The Monk Class

[Osvir]

A wizard is by definition one who uses magic. We are challenging the idea that a monk by definition is one who uses martial arts. I mean when you hear "that monk was amazing" you don't think "wow that monk really kicked the ever-living life out of that dude." You think "wow that dude must be really spiritual." With a wizard you think "Wow that guy used his/her magic like a beast."

 

So let's try this:

 

Wow! That ________ is amazing!

 

Fighter - kicked the crap out of the guy with his sword or other weapon

Wizard - Zapped him with a lightning bolt (magic)

Chanter - I'm not really sure but maybe sang the dude to death?

Priest - Used prayer magic on that mofo

Barbarian - Basically ripped the guy to shreds with his hulk-like strength.

Thief (Diplomat) - talked the dude out of a fight

Thief (Assasin) - killed that dude without anyone finding out

Thief (robber) - Stole that dudes money

Cipher - Mind ****ed that dude.

Ranger - Used that bow really well.

Monk - ???? Used martial arts?

 

Monk disarmed, danced around, grappled, broke some bones and hit weak spots. Using the enemy's weight against him. He could use a staff too, or most preferably... poi :D maaan I need to get out and spin <3

[Hormalakh]

-snip-

 

Monk disarmed, danced around, grappled, broke some bones and hit weak spots. Using the enemy's weight against him. He could use a staff too, or most preferably... poi :D maaan I need to get out and spin <3

 

I didn't know those guys in the video were monks. I don't think I did a good job trying to convey my point.

 

Here's another try. I'm going to give you some definitions. Give me one word that would describe these people.

 

1 A master in the art of fighting. Able to use swords and shields. As well as bows and arrows. Heavily built and able to withstand much damage.

 

2 An extremely devoted and zealous, often fanatical, soldier who has pledged himself/herself to a chosen cause.

 

3 While they are masters of combat, their recklessness, ferocity, and their predilection to substitute raw aggression for discipline is what describes them.

 

4 Also a master in the arts of fighting. These people have a predilection for not wearing any clothes and spouting philosophical nonsense right before they jump into battle. They also forecast their attacks with some sort of ridiculous name like "Flying kick-a-pow" (That was for you Osvir, due to your avatar, er...)

 

5. A spiritual master known for their devotion, discipline, and spirituality. They have forsaken this material world for a better understanding of the heavens and spiritual realm. While many are peaceful philosophers, some have established their philosophies into the fighting arts.

 

6. A master of the magical arts. They are able to change the physical world with words that nobody understands.

[Hormalakh]

My answers were

 

1- fighter

2- Paladin

3- Barbarian

4- A martial artist or a fighter. Also, Saka from Avatar (Not a monk)

5- Monks

6- Wizard

Edited October 15, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Osvir]

-snip-

 

Monk disarmed, danced around, grappled, broke some bones and hit weak spots. Using the enemy's weight against him. He could use a staff too, or most preferably... poi :D maaan I need to get out and spin <3

 

I didn't know those guys in the video were monks. I don't think I did a good job trying to convey my point.

 

Here's another try. I'm going to give you some definitions. Give me one word that would describe these people.

 

1 A master in the art of fighting. Able to use swords and shields. As well as bows and arrows. Heavily built and able to withstand much damage.

 

2 An extremely devoted and zealous, often fanatical, soldier who has pledged himself/herself to a chosen cause.

 

3 While they are masters of combat, their recklessness, ferocity, and their predilection to substitute raw aggression for discipline is what describes them.

 

4 Also a master in the arts of fighting. These people have a predilection for not wearing any clothes and spouting philosophical nonsense right before they jump into battle. They also forecast their attacks with some sort of ridiculous name like "Flying kick-a-pow" (That was for you Osvir, due to your avatar, er...)

 

5. A spiritual master known for their devotion, discipline, and spirituality. They have forsaken this material world for a better understanding of the heavens and spiritual realm. While many are peaceful philosophers, some have established their philosophies into the fighting arts.

 

6. A master of the magical arts. They are able to change the physical world with words that nobody understands.

 

No I understood what you said, the guys in the video are performers, but in a sense they are very much Monks too. Not going to go into poi, if anyone is interested go ahead and do your research.

 

1. Gladiators, Hunters, Soldiers, yes Fighters in this sense.

2. Cleric, Paladin, Necromancer(?)

3. Barbarian

4. See 1, this is more of a personality rather than a "Class". This one could be a Barbarian, yes even a Monk too (a young one). Using Souka as an example... Souka is the very definition (in Avatar) of a young man learning. He later becomes more towards a Samurai, closely related to Monks by the way.

