Monks

[ThatSeanGuy]

Hiya. I was looking at the wiki, and noticed y'all's answer to the whole 'intigrating the monk' problem. Is it such a good idea to completly ban a core class like that?

I mean, there's always the, 'Don't allow it in your game via house rules' option if you really just absolutely hate the idea, but 'Unarmed fighter who uses martial techniques and philosophical training to compensate for lack of weapon.' isn't something that's strictly limited to east Asian culture. Their "monks" are the most famous, to be sure, but the whole idea of trained martial discipline has been part of a ton of cultures worldwide; the Egyptians, the Greek wrestlers and atheletes, Roman gladiators, west African warrior socities, and so on. I'd rather there be rules for me to ignore, than no rules at all.

Martial monasticism also fits pretty well into Cerilia's temple system: any church that studies the body, or has a monastic tradition could be spun into having Monk class characters, and the whole idea of a powerful abbot, religious leader who lives outside of the community, philosopher-king who comments on the secular leaders or even sets up seperate communities themselves is a fairly signifigant part of the fantasy picture of rulership. While Clerics and druids represent the "town priest", who bless the harvest, and run the hospice, and dabble in local politics, and generally try to take care of their communities, monks, along with paladins, represent the part of a religious community that seperates itself from the community, so as to be in a position of neutrality when critiquing the community, and to provide a place of isolation and contemplation for members of said community. The whole concept of blending the physical and spiritual until you ascend human limitations fits the doctrines of several of Cerilia's dieties as well; off the top of my head, I could see Kriesha, Haelyn, Avani, and Sera being open to followers expressing these ideas.

You could even have a holding that builds off of these traditions; the Monestary, which works for Temple holdings much like a Castle does for Law holdings, maybe providing protection against outside agitation, giving a loyalty bonus that can be taken away by a canny regent, military support, and other benefits of a fortified spiritual center. This not only gives monks and paladins a type of holding to be "good" at, but also gives you room to develop unique spins on other fortifications; say, maybe a Library or College for Sources(Wizards, Sorcorers, Bards), and a Bank or a Trust for Guilds(Rogues, Nobles).

Anyway, just seemed like something to think about.

[geeman]

At 01:07 PM 2/6/2008, ThatSeanGuy wrote:

>I was looking at the wiki, and noticed y`all`s answer to the whole
>`intigrating the monk` problem. Is it such a good idea to completly
>ban a core class like that?

I`m of the opinion that it`s a really, really good idea to exclude
monks from BR. At least, they should be excluded if one is basing a
campaign on any of the existing materials.

I don`t find anything like monks (in the D&D character class sense of
that word) in the BR materials, and any inclusion of them in Cerilia
diminishes the uniqueness of the setting, mucks up existing character
class dynamics and is generally god-awful.

That said, one of my favorite PCs of all time was a monk, and I still
have fond memories of gaming with that character. I`ve played an
Oriental Adventures version of BR set on another continent and, of
course, monks work just great there. I`ve nothing against monks as a
concept when used appropriately. They`re just horribly wrong for the
a Cerilia-based BR campaign.

Gary

[kgauck]

I think its monastic unarmed fighter that is banned. If you invented or found a OGL source for a wrestler or brawler, that would be as good as mentioning any other OGL source. A lot of the Monk class, however is so Asian that a Vos wrestler or a Rjurik brawler would look very different as a class, even though they might still include the same unarmed fighting abilities.

Since you can replicate some of this with feats, a separate class may not be necessary.

[Sorontar]

Monks were available in AD&D, yet WotC intentionally excluded them from Birthright. The BRCS tries to match the AD&D rules where feasible. Excluding monks seems to be quite reasonable. As you say, house rules that give a basis for them to be included is fine, but certainly not in the BRCS. These house rules are free to be added to the wiki as house rules/alternatives to the BRCS.

Personally I have always had trouble with what exactly was the role of a monk in any D&D world. Are they religious, ie. a new type of cleric? Are they warriors? Are they psionists? Are they magic-users? Are they just violent hippies? They seem to be oriental mystic priests but people keep trying to relate them to European cultures, e.g. Christian monks, which for me doesn't work. That is why I have trouble fitting them into the very non-oriental based Cerilia.

I wish they had found a word other than "monk" to call them.

Sorontar.

[geeman]

At 02:49 PM 2/6/2008, Sorontar wrote:

>Personally I have always had trouble with what exactly was the role
>of a monk in any D&D world. Are they religious, ie. a new type of
>cleric? Are they warriors? Are they psionists? Are they magic-users?
>Are they just violent hippies? They seem to be oriental mystic
>priests but people keep trying to relate them to European cultures,
>e.g. Christian monks, which for me doesn`t work. That is why I have
>trouble fitting them into the very non-oriental based Cerilia.

