A discussion on the Shaman thread about whether you can or should put differing cultures under one umbrella, especially when that umbrella is named for one culture and not the others, made me want to make a thread dedicated to that sort of question, because I see it elsewhere in the game (largely in places that were inherited from previous roleplaying games).
For instance, a class that's bothered me for a long time is Monk. Most of the Core Classes are treated as archetypes. Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. These classes are about broad ideas. You're good with weapons, you're sneaky, you have magic.
Monk, however, isn't "unarmed fighter" or even just "martial artist". They are "the Asian class". They may be core now , but the "foreign" baggage from their D&D origins still remains. Perhaps the most direct proof of this is their "Ki Spells". Culturally speaking, I want to know why Ki is specific to Monks, other than because they're "the Asian class." For example, would not a Fighter from Minkai say that they have Ki and manage it carefully in combat?
Ultimately I think the question is: should classes be specific or generic?
Another game might have a Samurai class and infuse a lot of Japanese culture into it. Should a Samurai just be a Fighter instead? Should Fighter still have access to culture-specific concepts, like managing Ki?
Incidentally, the Monk class overall, including the art, has a very stereotypical Shaolin Monk feel to it, but uses the word Ki rather than Qi/Chi. That brings the umbrella question back.
I don't mean for this thread to just be about Monk though. I passed on them earlier because the class concepts are fairly archetypal, but the names can be argued. The word Barbarian originated as a slur and the class is based around taking the slur literally.
I've seen a lot of people dismiss Druid, but they really have nothing to do with their real world counterparts and I've seen that lead to a lot of weird confusion and misrepresentation in the modern day because of how pervasive the fantasy druid is in pop culture. Should the class have more to do with historical druids, should the name be changed?
The Shaman question is an important one, but it's also something I think we should be consistent about.
From Brittanica:
As its etymology implies, the term applies in the strictest sense only to the religious systems and phenomena of the peoples of northern Asia and the Ural-Altaic, such as the Khanty and Mansi, Samoyed, Tungus, Yukaghir, Chukchi, and Koryak. However, shamanism is also used more generally to describe indigenous groups in which roles such as healer, religious leader, counselor, and councillor are combined. In this sense, shamans are particularly common among other Arctic peoples, American Indians, Australian Aborigines, and those African groups, such as the San, that retained their traditional cultures well into the 20th century.
Right now probably isn't a good time to be changing things like that, yeah. Lots of other things are going on and it won't matter if you make things better if circumstances sabotage the effort or simply no one's around to care.
I just thought it's still worth keeping in mind since it's definitely in mind for new things.
Incidentally, I don't remember if I ever actually did it, but I was going to bring these things up during the OneDnD playtest because OneDnD was at least pretending to have a goal of cleaning up some outdated legacy elements.
I decided to bring it here in part because that Shaman thread convinced me this forum could be civil about it. I'm no good at trying to make a point if people are fighting back. XP
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the point of barbarian, the word barbarian was a general-purpose word for foreigner in classical greek, it was derogatory yes but it was applied to literally everyone who did not speak greek from slavs to Persians to Egyptians to Berbers to Romans, and as such didn't really have any stereotype associated with it implicitly other than a general sense of superiority and being more cultured than such people. the modern imagery for barbarian comes from writings regarding the sacking of Rome, with "barbarians at the gates" using an at the time utterly archaic greek word because at the time writing things down in prose reminiscent of archaic greek writing was how authors of the time showed how cultured and sophisticated they where much like Latin was in the middle ages. from there it was adopted into several germanic and romance languages, generally used to refer to invaders or other foreign threats, generally with again a connotation of superiority over them. Anyway, long story short, while the term is defiantly derogatory I don't think I would consider it a slur because it is not associated with any specific group, but is rather simply an insult.
anyway back to the question at hand, I think the answer is one should have both specific and generic classes to cover both broader ideas and more focused concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't dog into this, but this is a reason why I had argued against a ninja class in a previous thread. To wit, why should there be two separate classes for 'Rogue' and 'Asian Rogue'? Of course, that thread also convinced me there's a desire for a currently unmet niche that is modelled somewhat after the FFXIV Magic using deceptive spy-warrior class (and or Naruto, the other big wizard-with-shuriken inspiration).
Meanwhile Druids having a specific historical reference but being nothing like that reference beyond a vague 'priest' descriptor that we know of and filling in the gap sometimes with pop cult environmentalist stereotypes has been a pet nuisance of mine on occasion...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if the Cleric can stand in for all "priest of a deity" characters, I'm more comfortable with Shaman likewise standing in for a lot of animist types who don't necessarily follow a god in the same way.
