Cerilian Monks… Why Not?

[Gunnar]

I have incorporated Monks into my campaign as assistants to the clerics of each diety. I did not rename any of the abilitites or anything, just added the Monk to the clergy. The idea behind this was that no Oriental society existed, so whose to say that the idea of "Ki" just doesn't exist across the pantheon.

Their primary function is to do the bidding of the clerics of the faith, ie.. messenger, enforcer, bodyguard, spy, etc.

They are distrustful of the other faiths in general, will not even associate with monks of another faith, and must be the same faith as the cleric in the group to avoid conflicts.

Ron

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, no monks for me in Cerilia... I am working on a more friar/reverent father prototype of class, which I call the... Monk (jee, that was very original&#33 and who can achieve a Mystic template if high in level and copes to fulfill a quest. (Much like the way I handle Paladins in my own, non-Cerilian campaign with a Knight class; Monks are like that there too...)

[irdeggman]

From PHB (3.5)
“A monk’s training is her spiritual path. She is inner-directed and capable of a private, mystic connection to the spiritual world, so she needs neither clerics nor gods. . . . .A monk typically trains in a monastery. Most monks were children when they joined the monastery, sent to live there when their parents died, when there wasn’t enough food to support them, or in return for some kindness that the monastery had performed for the family. . . . The monk tradition is alien to dwarf and gnome culture and halflings typically have too mobile a lifestyle to commit themselves to a monastery, so dwarves, gnomes and halflings very rarely become monks.”

It does also say that elves can become monks due to their ability to commit to a long term philosophy. But since Cerilian elves are almost always non-lawful in alignment and monks must be lawful, Cerilian elves would most likely not be monks.

IMO the core of a monk is their internal focus, their desire for self-perfection and non-reliance on any outside force.

What this translates to is that linking a monk’s abilities to a bloodline is very weak since a bloodline is a divine gift and not something that a monk develops to perfect himself.

Also cultures that are focused on external things, like dwarves, elves, Rjurik, Brecht are not very conducive to supporting monk development as a class. Rjurik are focused on nature which is a very external concept. Vos also tend to be chaotic and hence are also not very conducive to supporting monks as a class. Anuireans tend to be focused on rulership and conquering, also not very conducive to supporting monks as a class. Khinasi could somewhat support development of monks as a class except for their propensity to study magic which is clearly an external force, the manipulation of mebhaighl.

[Elrond]

IMO the core of a monk is their internal focus, their desire for self-perfection and non-reliance on any outside force.

What this translates to is that linking a monk’s abilities to a bloodline is very weak since a bloodline is a divine gift and not something that a monk develops to perfect himself.

Bloodline is considered a divine gift by most Cerilians and a curse by many elves. But the divine power released at Deismaar can also be conceived as an energy that the gods kept for themselves. Read again what I’ve written: “At Deismaar, the divine essence released by the dying gods was absorbed by people or by the land itself. I’m adding a third option: this energy is also in the air.” This means monks don’t need to be blooded scions. Of course they no longer focus only on an inner strength, but they need inner strength if they want to manipulate this energy. It’s slightly different from the PH’s monk. That’s why I’m talking about a Cerilian monk. If we change a little bit the philosophy of the class, we can introduce the monk in Birthright.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Elrond@Aug 17 2003, 04:35 PM


Of course they no longer focus only on an inner strength, but they need inner strength if they want to manipulate this energy. It’s slightly different from the PH’s monk. That’s why I’m talking about a Cerilian monk. If we change a little bit the philosophy of the class, we can introduce the monk in Birthright.

The "philosophy" is what makes a monk a monk. It's like saying that a paladin doesn't have to have a strong connection to his deity in order to gain his abilities.

[Elrond]

The "philosophy" is what makes a monk a monk.

A different philosophy is what makes a Cerilian monk a Cerilian monk.

[QuestingMage]

RaspK FOG wrote:

Much like the way I handle Paladins in my own, non-Cerilian campaign with a Knight class

Have you posted your knight class somewhere? I'd be interested in looking at it.

Thanks.

[Airgedok]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Aug 17 2003, 09:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Aug 17 2003, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Elrond@Aug 17 2003, 04:35 PM


Of course they no longer focus only on an inner strength, but they need inner strength if they want to manipulate this energy. It’s slightly different from the PH’s monk. That’s why I’m talking about a Cerilian monk. If we change a little bit the philosophy of the class, we can introduce the monk in Birthright.

The "philosophy" is what makes a monk a monk. It&#39;s like saying that a paladin doesn&#39;t have to have a strong connection to his deity in order to gain his abilities. [/b][/quote]
Not to pick a side here but in 3.0 a cleric can have NO diety as can a paladin. Which is why the rules for birthright specificaly state the clerics CANT be created that dont follow a deity. So under 3e is perfectly ok to have a paladin who is an athiest and not have a close relation to its diety

The earlier arguments that involve alignment as well... childish not because the argumented was present in a childish manner but because alignment as a concept is childish. Lawful and chaotic are foolish concepts. I can present a argument that Sidhelien are lawful more so than chaotic. Look at their relationship with nature. It takes huge disipline to live in total harmany with nature given that its far easier to just clear cut a field and plant food to feed your people.

The point being that alignemt is a early throw back from 1st generation games that should have been dropped from 3e. People dont follow alighment codes of conduct and dont act in such manners. Psycology laughs at such definitions used to explaign human actions. We are far more complex that 9 different alignments. I find that most advanced gamers throw out alignment and their trappings like spells and use different concepts like protection from outsider ect. In almost every experienced adult group I&#39;ve talked to they all seem to agree that alignment and alignment restiictions and spell dont work and are childish gaming aids for newbie players. That are not even used by most other roleplaying games.