5. Monk

6. Wizard

[Hormalakh]

-snip-

 

Monk disarmed, danced around, grappled, broke some bones and hit weak spots. Using the enemy's weight against him. He could use a staff too, or most preferably... poi :D maaan I need to get out and spin <3

 

I didn't know those guys in the video were monks. I don't think I did a good job trying to convey my point.

 

Here's another try. I'm going to give you some definitions. Give me one word that would describe these people.

 

1 A master in the art of fighting. Able to use swords and shields. As well as bows and arrows. Heavily built and able to withstand much damage.

 

2 An extremely devoted and zealous, often fanatical, soldier who has pledged himself/herself to a chosen cause.

 

3 While they are masters of combat, their recklessness, ferocity, and their predilection to substitute raw aggression for discipline is what describes them.

 

4 Also a master in the arts of fighting. These people have a predilection for not wearing any clothes and spouting philosophical nonsense right before they jump into battle. They also forecast their attacks with some sort of ridiculous name like "Flying kick-a-pow" (That was for you Osvir, due to your avatar, er...)

 

5. A spiritual master known for their devotion, discipline, and spirituality. They have forsaken this material world for a better understanding of the heavens and spiritual realm. While many are peaceful philosophers, some have established their philosophies into the fighting arts.

 

6. A master of the magical arts. They are able to change the physical world with words that nobody understands.

 

No I understood what you said, the guys in the video are performers, but in a sense they are very much Monks too. Not going to go into poi, if anyone is interested go ahead and do your research.

 

1. Gladiators, Hunters, Soldiers, yes Fighters in this sense.

2. Cleric, Paladin, Necromancer(?)

3. Barbarian

4. See 1, this is more of a personality rather than a "Class". This one could be a Barbarian, yes even a Monk too (a young one). Using Souka as an example... Souka is the very definition (in Avatar) of a young man learning. He later becomes more towards a Samurai, closely related to Monks by the way.

5. Monk

6. Wizard

 

I took the #2 definition from what was in the kickstarter. It was for paladin. I guess it's interesting that the two biggest class confusions are the monk and the paladin (please correct me if I'm wrong). It could be because of peoples' different definitions of what a monk and paladin are. And I think once we have a definition (I couldn't find one in any of the OE posts or the KS posts) for a monk, some this might be clarified. I could see Souka as a monk, but I wouldn't define Souka as the generic monk Samurais FTW.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Osvir]

I think you are wrong about the class confusion, as your little experiment clearly showed that I saw number 2 as a Paladin.

 

That was all I was thinking about to be honest, "This one is Paladin" when I was going to deduce it. I added in Cleric and Necromancer because they could be the same thing from their perspective.

[Umberlin]

5. A spiritual master known for their devotion, discipline, and spirituality. They have forsaken this material world for a better understanding of the heavens and spiritual realm. While many are peaceful philosophers, some have established their philosophies into the fighting arts.

 

I definitely thought of Monk when I thought of that, but I'd warn again anything that assumed P:E's Monk had to be along those lines, simply because settings have done Monks outside of the lines before.

 

In Obsidian's setting, by the concept art he uses fists (and possibly the weapons on his belt) and likely any part of his body that can be turned into a weapon . . . however, he is obviously enhancing himself magically - as noted by the glowing fists. The magical enhancement is supported by Obsidian's release on souls, that explains how that inner energy can be pulled upon to enhance, to superhuman extents.

 

The exact mentality of the Monk is what we don't know. Why they do the things they do. Why they use, or don't use, certain weapons. So it's less a question of fighting style, since they hint that in addition the the 'unarmed' combat abilities they do use weaponry of some sort (it appears to be a sheathed, short bladed weapon). So the fighting style, and the things we can draw from that are more obvious (though not fully defined, obviously we haven't seen how he'd use the weapon).

 

You can take that definition and get, "Monk" from it, but it's a definition. Just one. Fantasy Monks tend toward several lines, and are the way they are to keep them from just being another Cleric or another Priest. As I said on the last page the issue with most suggestions I see for the Monk . . . is that they come off as suggestions for another class entirely. They come off like a Priest. They come off like a Barbarian. They come off like a Paladin. They come off like a Cleric. All of these things P:E already has some equivalent to. And so on. The Monk tends to exist, as it does, in fantasy games of varying sort as something that 'is not' those other classes, and cannot be mistaken for them. You have to remember even Obsidian came up and mentioned that they didn't there to be too much overlap between the classes.