Now, that said, I'm a white girl with no familiarity in the cultures shamanism is either derived from or mistakenly applied to, so my voice is a low priority in this conversation.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Monk isn't the Asian class, why are all the Monk weapons out of South and Southeast Asia? How come the katar and the nunchaku are Monk weapons, but the adze and mambele aren't?
There's a very particular coding of where in the world Monks come from, despite the neutral lore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Monk isn't the Asian class, why are all the Monk weapons out of South and Southeast Asia? How come the katar and the nunchaku are Monk weapons, but the adze and mambele aren't?
There's a very particular coding of where in the world Monks come from, despite the neutral lore.
I just miss and where monk weapons included basically all swords spears and polearms
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly because wuxia/xianxia. In PF1 it was less of an issue because there were fewer region specific weapons (and again a lot more focus of JP culture). So I see PF2 not adding more non-asian weapons as monk weapons as more of a failure to take into account battle style.
So if they're based on Wuxia... and have failed to include non-Asian weapons... how are they not "the Asian class," as it currently stands?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that the Monk is "The Asian class", so much as "The Monk is the clearinghouse for things you see in Asian-influence fantasy." It's not just "Hong Kong Martial Arts films made for a HK audience" it's also the stuff created by people who loved those films and allowed them to influence their own work (Tarrantino, Rodriguez, the Wachowskis, the RZA, etc.) Or for less interesting examples, all the white ninja movies we got in the 80s-90s.
I think the reason that we get "asian weapons" for the monk class and not "african weapons" is that we're mostly looking at action films and anime through a western lens. I'm sure there are people in Nigeria who love old Kung Fu films, we're just not generally aware of anything they've made.
It's a class based more on the fiction from a place that's been successively reinterpreted, than that actual place.
Swords (jian, dao, etc.) are preferred as protagonists' main arms too in stock wuxia stories, not that different to European stories (so no exotic crooked blade like those "temple swords"). Spears (qiang.. was it?) and other polearms follow.
---
On a bigger tangent, xianxia has crazier power levels compared to ordinary and more down to earth wuxia; to portray the former more faithfully you'll need a bunch of post-20th level gishes duking it out to gain more power (and unnatural extra lifespan boosts) in the world...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Monk is trying not to be the Asian class but still clinging on to things.
Ki is an option not a default core part of the class, but monk weapons are also mainly Asian influenced. But also not all Asian weapons are.
It is completely possible without trying all too hard to play a monk that is just a scrappy brawler but there are also a lot of feats that build into certain tropes.
I think what one would largely need to do is to create more weapons with the monk tag, and create some more concepts from martial arts across the world, or completely fictional or fantastical ones.
As to the issue as a whole, it is an interesting debate.
Which name do you pick, how much should you borrow, will allowing it to represent multiple things cause any clashes, or could you do something broad enough. IMO as someone mentioned Cleric being used as a broad term for al types of deific/religious beliefs is an example most people can agree upon. But it could also be easy to say there is not a one shoe fits all approach to each time this comes up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I think there's a good point about representation and portrayal here, it's worth pointing out that there's a mechanical impetus for a lot of these specific options too.
The monk as a class emphasizes speed, mobility, acrobatics, and a bevy of magical and pseudomagical powers that do not fit the same fantasy as a fighter, in such a way that unarmed fighter and monk do not overlap all that much and that trying to replace one with the other would not work very well (or could, but would require much broader class design than PF2 opted for).
It's also worth considering the culture of the games themselves. Within D&D (and adjacent games like Pathfinder, or even modern computer RPGs and broader fantasy fiction to some extent), these terms have evolved to have their own unique recognizable definitions that do not necessarily line up with their general definitions in the rest of the world. A Druid in 5e and a Druid in World of Warcraft, a Monk in Final Fantasy and a Monk in Pathfinder, all have recognizable elements that interrelate them to some degree, existing within their own space (and to some extent these elements seem nonsensical outside this space).
...
All rambling aside, agree with above posters that the choice of weapons in PF2 is kind of lame. Frustrating how hard it is to build a monk who just has a sword or polearm considering that those are bog standard weapons in the fiction that originally inspired the class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to build an axe Monk, representing the Tian-Min minority in viking-like Kalsgard, and was stunned to see I didn’t really have the ability to make one. The weapon pigeonholing is pretty frustrating, IMO.
