think it's a very good thing that all the classes come with a short description at the top describing a typical member of that class. I also like how most of the classes are interesting both mechanically and thematically. I think the oracle was a huge improvement on the 3.5 "Favoured Soul" for a Cha-based spontaneous divine caster precisely because it has a stronger flavour to it.
But I don't like slavishly holding to these descriptions in such a way that it limits creativity. There is nothing about this particular flavour that makes it better than all the other possible flavour, and departing from the intended flavour of the classes does not strip all flavour from the game. The PF lore may be a common language, but sometimes your table needs to make up its own words and expressions and I get tired of people telling me that I'm debasing the PF language by splitting its infinitives. If your group wants to boldly go in the direction of nonlawful monks or lawful barbarians, more power to you and you're not doing anything more radical than the group where dragons change colour as they age or conjuration spells borrow matter from elsewhere on the planet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, like Alignment itself, the Lawful restriction is a simplification. It represents more than just a disciplined mind, but the will to sacrifice one's own worldly freedoms and desires to attain that level of self-mastery. That bolded phrase is a big part of what defines "Chaotic" as an alignment by nearly any definition. And a big part of the Monastic lifestyle (whether Shaolin or Franciscan) is about giving all that up, restricting yourself. Therefore, the Monk class itself is restricted.
Yes, it would be more convenient to allow Neutral and Chaotic characters to become Monks, but you know what? BEING A MONK AIN'T ABOUT CONVENIENCE.
I'm a firm believer that the martial artist should be a fighter archetype if any. It's already been allowed fighter only feats.Being able to ignore all DR is not worthless. Being immune to Ability Damage, Fatigue, and Exhaustion is not worthless. Fast Movement is not worthless. Monk AC bonus are not worthless. Defensive Roll is not worthless. Having increased unarmed damage, and being able take fighter only feats enhancing it is not worthless.
Yes Brawler fighter is very good at unarmed combat. But Martial Artist can be just as good and have a very different flavor.
Oh, it's a GOOD archetype, but it's not the same thing as having a non-Lawful Monk.
It's replaces so much it's almost its own class.
Ive been writing up some thoughts about classes in a long essay and one conclusions I made was that Monk and Ninja shouldn't exist if archetypes exist. The short story is that Rogues have a Ninja archetype making the existence of a Ninja alt class dumb. not that Ninja is a bad class but the fact that it's there is dumb.
With Monk I wound up killing Monk Fighter and Barbarian and making two classes called Fighter and Warrior.
The theory was that if Monk is not defined very well and when they are they're defined badly. Also Monk and Barbarian suffer from replicating a trope that is too rigid when they should be representing a mode of character that is flexible. I started by differentiating Fighter and Barbarian. A Fighter uses weapons and becomes skilled with them, a Barbarian powers through with his rage and body. following that logic I defined Fighter as someone who uses technique as deadly weapon and Barbarian (now called Warrior because Barbarian is too loaded of a name) as someone who makes their body into a weapon. From there I split Monk into those two classes, Fighters absorbing style feats as weapon group style feats (including unarmed styles.)among other things, and Warriors absorbing the concept of...
I like this. The separation of style is skill and Ki being body control just like rage makes a lot sense.
Eh, removing alignment is one thing. Completely homebrewing classes is something else entirely. If you are going to change pathfinder that much, why not just play a game that already separates fluff from mechanics? There are several to choose from that are all much more free in character concept creation than Pathfinder ranging from rules heavy like GURPS or HERO to rules light like FATE.
I wasn't suggesting to make those changes just that monk has outgrown what it used to represent in Pathfinder, to the point where it encompasses 'fantasy martial arts' rather than one type of fantasy martial artist. if this was disagreed with I'd be in favor of making them choose a religion.
Either way I don't think dicipline = the lawful alignment is my main argument for loosening or eliminating the alignment restriction.
|
|
I am not in favor at all with alignment restrictions. A paladin for example gets quoted constantly for doing the wrong thing even though all Good alignments have their own way of dealing with things. law and good, neutrality and good, and then there's Chaotic Good.
Though i did read a long time ago that if you play a monk, and multi-class out of it you don't lose as much as would other classes. A barbarian cant go lawful because it's a contradiction.
They are supposed to be Uncivilized idiots with weapons. As per 3.5 which was so stupid. But i think it would be interesting making a lawful neutral barbarian. Not sure how I'd play it but hey.