 

The better thing to discuss is, "what drives what is there" the mentality behind their look, art, combat style and use of certain weapons and armor, or the lack thereof. What's there is obvious, this is what the Monk is, so rather than askign why it's not different . . . maybe we should be asking, "Why is it there?" From a mechanical standpoint it's there to be a very, absolutely, different option from the other classes. From a lore standpoint we know very little but a few hints, but we do know how they enhance themselves at least. Now, then, you could ask, "Does that extend to more than hands and feet" and, again, he has a weapon on his belt.

 

I think if the Priest doesn't manage to cover it, the the thing that would be a nice addition to the Monk would be the DAoC styled melee-Friar aspects, since they mesh well with what we see. The DAoC Friar, especially the staff using melee build, had a lot in common with the visuals we're seeing from P:E's monk, most notably that they could enhance themselves with magic. Now the Friar's magic was faith based, but you could easily extend the 'drawing on the soul' aspect of P:E's Monk to something that had a lot of functional similarities. Essentially you'd just add another build within the Monk that allowed for staff combat, because the magical enhancements elements are, obviously, already there. Still, I'm not so sure that's really a 'suggestion' so much as something that's likely already there. Again, we see the Monk with a weapon. It may not be a staff, but which weapons are more for Obsidian to decide. At the end the idea stays the same, "this Monk has trained thoroughly in the use of "X combat style" be it unarmed, with a staff or with that bladed weapon, and becomes more deadly by way of magical means, enhancing strength or speed or what have you.

 

Is the Monk spiritual though?

 

Well everyone in P:E seems to have 'some' spiritual aspect. So being spiritual may not be as definitive as it might be in a setting where souls aren't major elements. And in fantasy games we've seen many Monk styles. Not all of them were spiritual. Some were very physical. Some were wanderers. Some had key spiritual elements, sure, but others did not. And this is an important thing to keep in mind, definitions of the Monk from other fantasy games and reality need not apply, but, within the P:E setting . . . Obsidian also want to avoid cross over between the classes. I think that's why Paladins in P:E aren't Faith based in the manner of the P:E Priest.

[Osvir]

I think the Monk today in video games is just a selling-point. Everyone can be a Monk, regardless of their profession. It is a mindset, in my opinion, a way of life that has little to do with seeking out the fight. In the sense that Monk is used, a class title/name similar to "Brawler" would almost be better to define the class used in many modern games.

 

I have also felt that the Monk and the Priest walk close hand in hand, yet they are so very different. One prays to the outer God, the other to the inner God.

[AGX-17]

It's one of the most vicious ironies that the monk in fantasy games is stereotyped as a martial artist who involves himself in conflicts and deals with problems through violence. A monk is an ascetic who devotes his (the female equivalent is a nun,) humble life to prayer/meditation, scholastic pursuits like transcribing/copying old texts and doing good works (caring for the sick, poor and orphans.)

 

Even the Shaolin monks that I'm sure inspired this stereotype are an exception to the rule. I still don't understand why they have to be magically transplanted from a far East they never left in reality to a Western-styled world to punch guys in steel plate armor.

Edited October 16, 2012 by AGX-17

[Michael_Galt]

I'll have to agree to disagree. Martial arts take "martial training", and make it into an "art". Just training in combat doesn't make you a martial artist- you must also be expressing your "philosophy" through your fighting style.

 

No offense, but thats bull of the hughest quality, propaganda used to sell you on certain martial arts in the same way fencing tried to make people believe it was more of an art than the older swordfighting schools. The term 'martial art' is of western origins and is Latin for 'Art of Mars' and was being used in fencing manuals in the 1500s.

 

As to the rest of your post, please do some research before theorycrafting, as you'd learn just how indepth the martial arts were developed in the middle ages. Young boys from the age of 7 underwent a training regime that was comprehensive and a true 'art' that rivalled samurai and other 'ethic cool' warriors.

 

EDIT: in short, martial art refers to a codified training regime and there were manuals in Europe describing many of the training regimes used for many of the different weapons from swords to halberds to maces, how to overcome armour with said weapons, etc.

 

Yes. Well, if you can name me one of the monasteries where hundreds of European boys were trained to excel in their specific "martial art" and challenged rival schools for hundreds of years, I will concede your point.

 

I'm not claiming that Europeans were all a bunch of wusses, that didn't know how to fight. There were obviously plenty of wars in Europe, just like there were in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. What I'm saying is they didn't have a culture that codified very specific manners of fighting COMBINED with introspection or religious training. The Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights were perhaps the sole exception to that rule, but they weren't exactly known for having a "specific fighting style" or unarmed combat. They also didn't train children- you had to join them of your own free will, and you had to be an adult (though their concept of an adult extended to teenagers).