I want to resist focusing exclusively on the question of the Monk, but I feel it must be said: It would be most difficult to create a Benedictine monk-inspired character, or similarly one that takes after Friar Tuck using the Monk class that shares their name. It is readily apparent that the term is not chosen for a representation of the general archetype of monks. For that matter, it wouldn't be much easier to play a Buddhist monk either, if one declined to lean into the kung fu master stereotype.
Mind you, even if we did change the name of Monk this instant, I don't have a suggestion for what to call it (Martial Artist but I'm a sucker for one-word class names), though I wanted to be clear that the name of the class has little bearing on its themes and mechanics without resorting to stereotypes or perpetuating an error for the sake of tradition.
I love Monk, amd im not about to pass judgement on the spot, but also I don't think we should avoid ever changing the name just because it offends someone, especially when the name turns out to be unfitting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There really should have never been monk weapons. Monks should have just had a feat to turn chosen weapons into what is effectively monk weapons. An elven monk might use long swords. A dwarven monk might use axes.
What we got was just legacy ideas from 3.5.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the fact that the 'Monk' trait exists on weaponry even still in 2e is weird to me. I get the idea - the class fantasy is about honing a specific style or a few to near-perfection, so they shouldn't get access to all the weaponry the Fighter (whose class fantasy is "weapon versatility") gets. They didn't want every monk running around flurrying with a Buster Sword.
But consider that there were warrior monks called the Negoro-shū in the Kii Province who were extremely proficient in not only firearms but also other traditional martial weaponry of the era and region, like the naginata.
If you chose to hone in and master a Buster Sword when you began your journey to self-perfection, why SHOULDN'T your monk be allowed to go around cross-slashing around the battlefield when they hit level 10, even 20?
A more reasonable way to do it could have been, say, choosing one, two, or possibly three weapons/weapon groups at level 1. These would be the weapons that your sect (or yourself if a wandering enlightenment-seeker) consider their "monk weaponry". Their class features can only be used with their chosen "monk weaponry", and they only gain proficiency in their chosen weapons/groups.
Then, you could even include feat choices that are exclusive to those who chose a certain weapon group (e.g. a Pole Dancer stance that is exclusive to monks who have proficiency in polearms).
That way, the mechanics still flavorfully allow for wuxia-inspired self-perfection character growth without stymying them with ONLY Eastern-inspired weaponry. Don't get me wrong - nunchaku are still cool! But so is a Gunk. Or Cloud Strife.
As for the question of representation? I don't rightly know - I didn't grow up in any of the cultures that inspired these classes, so my opinion is from that bias - even having done some basic research for making characters, nothing really matches living the culture yourself.
Few people bat an eye at Witch (or 5e's Warlock), and even fewer at Wizard, despite the fact that at many points in time these words (or other equivalents) have been used both interchangeably AND referring to unique peoples and events. Someone mentioned Final Fantasy, and I wouldn't doubt that was one of the many things that have sort of culturally warped the term "Monk" in the sphere of pop culture. Even FF14 still uses it to this day!
Do I think names can't change if the culture once again changes around Pathfinder/Paizo (as culture tends to do) and later finds the use of the word unacceptable? No, I'd be perfectly fine with a name-change. Frankly I've already warmed up to the idea of Barbarians becoming Berserkers - it frankly fits the chassis a lot better and takes away the baggage of the former title's implications of "less civilized and intelligent peoples".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the monk class in particular, it was based heavily around Wuxia/Wushu heroes which were primarily unarmed in their representation in movies, although I think it's probably like a 60/40 split of unarmed vs armed monks. And these monks often had the kinds of ki powers represented in D&D.
As others noted, monk isn't the stereotypical Asian class. It's the steortypical Wuxia class.
Also, Ki/Qi/Chi is a silly conversation. Ki/Qi are pronounced the same and are simply different ways of transliterating the Chinese characters into English.
Technically all 3 should be pronounced like Chee but because most non-Chinese/Japanese speaking people who read Ki/Qi do not know that the transliterated "Q" makes a "Ch" sound in Chinese. And from there, people started pronouncing Qi like "key", which then lead to people spelling it as Ki.
It's also probable the Ki spelling came from the Japanese pronunciation which does sound like "key".
As for the real issue here, I suspect a dissatisfaction of not being able to build your character quite the way you wanted. And the reasoning in my view is that the monk class is limited to certain weapons because it's balanced around flurry with monastic legacy.
So they deliberately had to make weapons tuned for use with flurry, which required the monk trait.