[RaspK_FOG]

Not to pick a side here but in 3.0 a cleric can have NO diety as can a paladin. Which is why the rules for birthright specificaly state the clerics CANT be created that dont follow a deity. So under 3e is perfectly ok to have a paladin who is an atheist and not have a close relation to its deity.

Actually, this was also allowed in 2e; read the Complete Paladin&#39;s Handbook, one of the best (A)D&D books published, along with Song and Silence. B)

The earlier arguments that involve alignment as well... childish not because the argumented was present in a childish manner but because alignment as a concept is childish. Lawful and chaotic are foolish concepts. I can present a argument that Sidhelien are lawful more so than chaotic. Look at their relationship with nature. It takes huge disipline to live in total harmany with nature given that its far easier to just clear cut a field and plant food to feed your people.

I disagree with that statement: chaotic alignments should not be interpreted as a lack of discipline as much as a lack of being bound to a discipline so much as to put it beyond your moral issues; 3.5 made the good step of introducing the terms moral (good vs. evil) and ethical (law vs. chaos) alignment terms. See the 3.5 DMG under the chapter concerning Planes of Existence.

[To those that argue that chaos is chaos: why should a god which patrons fighters, then, usually be chaotic in alignment?]

The point being that alignement is a early throw back from 1st generation games that should have been dropped from 3e. People dont follow alighment codes of conduct and dont act in such manners. Psycology laughs at such definitions used to explaign human actions. We are far more complex that 9 different alignments. I find that most advanced gamers throw out alignment and their trappings like spells and use different concepts like protection from outsider ect. In almost every experienced adult group I&#39;ve talked to they all seem to agree that alignment and alignment restiictions and spell dont work and are childish gaming aids for newbie players. That are not even used by most other roleplaying games.

I, once more, have to disagree: D&D has alignments so deeply routed in itself it would be a disaster to simply assume that protection from outsider spells would suffice. In fact, a few d20 products (i.e. The Wheel of Time) do not alignments, but they also do not have devils, demons, angels, dragons, complex pantheons, clerics, etc.


Questing Mage, I have not yet post the Knight class anywhere, since it needs some finetuning: the Paladin class and the Blackguard prestige class are grossly unbalanced (with the issue of former Paladin levels to top); to make things clearer, the Knight class is always lawful, or suffer as if you were a Paladin who no longer is lawful good. The class gets some more neutral aspects, like the special mount, at earlier levels, and adds his Charisma bonus to saving throws, but after 4th level, he may take a (relatively small) quest and if he succeeds he acquires a template appropriate to his alignment: the Paladin, the Grey Knight, or the Blackguard. His class features change according to his template after that.

An issue here is the Grey Knight: he cannot smite good or evil, but smites chaos instead, and he can cure only people of his order or their followers, including himself and his followers, as well as all their subjects and special mounts. In effect, he is more of a Crusader of Law, instead of Good or Evil.

Furthermore, the Knight can receive atonement if his alignment changes, in which case he no longer has the earlier template but acquires a new, appropriate to his alignment.

Last, but not least, there is a prestige class for Knights who are no longer of lawful alignment, the Knight Errant, whcih has a feature similar to the one Blackguards normally have that gives them more abilities if they once were paladins, only this applies to knights instead.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:36 PM



> Then D&D has bungled *its presentation* of its cosmological ideas (in

> fact, it seems to mock them), since so many of us can see in them only

> such simplemindedness, not the intriguing system you describe.



When we look at D&D`s experience system (fundamentally a kill to learn, not

a survive to learn, or study to learn, or learn by doing), or its reward

system (you kill for treasure, especially magical treasure and hoardes

gold), the way the class system has encouraged stereotypes (like the cleric

as medic, the dumb fighter), the way the game ignores routine dangers in

place of spectacular dangers, &c, &c, &c, the whole system seems to stylized

and potentially childish (think: the D&D movie) its no wonder that in the

80`s D&D was kind of a starter system after which players moved on to more

sophisticated gaming in other systems. Never the less, sophisticated gamers

found that with their new insights (from the passage of years, the playing

of more challenging games, and more stimulating books and movies) it was

possible to return to D&D and play it in this new way in which we adventured

for more than just gp and xp, thought about new explanations for hit points,

experience, played class against type (the thoughtful fighter, elaborated

mythos for clerics in which they might not even -gasp- heal), constructed

characters with methods which don`t promote the most eggregious min-maxing

or encourage munchkins. Birthright was one of the game worlds that

facilitated this return to D&D, or at least a reconsideration of the game`s

merits. The alignment system fits in here too, but most of our gaming

growth after getting started in D&D involved amoral, shades of gray, or

competing goods moral systems, not a dulism (Call of Cuthulu may be one of

the exceptions, never played it). So when we returned to D&D, we were much

better able to re-interpret the combat, experience, and mythological systems

, we carried the cosmologies and moral ambiguity over from other kinds of

gaming, rather than returning to the dualism (whether Arthurian grail,

Albigensian, angelic-demonic) which was part of D&D. My own take of Gygax

is that he`s a really well read guy who made an ecclectic, and eccentric

game world from all of these difference sources. The end product is

sometimes such a confusing mix of ideas that we end up ignoring or changing

a few, but its also a rich source of different ideas that it was able to

support the kind of return to D&D which occured (not always

enthusiastically, admittedly). In fact, its too bad that D&D was the

starter game, since much of its richness is lost on begining gamers who end

up seeing hack-and-slash and monty haul as the be all and end of all of

gaming. But this has as much to do with learning to play games that don`t

have conventional winnners and losers as it does all kinds of other issues.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com