 

After I posted, I realized the fencing schools would come up, and that is fair point. The difference is, they were all specific to the time period they were in, and changed with technology. That's why ARMA can't just find a "zweihander master" to teach everyone how to fight with two-handed swords. Instead, they have to search for manuscripts which described fighting techniques, and study and practice them. That's fine, that still is not the same thing. That is martial training. I could teach you how to shoot well with an M16- does shooting well with an M16 make you a martial artist? No, of course not. Now, if you ONLY used an M16, and assigned special significance to it as a weapon outside of it's technical abilities, and had a tiered system for determining skill with it, and could shoot accurately from a variety of unnatural positions and situations that would not necessarily be practical, then I would grant you are a "martial artist". Because you put "art" into it.

 

How many professional, standing armies existed in Europe during the middle ages? Not a whole lot, which was the entire concept BEHIND feudalism. The idea was that you had some well trained NOBLE knights that were heavily armored and well equipped. They led armies of mostly peasants that they LEVIED from their lands, with that being a condition of them living on said lands- that they had to fight when impressed to do so. Most of those peasants had absolutely no training, and were poorly armed and equipped, because nobles didn't care much for the thought of them rebelling (which they had a tendency to do). The job of knights was to be cavalry. They cavalry could be used to cause great damage to peasant fighters because they were much better armored, much better trained, and more mobile. Did the knights train from young ages onward? Yes. Did all of them train hard? Probably not. And how did they train? Well, they usually had "men-at-arms", whose job was to train them until they became squires to a knight. So, they likely got trained by 2 people their entire life. And were those 2 people masters? Not likely. And while they might have trained a lot, nobles/knights also had other jobs- like running a feudal kingdom. So, of all the knights, I would make a safe bet that a substantial minority of them spent much more of their time doing things other than fighting or training for war, since that was only part of their duties.

 

Again, this isn't "West-bashing". I love the West. I'm a Westerner. But, we just don't have the same culture or history, which is fine. I don't care if there are "non-kung fu" monks- I'm open to that. I do want there to at least be ONE kung-fu style monk. If there isn't, no biggie. Then, my first playthrough will be as a Paladin- cause I love some "Templar" action

[Umberlin]

It's one of the most vicious ironies that the monk in fantasy games is stereotyped as a martial artist who involves himself in conflicts and deals with problems through violence. A monk is an ascetic who devotes his (the female equivalent is a nun,) humble life to prayer/meditation, scholastic pursuits like transcribing/copying old texts and doing good works (caring for the sick, poor and orphans.)

 

Even the Shaolin monks that I'm sure inspired this stereotype are an exception to the rule. I still don't understand why they have to be magically transplanted from a far East they never left in reality to a Western-styled world to punch guys in steel plate armor.

 

Because the Monks are not real Monks, they're fictional, with little to no basis in reality, and meant only to fit into the lore and story of the world (which Obsidian have yet to present us) not into any reality or other setting. They're fictional, meant to fit into this fictional. Real Monks, real plate armor and reality really aren't supposed to ever come into it. The Monks in this setting pull upon their Soul, their inner energy, to enhance themselves. The lore supports the idea of effects of the superhuman variety, shown in the concept art of the Monk's fists glowing with magical energies.

 

In the end it's not any different than the idea of a touch ranged spell in D&D, or self/party enhancing spells in D&D. If anything the D&D Wizard walking up to you and touching you to apply a spell is the more difficult sell because he doesn't have the martial training to get up close and avoid being hit, typically, as the Monk. In the sense of the superhuman enhancements, complaining about a fictional Monk punching through plate in a fictional, not at all reality based, Fantasy game is akin to complaining about Superman punching through a tank in a comic book setting. Personally I don't really like superman, but my reaction isn't to demand superman be changed. I just go read something else I do like. With the Monk the same remains true . . . I just won't play as a Monk, I'll play as a Wizard or Cipher.

 

-

 

I said it in another thread, and I'll repeat it now, if I ever make a fantasy game I'm just going to use randomly made up words for the names of classes, abilities and races to avoid the, "real world definition" sitgma.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Umberlin

[AGX-17]

It's one of the most vicious ironies that the monk in fantasy games is stereotyped as a martial artist who involves himself in conflicts and deals with problems through violence. A monk is an ascetic who devotes his (the female equivalent is a nun,) humble life to prayer/meditation, scholastic pursuits like transcribing/copying old texts and doing good works (caring for the sick, poor and orphans.)

 

Even the Shaolin monks that I'm sure inspired this stereotype are an exception to the rule. I still don't understand why they have to be magically transplanted from a far East they never left in reality to a Western-styled world to punch guys in steel plate armor.