Honestly, almost all Eastern themed weapon could simply be represented by something Western named and without any different mechanics. Honestly, a katana isn't going to be very different in mechanics compared to a hand-and-a-half sword. How it's used it real life sure, but not from a game mechanics stand point. But people often feel it's dissatisfying when they can't have their weapon named katana instead of bastard sword.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weird thing about "we are stingy with monk weapons" is that monks have very easy access to a d8 agile, finesse attack (that leaves your hands free because it is unarmed.) If there were actually a d8 agile finesse one-handed weapon, it would be among the most powerful weapons in the game for lots of classes.
So I'm not really sure where "monk weapons shouldn't be too good, because you can flurry with them" comes from.
I've seen a lot of people dismiss Druid, but they really have nothing to do with their real world counterparts and I've seen that lead to a lot of weird confusion and misrepresentation in the modern day because of how pervasive the...
We really don't know anything about the historical druid, since most of what we know comes from the Romans and other foreign chroniclers. And their descriptions were often so heavily tinged with propaganda to justify the Celtic conquest that a lot of it is just probably straight fiction.
The Monk isn't so much the "Asian" class as it's obviously the "Wuxia" and "Hong Kong Martial Arts" class. Just like Barbarian is the Conan class. I don't know if you can really fully divorce the modern monk from those origins and still have something people would be fine calling a monk.
It does make me wonder, if DnD and TTRPG were something whose origins dated to now, what sort of basic classes would be created to emulate today's popular genre fiction. We probably wouldn't get a Monk but I suspect we might get something drawn from the over the top action movies out of India, which I feel like are starting to fill that niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it feels like a legacy thing. "We don't want monks flurrying with great swords" was a big concern about the class in 3.5/PF1 when Flurry would give you a significant number of extra attacks.
But even a big meaty d12 2-hander feels a little less threatening in a world where Monks already can pick up a 0-handed d10 weapon and things like 1.5x bonuses don't exist anymore.
... There's probably also a degree of flavor enforcement baked into these decisions though. A monk can't use a Longsword, despite both the prevalence of swords in Wuxia and Longswords being a clear downgrade over Tiger, Wolf, or Dragon Stance... Yet they can use Temple Swords with a feat, which is basically just an odd looking variant longsword. So there's clearly some sort of ulterior design here that isn't related to balance or the source material previously mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... There's probably also a degree of flavor enforcement baked into these decisions though. A monk can't use a Longsword, despite both the prevalence of swords in Wuxia and Longswords being a clear downgrade over Tiger, Wolf, or Dragon Stance... Yet they can use Temple Swords with a feat, which is basically just an odd looking variant longsword. So there's clearly some sort of ulterior design here that isn't related to balance or the source material previously mentioned.
It's like the legacy of rogue weapons: They still have that limited list but they keep making cool new weapons you can sneak attack with that they can't use because of the custom list instead of just simple and martial.
Mind you, even if we did change the name of Monk this instant, I don't have a suggestion for what to call it (Martial Artist but I'm a sucker for one-word class names)...
How about pugilist or brawler?
Mind you, even if we did change the name of Monk this instant, I don't have a suggestion for what to call it (Martial Artist but I'm a sucker for one-word class names)...How about pugilist or brawler?
Pugilist really doesn't fit as a general term as it specifically means 'boxer'.
Brawler is defined as fighting angrily, noisily, and roughly, often under the influence of alcohol; a contentious or argumentative person; a practitioner of a style of boxing characterized by very powerful punches with little variety of technique or skilled footwork.
Monk at least fits multiple fighting styles and doesn't paint the class as one that focuses on drunken bar fights.
Contender.
Aspirant.
The weird thing about "we are stingy with monk weapons" is that monks have very easy access to a d8 agile, finesse attack (that leaves your hands free because it is unarmed.) If there were actually a d8 agile finesse one-handed weapon, it would be among the most powerful weapons in the game for lots of classes.
So I'm not really sure where "monk weapons shouldn't be too good, because you can flurry with them" comes from.
Perhaps to prevent others from Monk dipping for it? But I generally agree with your point that monks already have access (via Wolf Stance, Stumbling Stance, and Tangled Forest Stance) to really good melee attacks with d8, agile, finesse.
Blocking general use of weapons via monk trait seems unnecessary. Just say they can't use two-handed or advanced weapons to flurry. If you gave monks access to all simple/martial one-handed weapons I don't think it would change much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for a name, literally just call it Wuxia and be done.
It's Chinese for "martial hero". And you can't get much more on the nose, both from looking at the translation and from history and context attached to the class.
