Pathfinder explored the concept of monk vows, which got me to thinking: why not? Monks throughout history have been known for their vows, whether they follow a theistic or nontheistic order.
We have, for example, the Benedictine Monks as an example of a theistic order. A Bhuddist monk could be an example of a nontheistic one.
What vows might you write for your monk?
I imagine styles of vows would be varied, that they would depend on the order the PC chose to be part of.
Vows strike me as essentially "archetypes lite", with each essentially providing a single common boost (more ki points) but varying drawbacks.
From a fluff perspective, I like vows too. I think adding a vow, especially a custom vow that fits your back story and that you can work with your GM to create, provides a very neat form of customization for your character.
That said, I pretty much despise the vows as written from a mechanical perspective. While I get that not every decision is intended to be made with a view toward overall increasing the character's effectiveness and that sometimes a reduction in power is okay provided it fits a concept, the amount of downside compared to the amount of upside on an already relatively weak class makes the Paizo provided vows useless to me.
Edit: I forgot to add, I'm working on a tweak with my GM at the moment which won't be written as a vow but mechanically could be so described. It involves what I'm terming "Ki Binding" which allows the monk to bind a ki point, which mechanically involves reducing your ki pool by 1, in order to effectively "absorb" an enchantment from an item. Doing so ties up the chakra point, i.e. item slot, that the item occupied normally, renders the item non-magical, but confers its benefits to the monk. The monk can release the binding at any time, adding the ki point back to his pool, but losing the absorbed enchantment. Releasing the binding does not re-enchant the item. There are also limits on what can be bound (e.g. no artifacts, no slotless items, no charged or single use items).
Anyway, mechanically it means you can't have items sundered, stolen, dispelled, etc since it's basically become part of you. While you do this though your ki pool is reduced plus you lose resale value of the item nor do you have the option of hanging onto an item in case your equipment loadout changes later to make said item more useful again.
I would be interested in feedback but in any case, yeah, that's one idea.
Huh. That could be very interesting...what would happen with dispel magic, though? Would it have the effect of effectively returning the "soul" of the item back to it?
Interesting thoughts.
Here's a quick write-up of an order. Forgive the writing and the simple design and theme. My brain is mush right now, but I wanted to craft up an example.
Order of New Iron (a badly written example, by Ruggs!)
Andrea Stonewall gave birth to nine children. A hundred years after the birth of her last child, she lost her husband to the iron mines, a son to the smith's fire, and a daughter to war.
Each death struck with the force of a hammer upon anvil within her soul, but due to clan teachings, she saw her soul as a forge. It was not that she did not suffer, but that each death, while tragic and worthy of respect, also served as a means of strength.
However, upon the death of her fourth child, she began to question the honor of these deaths. Upon the last announcement, she traveled to the mines where her son had found work. He had risen in ranks; an overseer, she had known him to be. Yet what she found at the mines was enough to challenge her faith.
She saw first hand the effects of dwarven greed...their focus on the need for iron meant her son had been a tyrant under the control of merchants and smiths. The miners worked hours too long for even dwarves, and those who had been there the longest bore pale skin and scarred faces. Their bodies stooped, and their chained legs were misshapened from badly healed injuries.
As she searched, she found the effects if this greed pervaded the deaths of her other children. The son, her smith, had died of an accident at the forge--an accident brought on by long hours by the demand for metal goods.
Overcome with grief and shame on behalf of her people, she threw away her armor, her weapons, and retreated from the world. She traveled to the fields below the Mountains, far away from rock and home...and the din of hammers, the hustle of the mines.
When she emerged, nine years later, it was with new purpose. Andrea founded the Order of New Iron, so named because of their stance against it. Iron, they held, benefited the dwarves, but had ultimately become a source of too much pride, and greed. They forswore any use of metal, and honed their bodies instead to an iron-like hardness that rivaled any armor or axe.
They took up work in the mines--acting as scouts and peacekeepers and worked for better conditions for miners. They have not the numbers to take on the merchants, but have since served as voice of moderation in a society focused on the forging of metal.
Vows: Members of this order forswear the use of metal upon their bodies, and work to limit it in other aspects of their lives. They work to remind dwarves what can be done without these elements, as well as living by example (admittedly, an extreme one).
Again, incredibly tired brain. But, I hope folks get the idea.
We haven't finished working things out but I would expect to treat it much like an item in that regard. So if you introduce a Longsword +1 into an anti-magic field its enchantment is suppressed for the duration it exists in the field. Once removed it returns to normal.
As for dispel magic I would think it would also work similarly, suppressing a particular effect for 1d4 rounds if the caster succeeds vs DC 11 + CL of the original effect (or maybe vs 11 + monk level).
The intent is that fluff-wise the monk is less reliant upon magic items, trying to avoid using them but simulating the effects through manipulation of his ki pool. Thus the new source of the enhancement becomes a semi-permanent binding of a ki point rather than through some external means. However in order to empower that binding, the monk essentially has to unravel the original enchantment, fluffed as examining the way the threads of nature have been manipulated to the given effect.