 

Because the Monks are not real Monks, they're fictional, with little to no basis in reality, and meant only to fit into the lore and story of the world (which Obsidian have yet to present us) not into any reality or other setting. They're fictional, meant to fit into this fictional. Real Monks, real plate armor and reality really aren't supposed to ever come into it. The Monks in this setting pull upon their Soul, their inner energy, to enhance themselves. The lore supports the idea of effects of the superhuman variety, shown in the concept art of the Monk's fists glowing with magical energies.

 

In the end it's not any different than the idea of a touch ranged spell in D&D, or self/party enhancing spells in D&D. If anything the D&D Wizard walking up to you and touching you to apply a spell is the more difficult sell because he doesn't have the martial training to get up close and avoid being hit, typically, as the Monk. In the sense of the superhuman enhancements, complaining about a fictional Monk punching through plate in a fictional, not at all reality based, Fantasy game is akin to complaining about Superman punching through a tank in a comic book setting. Personally I don't really like superman, but my reaction isn't to demand superman be changed. I just go read something else I do like. With the Monk the same remains true . . . I just won't play as a Monk, I'll play as a Wizard or Cipher.

 

-

 

I said it in another thread, and I'll repeat it now, if I ever make a fantasy game I'm just going to use randomly made up words for the names of classes, abilities and races to avoid the, "real world definition" sitgma.

 

I realize they're fictional, but the issue for me is the choice of nomenclature. They don't say "farmer" when they want an intellectual, scholarly class or "shiftless, fat 3rd son of an Earl" when they want a barbarian berserker from remote, untamed lands. I guess it's a matter of consistency.

[Hormalakh]

I couldn't agree more with a lot of the discussion above. Yay for intelligent discourse.

[Umberlin]

I realize they're fictional, but the issue for me is the choice of nomenclature. They don't say "farmer" when they want an intellectual, scholarly class or "shiftless, fat 3rd son of an Earl" when they want a barbarian berserker from remote, untamed lands. I guess it's a matter of consistency.

 

I'm fairly sure barbarian berserker isn't . . . quite what they're getting at with the Monk anyways. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. Regardless Monk is a pretty common term in fantasy RPGs of many types, to the extent that Monk, in reference to RPGs has taken on a bit of its own meaning. Anyone familiar with the D&D based IE games, I'm fairly sure, already have an idea of what they're getting at. An exact idea? Nah. Enough to make an educated guess, even if the turn out is diifferent that the estimation? Maybe.

 

I just think it's a mistake to think, "Monk" in any terms but game terms, because, as I said, a Monk, in game terms, though there is variance, has some fairly consistent themes quite apart from reality. Words have meanings, but in certain contexts those meanings can be quite different. Does it have to make sense? Meh. I think of it as a brand of slang, and some words that are slang for one thing, while sharing a quite different academic presence, are fairly common place.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Umberlin

[Slaunyeh]

I'm not really a fan of how monks are usually presented in D&D-esque fantasy settings, largely because they feel so tacked on. It works better in a setting like Exalted. That said, however, I have managed to create something cool with the monk class in D&D. My elven heavy armoured, halberd wielding fighter/monk whirlwind of destruction was awesome. So some of the aesthetics of the classic D&D-like monk can work well, but in its' entirety it feels a bit silly. IMHO.

 

That's not to say it can't be a good class. I just think the setting designers have to take extra care to make them fit into the setting (and maybe be a little less traditional).

[Troller]

We should get a Witcher or Hexer class

[AGX-17]

I realize they're fictional, but the issue for me is the choice of nomenclature. They don't say "farmer" when they want an intellectual, scholarly class or "shiftless, fat 3rd son of an Earl" when they want a barbarian berserker from remote, untamed lands. I guess it's a matter of consistency.

 

I'm fairly sure barbarian berserker isn't . . . quite what they're getting at with the Monk anyways. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. Regardless Monk is a pretty common term in fantasy RPGs of many types, to the extent that Monk, in reference to RPGs has taken on a bit of its own meaning. Anyone familiar with the D&D based IE games, I'm fairly sure, already have an idea of what they're getting at. An exact idea? Nah. Enough to make an educated guess, even if the turn out is diifferent that the estimation? Maybe.

 

I just think it's a mistake to think, "Monk" in any terms but game terms, because, as I said, a Monk, in game terms, though there is variance, has some fairly consistent themes quite apart from reality. Words have meanings, but in certain contexts those meanings can be quite different. Does it have to make sense? Meh. I think of it as a brand of slang, and some words that are slang for one thing, while sharing a quite different academic presence, are fairly common place.