According to some ancient source I read back in the 80`s the boys
(Gygax et al) were into Remo Williams: The Destroyer books when they
penned the info on D&D 1e monks. I don`t know if you`ve read any of
those books (there was a movie) but they`re... well, they`re fun for
a chuckle if you want to put your brain on autoread for a bit, but
generally speaking pretty dumb. At least, those books are to monks
and the martial arts what G.I. Joe comics are to the U.S. Army Field Manual.

The other major source of their inspiration was the Kung-Fu TV show,
which was, uh, well... you know, also good material for putting the
brain on hold.

Both those sources, however, feature a kind of omni-powerful martial
arts character trying to work his way through Western culture. The
D&D designers were substantially less successful than the creators of
Remo or Kwai Chang.

Gary

[ThatSeanGuy]

I think its monastic unarmed fighter that is banned. If you invented or found a OGL source for a wrestler or brawler, that would be as good as mentioning any other OGL source. A lot of the Monk class, however is so Asian that a Vos wrestler or a Rjurik brawler would look very different as a class, even though they might still include the same unarmed fighting abilities.

See, I disagree. The naming of the abilities is Asian, yeah, but that doesn't mean you can't have a brawler or wrestler who calls, say, "Diamond Body", "Erik's Perfect Oak" instead. Do we really need a prestiege class or a new core class to represent that?

It seems to me that the argument is threefold;

1) "It wasn't in the origional Birthright.": The Monk wasn't in the core book for 2nd Edition. You didn't see the class in Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, or any other world, even if the class was converted for 2nd Edition later. It is in the core materials for 3rd Edition: And in, for example, Ravenloft's 3E conversion, we see that some room has been made for the Monk. Furthermore, "It wasn't in the old version." isn't the be all end all of an argument for a revision; if someone doesn't like it, well, they're grownups. They can house rule the new spin out.

2) "I don't like how the class works." I don't like how Wizards only get four level 1 spells at level 20. I'm not going to cut them out of a proposed revision of a campaign setting because of that-that's the perview of house rules. If you hate nunchucks, use boxing gloves, or broken bottles. From a fluff perspective, I don't see how 1st edition AD&D is pertinant to the conversation, or why something having a slightly cheesy inspiration means it's innately wrong. I mean, yeesh, have you seen some of the Conan movies?

3) "It doesn't fit in the Birthright setting." Why? Orders of cloistered warriors exist in the setting. In basic D&D, the Monk is a philosopher who seperates from society in order to try and achieve physical or spiritual perfection, but because it's an adventure game, they went with 'jump kick in the face' powers instead of 'illuminate that handwritten text!' powers. The essential philosophy doesn't change, just the medium of expression. I don't see why the Monk cannot just have a similar role in the whole regency game as a paladin; a bridge between martial and religious power.

[kgauck]

Both Gary and I have made Birthright versions of the monk. Gary's was a BR-Oriental Adventures, mine was a Rjurik Brawler. It seems this topic can still get people bent out of shape as if their Diana Ross records got messed up (http://www.birthright.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6788&postcount=3).

My first write up looked
like this (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0012E&L=BIRTHRIGHT-L&P=R417&D=1&H=0&I=-3&O=T&T=1)and was based on redecoration in the local style.

My actuall Brawler never seems to have gotten posted, but I took away all the druid stuff and just left him a hand to hand fighter. Sure poison immunity is possible, but it makes sense (given genre conventions) why druids and monks can do it, but I dropped it from brawlers.

In the end, I noticed that all of my fighter varients were buildable as Fighter Varients, and ditched the notion that they were different classes and just made them specific fighter builds.

[DanMcSorley]

I always figured the monk would work best as a fusion of Khinasi and
Vos philosophies- the Khinasi were all about knowledge and
enlightenment, the Vos contributed the philosophy of personal physical
improvement. There were border states along the frontier of those two
cultures that would have been the appropriate place for this fusion to
occur.

--
Daniel McSorley

[ThatSeanGuy]

Both Gary and I have made Birthright versions of the monk. Gary's was a BR-Oriental Adventures, mine was a Rjurik Brawler. It seems this topic can still get people bent out of shape as if their Diana Ross records got messed up.

I'm sorry, please don't get me wrong. It just seemd like a topic to, y'know, talk about. I thought that I was giving a rational argument, but if it came off as hystronic, I apologize.

Just, well, I'm not too into elves, so it seemed like I was on my own for new topics.

[kgauck]

The topic is fine, and you didn't come off hystrionic. This is just a topic with a history of controversy. And while Gary's post and mine have been somewhat skeptical, its not because we're closed minded on the subject.