To be honest, it's more flavorful than mechanical and is probably a net loss of power, but it fits my particular character concept. If I were going to set something up for general use I would do something different. That said, while it's similar in nature, I don't think it fits the typical flow of a vow.
With regard to your vow (of New Iron), what are the practical limitations? From an equipment perspective there isn't much that monks use that is metal. It would tend to make them go unarmed but that is a pretty common tactic anyway. How would it affect things like amulets and rings and the like? Or is it mostly just weapons? And what does the monk gain? Is there crunch behind it? Narratively it's an interesting concept.
I wouldn't, personally. Class is not concept, concept is not class ... you can be a Monk (class) without being a monk (concept), and vice versa, and I've never played a Monk-class that was a monk-concept.
We haven't finished working things out but I would expect to treat it much like an item in that regard. So if you introduce a Longsword +1 into an anti-magic field its enchantment is suppressed for the duration it exists in the field. Once removed it returns to normal.
As for dispel magic I would think it would also work similarly, suppressing a particular effect for 1d4 rounds if the caster succeeds vs DC 11 + CL of the original effect (or maybe vs 11 + monk level).
The intent is that fluff-wise the monk is less reliant upon magic items, trying to avoid using them but simulating the effects through manipulation of his ki pool. Thus the new source of the enhancement becomes a semi-permanent binding of a ki point rather than through some external means. However in order to empower that binding, the monk essentially has to unravel the original enchantment, fluffed as examining the way the threads of nature have been manipulated to the given effect.
To be honest, it's more flavorful than mechanical and is probably a net loss of power, but it fits my particular character concept. If I were going to set something up for general use I would do something different. That said, while it's similar in nature, I don't think it fits the typical flow of a vow.
With regard to your vow (of New Iron), what are the practical limitations? From an equipment perspective there isn't much that monks use that is metal. It would tend to make them go unarmed but that is a pretty common tactic anyway. How would it affect things like amulets and rings and the like? Or is it mostly just weapons? And what does the monk gain? Is there crunch behind it? Narratively it's an interesting concept.
I think we could keep the focus here on flavor. What's bothered me to some degree is that every monk order from East to West has had vows (the Bhuddist orders have over 200 rules they must follow). The monk in PF has an expressed lawful nature...so far so that it takes penalties for not being so.
Despite both of these, said flavor is rarely mentioned or explored. I believe it could be without say, adding shackles.
That is, I think it's worth exploring in a setting-specific way. Enough that I could wish PF provided some guidelines, examples for it and said: "build from these or explore your own with your DM".
I imagine their avoidance of metals could be far-reaching...they'd require amulets be made of different materials, and if a carriage was primarily metal, they'd seek a different form of transportation if possible.
Compare it to being at a table with unclean meat or food. Alternately, it could be looser and only apply to objects of war.
Anyhow, it's an example--I wanted to illustrate the type of thing I was talking of, and dwarves + metal seemed a straightforward example.
How far would be up to the setting, players, and DM to determine.
One way to handle them might be similar to the cavalier's orders--there's been a lot of things said about the cavalier, but the general feeling I've gotten is that for the most part, how the orders are/were handled conceptually has been appreciated. Therefore, similar options for the monk, done in that style?
Could be received well.
Regarding your concept: the more I think on it, the more I do like it. I'd potentially counter it with say, some of Pathfinder's Vows...or more an option where, for the pursuit of roleplay, they'd have the opportunity to recoup that lost ki point or two...but the reward would be directly tied to their investment in the game.
In this way you get a thematic trade-off...they gain a bonus for thematic, in-character development, and the trade-off in that they have more points to spend, which can be used to boost their "internal/inherit" abilities. Sort of: their development, their vows, strengthen them, as opposed to their weapons and these objects do so.
I may not be making much sense.
Need more coffee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly speaking you can get that ki point back by taking the Extra Ki feat.
Some of the variants we've explored also involve requiring the monk to save vs. beneficial spells in the same way the superstitious barbarian does.
But then as a counter-counterbalance to that, the Wholeness of Body ki ability was adjusted to be a swift action and to heal twice monk level rather than only monk level, as well as adding a new ki ability that mimics restoration but can only be used on the monk at 10th level and beyond.
Other things involved limiting or eliminating use of potions and such too. All in the name of self perfection and not relying on magic items any longer.
Again, mechanically I think it ultimately weakens the character, but it is an interesting concept and the key is the ability to absorb enchantments but not need the item any longer, allowing you the fluff.
I wouldn't, personally. Class is not concept, concept is not class ... you can be a Monk (class) without being a monk (concept), and vice versa, and I've never played a Monk-class that was a monk-concept.
That is fine. There's a whole school of thought that's dedicated to class = bag of mechanics, not concept. I fall somewhere in the middle, with a lean towards concept.
I don't think we can place everyone into the same style of play. What we can do to accommodate a broader range of preferences would be to build as an option, and encouraged as a framework around which the table would work and craft from.
If you'd like to discuss class = bag of mechanics versus class = concept though, that's worth a separate thread.