 

My point is the incongruity between the name and actual role. A medieval farmer in reality isn't a scholar and a fat slovenly noble with no succession ambition isn't a barbarian berserker any more than a monk is a ripped martial artist who channels his chi into a spirit bomb Kamehameha hadouken wave to blast people into tiny bits. I'm saying that pretty much every other class has a realistic basis but the monk. In an Eastern setting, it would be fine, but even then it would be a rarity to have a warrior monk of some kind. When the Vikings invaded the British Isles, the local Christian monasteries were burned, the monks were killed and that was that. No hadoukens or judo throws.

 

I think I'm repeating myself here, but I'm trying to grasp why it makes sense to most people that in a western-based fantasy world, a warrior is a warrior like a real warrior, a wizard is a wizard like the real-world mythology of a wizard, but a monk isn't a monk but a kung-fu master.

 

The thing is, in the far East, martial arts and religion were seperate things for most of Chinese history. The Shaolin Temple is the exception to the rule. Wushu outside of that facility has no religious basis.

 

They still aren't congruous, most martial artists were trained by professional martial artists running professional martial arts schools. That's why there are different "schools" of martial arts, most of which were not limited to unarmed combat. Unarmed combat has typically been either a last resort or a formalized competitive form of combat, not the preferred method of battle for the ancient Chinese. They went to war in the time of Christ wearing armor, carrying semi-automatic crossbows, iron swords, and siege weapons comparable to those of the Roman Empire (before the Roman Empire even existed,) not flowing robes and their bare hands. Most of what we think of as martial arts today were developed recently, within the past 200 years, as ways of subduing attackers non-lethally in a non-war situation. The Chinese are human just as the rest of the world, and despite the anti-western romanticism of kung fu movies, they were just as practical and pragmatic in combat as any European or Middle Eastern civilization.

Edited October 16, 2012 by AGX-17

[Jarmo]

Yea, the main problem is the lack of a proper word to describe an unarmed martial artist.

 

There are lots of people who go real deep into whatever form they practice, but you don't go call a savate champ a monk. Boxer is a boxer, thai boxer a thai boxer. A monk can train kung fu, but it's usually not a job requirement. Maybe dalai lama can totally kick ass and then maybe not.

 

If Eternity pulls off monks using spiritual energy to enhance their fighting abilities, hitting power, damage reflection/reduction, that sort of stuff, it can really work out and make sense. There'd be normal brawlers, but without power fists they wouldn't do much real damage or be able to survive very long without armor.

[Soranor]

I think Diablo 2 did really well to depict a non-asian martial artist in the assassin class. Remove the claws if you want, but keep elemental damage added and you have a reason to use your fists and feet - they're pretty fast, so a good way to spread the (elemental) love. Also, if your spirit is the source of magic it sounds reasonable that fabricating elemental (or other combat enhancing) effects out of your fist is easier to do than putting it on a blade.

[Aedelric]

You are making a lot of sense AGX-17, but you are unlikely to sway some people of their deep set opinions with logic. It is good to read a point of view by someone that can articulate their thoughts well. I agree with what you are saying.

[Umberlin]

My point is the incongruity between the name and actual role.

 

Which is what I meant by slang. Given the right context, and enough time of spreading within that context, a Word, thus a name, can change meaning - in that context. Which Monk obviously has, in the context of RPGs. Your example of Farmer, in the right context, given enough time, could change meaning in certain circumstances - if it couldn't then what you see with a fictional Monk in an RPG, versus a real Monk somewhere in actual time . . . wouldn't be possible. And it is. If it weren't you wouldn't have all the classes named Monk throughout various RPGs that have nothing to do with the actual role of various real Monks in various cultures throughout actual history.

 

Accept it for what it is, not just in this RPG, but in many - many - RPGs? Maybe? No?

 

Then . . .

 

Do you want it renamed? Would it change anything? If yes . . . Okay, sure, but, again, what has really changed? The name doesn't change in any of the other RPGs that already use said name (which are quite many, out of curiosity I went digging for information, it's a very popular name for this sort of class apparently). The function of what was once the Monk in this setting won't have changed for the name change either. Like I said earlier, I'd just apply random nonsense words to each class to avoid these very sorts of, "but that actually names mean this" discussions, but not because the name Monkis inappropriate but because the name, in the context of a fantasy series, doesn't mean a thing. The writer can take any given name and apply any given meaning to it, no matter how widly out of place. Developers that use terms like Monk, Warrior, Priest and so on tend to stick with them for very practical reasons - familiarity with how they've been used in past RPGs.

 

For example let's take the Paladin as Obsidian have presented it . . . you could apply the same issue with the name of the Monk to the name of the Paladin. Want the Paladin's name changed? It wouldn't change the intended function it it were, and it'd just irk all the people that wanted something called "Paladin" in the game.