Just change the class to get Monastic Legacy feat for free and now the class is basically built to fulfill any Wuxia story. With feats you can fulfill Xianxia (means "immortal heroes")stories
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the point of barbarian, the word barbarian was a general-purpose word for foreigner in classical greek, it was derogatory yes but it was applied to literally everyone who did not speak greek from slavs to Persians to Egyptians to Berbers to Romans, and as such didn't really have any stereotype associated with it implicitly other than a general sense of superiority and being more cultured than such people.
I guess I did get a bit carried away with that one, but that's also why I didn't really elaborate more. I just think it's a bit weird that fantasy has turned "big dumb angry guy that don't live in cities" into a thing. Mostly I think I just wanted to broach varied topics rather than just Shaman or, in my case, just Monk.
I can't dog into this, but this is a reason why I had argued against a ninja class in a previous thread. To wit, why should there be two separate classes for 'Rogue' and 'Asian Rogue'?
That's at the crux of it for me.
I see the current Monk as the "Asian Monk" to what could be just "Monk."
With all the talk about Wuxia, let me put it another way. If you wanted to play a full Wuxia campaign, why is Monk the "Wuxia Class?" Shouldn't all classes have equal potential to be Wuxia? Wuxia has a wide breadth of archetypes like anything else, even if they're all portrayed in a consistent style.
All the talk about weapons really highlights this for me. As far as I'm concerned, Monks shouldn't be using those weapons at all. If you want a Wuxia character with a spear, you should play a class like Fighter and use a Wuxia theme.
"Unarmed class" is an archetype on its own, one that a lot of games (including video games) pass over despite being recognizable and popular. For the most part (especially with Ki spells being optional) that is technically what Monk is, but for some reason it and, maybe most importantly, it alone has the Wuxia baggage glued to it.
Final Fantasy is a good comparison to make, because Final Fantasy is closer to what I'm looking for. Throughout the franchise, the Final Fantasy Monk has been taken in different directions. It might have different influences depending on the game, but at its core it is the "unarmed class." Sometimes it's more Wuxia. Sometimes it's just a straight up brawler. There's a core concept that can be flavored by different cultures.
What I am looking for is for Monk to be unflavored. You can flavor it with Wuxia, but you could flavor it with something else, and if you want another class to be Wuxia, you can flavor them that way.
Of course, that thread also convinced me there's a desire for a currently unmet niche that is modelled somewhat after the FFXIV Magic using deceptive spy-warrior class (and or Naruto, the other big wizard-with-shuriken inspiration).
There is definitely going to be a cultural bias even in basic things like Fighter. For instance, a controversial topic (over in D&D at least) is whether or not non-magical martial characters should be capable of things like swinging their sword so powerfully and so precisely that they can create projectiles of razor-sharp wind. In Japanese works, this is pretty common as a mark of great skill rather than magic. In the West, this is often seen as "too anime."
Nevertheless, I feel Pathfinder does an overall good job of making the core classes relatively basic with the ability to flavor them through your build. Whether or not it's actually an option in-game right now, you easily could make those Blade Beams a set of feats for Fighter and perfectly fulfill the fantasy of your character having trained to that level in a campaign where you expect that sort of thing and not feel like an afterthought.
Monk, on the other hand, has an intentional cultural flavor by default. You don't get to choose an alternative through builds, you can only layer something on top. And if you do want that cultural touchstone, it's all bundled into one class.
As for a name, literally just call it Wuxia and be done.
It's Chinese for "martial hero". And you can't get much more on the nose, both from looking at the translation and from history and context attached to the class.
This is my point. Why can every other culture use Fighter (or any other martial class) as their martial hero, but if you're Chinese there's a different class for you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I think the Barbarian should've been renamed the Berserker in the edition switch, and I hope they can take that leap in an eventual PF3.
It's a little funny how little Shaman talk this thread has had :p
For what it's worth, I think the Barbarian should've been renamed the Berserker in the edition switch, and I hope they can take that leap in an eventual PF3.
It's a little funny how little Shaman talk this thread has had :p
I forgot a lot of other games do use Berserker. Now, like the discussion on the Shaman thread, you could debate whether it matters that the word very specifically originates from a specific culture, but at least it's not a negative term and the game class is actually pretty close to what survives of the real concept.
Part of the issue with the Monk is that there is too little respect for HEMA and the training it took to be a skilled knight. People forget that their training started as children with the page, to squire, to knight progression. The monk really shouldn't look all that special next to what a European knight or fencer can do.