[geeman]

At 10:12 AM 2/7/2008, ThatSeanGuy wrote:

>I`m sorry, please don`t get me wrong. It just seemd like a topic to,
>y`know, talk about. I thought that I was giving a rational argument,
>but if it came off as hystronic, I apologize.

You weren`t. If I came off as harsh then it`s I who should apologize.

The problem is that for the BR veterans, this is one of those topics
that just won`t die. Periodically someone says, "Hey, why are a
standard D&D monks excluded from BR, can`t they fit into culture X"
and we`re off to the races. Next is gnomes or elves should be druids.... ;)

Gary

[irdeggman]

Here is a link to an old thread talking about monks in the the BRCS.

Maybe it will shed some light on the subject (based on past discussions - particularly with the BRCS)

http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1773&highlight=monk

[ThatSeanGuy]

Okay. I noticed after posting that this topic seems to come up every few months, which explains the reaction. Fair enough, I suppose.

[ericthecleric]

“The problem is that for the BR veterans…”
(The following is meant in a friendly, not sarky tone!:)
That assumes that all BR veterans are fans of this website. I saw this website for the first time last year, but I was a fan of the BR setting when it was first released. It was the “Seeking Bloodsilver” adventure (Dungeon #60 or so) that got me back into AD&D in the mid-90s.

[geeman]

At 02:48 PM 2/8/2008, ericthecleric wrote:

>“The problem is that for the BR veterans…”
>
>That assumes that all BR veterans are fans of
>this website. I saw this website for the first
>time last year, but I was a fan of the BR
>setting when it was first released. It was the
>“Seeking Bloodsilver” adventure (Dungeon #60 or
>so) that got me back into AD&D in the mid-90s.

Fair enough. Please excuse my overgeneralizing
the on-line BR community`s veterans to all BR veterans.

I had the same experience, BTW. I`d stopped
gaming for years before I read that adventure and was instantly hooked.

Gary

[ericthecleric]

That's OK, Geeman. We're good. :-)

Seeking Bloodsilver was a great adventure. One time I ran it with a new group of players, the PCs encountered one of the intelligent undead (Maeve the Zombire) in room 8. They enter the room, and the PC cleric said: "Hello."
This really surprised me, but as I like to reward good roleplaying, I figured that it'd been a while since Maeve had had a good conversation. So the two have a chat, and I gave them general hints about what's what in the fortress. Highly memorable; that was a good group to DM for.

[Pauper]

Monks are great, as they are one of the best worked out classes. Rogue is next. The Birthright noble is highly more atmospheric than the Rokugan one, too.


Sad nobody ever got a better ranger and bard done. They both"mean" the right additio to a party, but lack enough, to make them first choice ever.


Until one plays wilderness with barbarian, ranger and druid restriction or a city adventure with talk, seduction and lots of art (NOT just music). I never did. :eek:


Seeking bloodsilver? In Germany even ten years ago the Birthright products were RARE in the fantasy-shops. I got the PC game, one more later via amazon-online order but the books? I never found one, like I wanted to read "The Hags contract" before publishing some stuff. Futile anyway and now I am out of money.


I take a bet that this pops up as reply were it doesn't belong, but I clicked "monk" and there it would be my opinion. :D

[Midnight]

I think If some one wanted to play a monk bad enough they should be allowed to but.
They should understand that they would one of the first if not the first and they would most likely be handicapped in how they level up as there are no monk orders. Basically the player and Dm would have to come to an agreement at what challenges and penalties there would be for playing a monk in Birthright, but should the player except these challenges and succeed they could establish a monk order and make for an exciting game as they radically redefine birthright concepts and face many rivals that are bent on exterminating the budding order in the process.

[ShadowMoon]

Well in my campaign I made remenants of Masetia oriental, so I allowed Monks, Samurai, Shugenja, Shinobi, etc there...

Since Masetians are almost extinct and those that remain are under strict control of the Serpent, it did great to save BR classic feel in general...

[blitzmacher]

I always thought a pc trying to play a monk in a khinasi setting would make a great campaign. They could be hunted by the various temples for heresy. Their various abilities could be seen as sorcery performed by someone who hasn't sworn the 5 oaths. Hunted by nobles who think they are trying to teach peasants that they have blood powers to, and therefore should rule themselves. One could also use the monk as the paladin template for Avani. Hell, it's a game, have fun.

[Thelandrin]

I once used a Khinasi fighter/monk from Elinie, but while it was fun, it didn't quite fit. I later redid him as a militant rogue (sneak attack swapped for fighter feats) multi-classed with fighter-thug (from Unearthed Arcana).