 

I'm not sure changing the Monk's name would really do anything positive, and the few people in this thread that might support such a change? I'm not sure they're a good measure of a community wide reaction . . . In the end I think it's better to just stop thinking of a fictional Monk in a fantasy RPG in any real world terms, as they have had a meaning in the RPG community, for a very long time now, that is obviously not realistic. It's neat to note what real world Monks do, they come in all the shapes mentioned here and more, but, it's obvious, these fictional Monks are not them.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Umberlin

[AGX-17]

My point is the incongruity between the name and actual role.

 

Which is what I meant by slang. Given the right context, and enough time of spreading within that context, a Word, thus a name, can change meaning - in that context. Which Monk obviously has, in the context of RPGs. Your example of Farmer, in the right context, given enough time, could change meaning in certain circumstances - if it couldn't then what you see with a fictional Monk in an RPG, versus a real Monk somewhere in actual time . . . wouldn't be possible. And it is. If it weren't you wouldn't have all the classes named Monk throughout various RPGs that have nothing to do with the actual role of various real Monks in various cultures throughout actual history.

 

Accept it for what it is, not just in this RPG, but in many - many - RPGs? Maybe? No?

 

Then . . .

 

Do you want it renamed? Would it change anything? If yes . . . Okay, sure, but, again, what has really changed? The name doesn't change in any of the other RPGs that already use said name (which are quite many, out of curiosity I went digging for information, it's a very popular name for this sort of class apparently). The function of what was once the Monk in this setting won't have changed for the name change either. Like I said earlier, I'd just apply random nonsense words to each class to avoid these very sorts of, "but that actually names mean this" discussions, but not because the name Monkis inappropriate but because the name, in the context of a fantasy series, doesn't mean a thing. The writer can take any given name and apply any given meaning to it, no matter how widly out of place. Developers that use terms like Monk, Warrior, Priest and so on tend to stick with them for very practical reasons - familiarity with how they've been used in past RPGs.

 

For example let's take the Paladin as Obsidian have presented it . . . you could apply the same issue with the name of the Monk to the name of the Paladin. Want the Paladin's name changed? It wouldn't change the intended function it it were, and it'd just irk all the people that wanted something called "Paladin" in the game.

 

I'm not sure changing the Monk's name would really do anything positive, and the few people in this thread that might support such a change? I'm not sure they're a good measure of a community wide reaction . . . In the end I think it's better to just stop thinking of a fictional Monk in a fantasy RPG in any real world terms, as they have had a meaning in the RPG community, for a very long time now, that is obviously not realistic. It's neat to note what real world Monks do, they come in all the shapes mentioned here and more, but, it's obvious, these fictional Monks are not them.

 

Paladin comes from the Holy Roman Empire, a semi-mythical group similar to King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, whose stories are those of their defense of Christianity against the Muslims. Ergo, Paladin is used in an acceptable way in RPGs. The real Paladins were defenders of their faith and crusaders against opposing faiths. That fits with the archetype of the Paladin in pretty much every RPG.

 

Changing the monk's name would do something positive: show originality. P:E doesn't have to be Dungeons & Dragons. It doesn't have to be bound by any stereotype, and that's a large part of what they had intended, was it not?

Edited October 16, 2012 by AGX-17

[FlintlockJazz]

My point is the incongruity between the name and actual role.

 

Which is what I meant by slang. Given the right context, and enough time of spreading within that context, a Word, thus a name, can change meaning - in that context. Which Monk obviously has, in the context of RPGs. Your example of Farmer, in the right context, given enough time, could change meaning in certain circumstances - if it couldn't then what you see with a fictional Monk in an RPG, versus a real Monk somewhere in actual time . . . wouldn't be possible. And it is. If it weren't you wouldn't have all the classes named Monk throughout various RPGs that have nothing to do with the actual role of various real Monks in various cultures throughout actual history.

 

Accept it for what it is, not just in this RPG, but in many - many - RPGs? Maybe? No?

 

Then . . .

 

Do you want it renamed? Would it change anything? If yes . . . Okay, sure, but, again, what has really changed? The name doesn't change in any of the other RPGs that already use said name (which are quite many, out of curiosity I went digging for information, it's a very popular name for this sort of class apparently). The function of what was once the Monk in this setting won't have changed for the name change either. Like I said earlier, I'd just apply random nonsense words to each class to avoid these very sorts of, "but that actually names mean this" discussions, but not because the name Monkis inappropriate but because the name, in the context of a fantasy series, doesn't mean a thing. The writer can take any given name and apply any given meaning to it, no matter how widly out of place. Developers that use terms like Monk, Warrior, Priest and so on tend to stick with them for very practical reasons - familiarity with how they've been used in past RPGs.