A typical fantasy ninja has magical/supernatural powers, where a typical fantasy rogue doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue with the Monk is that there is too little respect for HEMA and the training it took to be a skilled knight. People forget that their training started as children with the page, to squire, to knight progression. The monk really shouldn't look all that special next to what a European knight or fencer can do.
This is a good point of comparison.
"I trained my whole life to be this legendary youxia" shouldn't force you into a different class than someone who says "I trained my whole life to be this legendary knight" just because they aren't the same culture. Even Summoner, a class that isn't exactly a generic archetype, is one I've seen people say both "hey, it's like Dragonback!" and "hey, it's like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure!" You can't do that with Monk.
When I say I want Monk to not be "the Asian class" I'm not arguing against Chinese or Wuxia representation. What I'm trying to say is almost the opposite. That I feel it's "othering" to have the Wuxia class be a distinct class, when anyone should be able to apply their culture to any class.
I don't believe Pathfinder is meant to be a historical game though. It's high fantasy. People grew up with these archetypes through lots of media, especially JRPGs, like Final Fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Fighter covers both a European knight and a samurai plenty well. I think the Monk represents a very particular vision of a South/Southeast Asian warrior and... not much else.
You're fighting against a lot of inherent flavor in the Monk if you try to play one as, say, inspired by Greek pankration or Nigerian dambe. It doesn't help that Ki doesn't have a ton of scaffolding in the lore, so it's left as a vaguely-Asian concept that only the fairly-Asian class has access to or a concept of.
99% of this problem goes away for me if the Monk trait wasn't so tightly keyed to the weapons of certain cultures over others... or didn't exist.
I don't believe Pathfinder is meant to be a historical game though. It's high fantasy. People grew up with these archetypes through lots of media, especially JRPGs, like Final Fantasy.
I mean, that's a big reason why I'm critiquing this though.
That we're just okay with "Chinese hero" being implicitly distinct from all other classes just because it's tradition.
I'm not saying the archetype in general is a problem. I absolutely think an unarmed/martial artist archetype should exist. I'm not saying there shouldn't be Chinese or Wuxia representation. If anything we might need more options in classes to match certain cultural expectations.
The problem is that it treats Chinese culture not as a culture you might have yourself and thus see the whole game through the lens of, but as something special to a specific and singular class.
The problem is that it treats Chinese culture not as a culture you might have yourself and thus see the whole game through the lens of, but as something special to a specific and singular class.
That I see it repeated over and over in asian media makes it seem fine to me. Seriously, almost every isekai story in a medieval inspired fantasy setting has a monk class these days. Ninja too
I do think monk weapons were unnecessary though. Should have just been a feat to treat a weapon as a monk weapon.
The problem is that it treats Chinese culture not as a culture you might have yourself and thus see the whole game through the lens of, but as something special to a specific and singular class.That I see it repeated over and over in asian media makes it seem fine to me. Seriously, almost every isekai story these days has a monk class.
So a white guy doing a rain dance would be fine with you as long as native groups had enough media presence to put their stories and culture in front of a mass non-native audience?
This is my point. Why can every other culture use Fighter (or any other martial class) as their martial hero, but if you're Chinese there's a different class for you?
I mean, you don't.
But if you want the specific combination of abilities that the Monk has, then Monk is the class for you, whereas Fighter might not be.
So a white guy doing a rain dance would be fine with you as long as native groups had enough media presence to put their stories and culture in front of a mass non-native audience?
Theoretically. You ever watch the Super Sentai where one of the guys is a cowboy with a cheeseburger morpher? That's hilarious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that it treats Chinese culture not as a culture you might have yourself and thus see the whole game through the lens of, but as something special to a specific and singular class.That I see it repeated over and over in asian media makes it seem fine to me. Seriously, almost every isekai story these days has a monk class.
The interesting thing about that is how much modern Japanese fantasy fiction traces its roots back to Wizardry, Ultima, and D&D through games like Dragon Quest. The original Final Fantasy had Beholders (it was even a legal problem) and what was essentially Vancian Magic! Culture is weird when you really start delving into it. ;P
Maybe I'm making this seem like more of a big deal than I think it is.
I do think these Final Fantasy and isekai stories handle it a bit better still, though. Like I said before, Final Fantasy treats Monk more of a universal unarmed archetype that might be flavored differently depending on the game.
I'm not asking for a major change. I'm fine with the name Monk. I'm fine with art showing Shaolin Monk-looking guys. I just think it shouldn't be the only thing associated with the class, and maybe showing a little more Tian Xia elsewhere would help.