On a final note i have noticed any class that does a crazy act in lawful like a finisher or coup de grace they dont get and flack for it. But o ma gerrrd if its a paladin we lose our minds, which is probably the only reason i would never make a paladin, because people take alignment variation so seriously that its almost to the point where it ruins the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, like Alignment itself, the Lawful restriction is a simplification. It represents more than just a disciplined mind, but the will to sacrifice one's own worldly freedoms and desires to attain that level of self-mastery. That bolded phrase is a big part of what defines "Chaotic" as an alignment by nearly any definition. And a big part of the Monastic lifestyle (whether Shaolin or Franciscan) is about giving all that up, restricting yourself. Therefore, the Monk class itself is restricted.
Yes, it would be more convenient to allow Neutral and Chaotic characters to become Monks, but you know what? BEING A MONK AIN'T ABOUT CONVENIENCE.
Actually those are Vows.
Actually those are Vows.IMO, like Alignment itself, the Lawful restriction is a simplification. It represents more than just a disciplined mind, but the will to sacrifice one's own worldly freedoms and desires to attain that level of self-mastery. That bolded phrase is a big part of what defines "Chaotic" as an alignment by nearly any definition. And a big part of the Monastic lifestyle (whether Shaolin or Franciscan) is about giving all that up, restricting yourself. Therefore, the Monk class itself is restricted.
Yes, it would be more convenient to allow Neutral and Chaotic characters to become Monks, but you know what? BEING A MONK AIN'T ABOUT CONVENIENCE.
HA!
IMO, like Alignment itself, the Lawful restriction is a simplification. It represents more than just a disciplined mind, but the will to sacrifice one's own worldly freedoms and desires to attain that level of self-mastery. That bolded phrase is a big part of what defines "Chaotic" as an alignment by nearly any definition. And a big part of the Monastic lifestyle (whether Shaolin or Franciscan) is about giving all that up, restricting yourself. Therefore, the Monk class itself is restricted.
Yes, it would be more convenient to allow Neutral and Chaotic characters to become Monks, but you know what? BEING A MONK AIN'T ABOUT CONVENIENCE.
You can be a Monk (class) without being a monk (concept). You can have monk levels without ever SEEING the inside of a monastery, and you can grow in up a monastery without getting a single level of monk.
That is A possible monk character. It is not the ONLY possible monk character.
Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.
Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.
Why should someone who trains himself in physical arts give up freedom? Miyamoto Musashi traveled a lot, showed up late and unkept to duels, and beat someone to death with an oar. He also wrote book of five rings and created fighting styles, and is romanticized in fiction.
Just because I take the monk class doesn't mean I'm interested in shaving my head, living in a monastery, and devoting myself to Jainism or something. It might mean I want a guy that trains himself and is honed in physical body in mind, but still travels around, goes on adventures, and values his own personal path over a more traditional one.(mechanically, I want ki points, crazy acrobatic skills, style feats, access to monk archetypes, etc. in order to create this ideal character for the concept.)
Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.
Which has nothing to do with the Monk class, because that is not a requirement. CLASS IS NOT CONCEPT, CONCEPT IS NOT CLASS.
I'm afraid the only meat in your post was baloney.
I have played a barbarian druid that didn't have any barbarian or druid levels (pure ranger).
I have played a barbarian druid that didn't have any barbarian or druid levels (pure ranger).
I've got a knight with straight druid levels. I've also got a straight wizard in spiked armor with a shield. I've got a samurai with no levels in samurai somewhere around here. Sometimes your class name doesn't quiet match with the concept in your head.
|
|
Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.
Nope. Still is Vows.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Wealth, Freedom.. of well Freedom.
(Silence, poverty, Chains)
True Neutral actually is far less 'free' than Lawful. Cause, remember you could be Lawful Evil. And who are Lawful Evil? Tyrants who create the law, to allow them to keep all /thier/ freedoms and wants while impossing their law on others to remove the others freedoms and wants.
declaring each class must be played a certain way, with only one concept available.
Neat.
This is why I don't think the paladin deserves to be a class.
Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.Why should someone who trains himself in physical arts give up freedom? Miyamoto Musashi traveled a lot, showed up late and unkept to duels, and beat someone to death with an oar. He also wrote book of five rings and created fighting styles, and is romanticized in fiction.
Musashi was not a Monk. Musashi was a guy who was both really good with a sword and a total combat pragmatist.
A Monk is a guy who practices his breathing for three hours to learn to control his Ki when he would rather be napping under the tree with a fishing pole.
A Monk is a woman who stands underneath a waterfall to toughen her body even when she could be picking up guys (or girls) in the next town.
Just because I take the monk class doesn't mean I'm interested in shaving my head, living in a monastery, and devoting myself to Jainism or something. It might mean I want a guy that trains himself and is honed in physical body in mind, but still travels around, goes on adventures, and values his own personal path over a more traditional one.(mechanically, I want ki points, crazy acrobatic skills, style feats, access to monk archetypes, etc. in order to create this ideal character for the concept.)
Not all Monks live in monasteries, and not all of them do it all the time. Ryu from Street Fighter is a prime example of a travelling-type Monk, as is Kaine from the old Kung Fu series.
|
|
This is why I don't think the paladin deserves to be a class.
declaring each class must be played a certain way, with only one concept available.
Neat.
*nods*
Paladin always struck me as odd.. cause it was like "What.. only the lawful good gods have heavily armored individials spreading their form of 'justice' around?"
Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.Which has nothing to do with the Monk class, because that is not a requirement. CLASS IS NOT CONCEPT, CONCEPT IS NOT CLASS.
I'm afraid the only meat in your post was baloney.
Classes have concepts, though. And the concept of a Monk is that he gives up worldly comforts and desires for the greater good of his physical perfection and/or spiritual enlightenment. That is a Lawful concept, thus they gave Monks the Lawful restriction.
|
|
Classes have concepts, though. And the concept of a Monk is that he gives up worldly comforts and desires for the greater good of his physical perfection and/or spiritual enlightenment. That is a Lawful concept, thus they gave Monks the Lawful restriction.Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.Which has nothing to do with the Monk class, because that is not a requirement. CLASS IS NOT CONCEPT, CONCEPT IS NOT CLASS.
I'm afraid the only meat in your post was baloney.
Classes don't have concepts like that.
YOU have a concept like that. My Monks are like Jacky Chan, Or the Monkey King.
My Monk doesn't give up worldly possessions/comforts/desires. Cause i didn't take no vow to do so. He's lazy, drinks, makes sweet sweet love to women. He's currently the richest character in our group. He's got a lavish tent, and mostly cheap clothing... cause he's too cheap to buy more expensive ones. our /Chaotic/ inquisitor is heavily devout to her god and is currently seeking to kill my lawful monk who is more deceptive than she is.
We are not playing Everquest here where they pre-define everything about your character for you. We're playing a game where we can take all sorts of parts of things and mix them together for our character.
Classes have concepts, though. And the concept of a Monk is that he gives up worldly comforts and desires for the greater good of his physical perfection and/or spiritual enlightenment. That is a Lawful concept, thus they gave Monks the Lawful restriction.
I've never seen lawful as giving up anything?? Sure they have rituals and codes and rules... but where do you get the idea of giving up comforts?
The best LE examples I've ever seen are the despots like Dr. Doom or Corporate/political criminals like Kingpin and Luthor. They're Evil... they break laws... but they also do it within the system and there's never any evidence...
LG may inherently give up some comforts for the greater good... but LN and LE certainly wouldn't feel that need.
Classes have concepts, though. And the concept of a Monk is that he gives up worldly comforts and desires for the greater good of his physical perfection and/or spiritual enlightenment. That is a Lawful concept, thus they gave Monks the Lawful restriction.
Woah woah woah! Where in the monk class did you see this class feature about giving up all your worldly comforts and possessions! Your just making things up to help your argument. There is an optional vow of poverty, but there is nothing in the core monk class that requires them to give up worldly possessions and comforts or train under a waterfall or be bitten by mosquitos in a swamp.
I think your getting the ingame monk mixed up with some ideal of a Buddhist or Jainism here. The class itself is fully capable of supporting a wide range of ideals(especially if you toss out the alignment restriction, the class itself isn't inherently lawful beyond the dr and bypassing DR, but that's very easy to change!)
Classes don't have concepts like that.YOU have a concept like that. My Monks are like Jacky Chan, Or the Monkey King.
Actually, yes, they do have concepts like that. That's the default lore in the rule book. A monk isn't just some guy who's good at brawling. The very first paragraph of the class description will tell you that. You are, however, free to ignore that and use the mechanics to drive some other concept - you just may want to make some adjustments if some things don't fit because the mechanics that follow (including the alignment restriction) are geared to fit that primary concept.