 

For example let's take the Paladin as Obsidian have presented it . . . you could apply the same issue with the name of the Monk to the name of the Paladin. Want the Paladin's name changed? It wouldn't change the intended function it it were, and it'd just irk all the people that wanted something called "Paladin" in the game.

 

I'm not sure changing the Monk's name would really do anything positive, and the few people in this thread that might support such a change? I'm not sure they're a good measure of a community wide reaction . . . In the end I think it's better to just stop thinking of a fictional Monk in a fantasy RPG in any real world terms, as they have had a meaning in the RPG community, for a very long time now, that is obviously not realistic. It's neat to note what real world Monks do, they come in all the shapes mentioned here and more, but, it's obvious, these fictional Monks are not them.

 

Why not change the name when they have already done the same with the Bard anyway with the Chanter? Then they could vary it up a bit, have martial artists from all sorts of backgrounds instead of monastic ones! Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to a religious hand to hand specialist if they called them Dancers and based their martial arts on dancing with the premise that it reflects the 'movement of the heavens' or somesuch as it would fit in well with how the Chanter works. Then you could have them wearing different things like dancing clothes instead of the usual monk garb and maybe even something like masks, with the choice of mask reflecting the 'role' the Dancer wants to take on in his fight.

 

Yes. Well, if you can name me one of the monasteries where hundreds of European boys were trained to excel in their specific "martial art" and challenged rival schools for hundreds of years, I will concede your point.

 

I'm not claiming that Europeans were all a bunch of wusses, that didn't know how to fight. There were obviously plenty of wars in Europe, just like there were in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. What I'm saying is they didn't have a culture that codified very specific manners of fighting COMBINED with introspection or religious training. The Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights were perhaps the sole exception to that rule, but they weren't exactly known for having a "specific fighting style" or unarmed combat. They also didn't train children- you had to join them of your own free will, and you had to be an adult (though their concept of an adult extended to teenagers).

 

After I posted, I realized the fencing schools would come up, and that is fair point. The difference is, they were all specific to the time period they were in, and changed with technology. That's why ARMA can't just find a "zweihander master" to teach everyone how to fight with two-handed swords. Instead, they have to search for manuscripts which described fighting techniques, and study and practice them. That's fine, that still is not the same thing. That is martial training. I could teach you how to shoot well with an M16- does shooting well with an M16 make you a martial artist? No, of course not. Now, if you ONLY used an M16, and assigned special significance to it as a weapon outside of it's technical abilities, and had a tiered system for determining skill with it, and could shoot accurately from a variety of unnatural positions and situations that would not necessarily be practical, then I would grant you are a "martial artist". Because you put "art" into it.

 

How many professional, standing armies existed in Europe during the middle ages? Not a whole lot, which was the entire concept BEHIND feudalism. The idea was that you had some well trained NOBLE knights that were heavily armored and well equipped. They led armies of mostly peasants that they LEVIED from their lands, with that being a condition of them living on said lands- that they had to fight when impressed to do so. Most of those peasants had absolutely no training, and were poorly armed and equipped, because nobles didn't care much for the thought of them rebelling (which they had a tendency to do). The job of knights was to be cavalry. They cavalry could be used to cause great damage to peasant fighters because they were much better armored, much better trained, and more mobile. Did the knights train from young ages onward? Yes. Did all of them train hard? Probably not. And how did they train? Well, they usually had "men-at-arms", whose job was to train them until they became squires to a knight. So, they likely got trained by 2 people their entire life. And were those 2 people masters? Not likely. And while they might have trained a lot, nobles/knights also had other jobs- like running a feudal kingdom. So, of all the knights, I would make a safe bet that a substantial minority of them spent much more of their time doing things other than fighting or training for war, since that was only part of their duties.

 

Again, this isn't "West-bashing". I love the West. I'm a Westerner. But, we just don't have the same culture or history, which is fine. I don't care if there are "non-kung fu" monks- I'm open to that. I do want there to at least be ONE kung-fu style monk. If there isn't, no biggie. Then, my first playthrough will be as a Paladin- cause I love some "Templar" action

 

Why would I want to name a monastic order of martial artists when my argument is that is not what defines martial arts? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. The reason why you can't find a trainer in those martial arts these days had nothing to do with them changing with the times, on the contrary if you take any modern day martial art it HAS evolved since then, quite often to the extent that it no longer resembles the original form, and the reason why the West can't find a 'zweihander' specialist is that the chain of 'passing on' of knowledge was simply broken, whereas others such as Eastern kung fu and Western fencing carried on.

 

Feudalism as a concept is currently being challenged, no one called it feudalism at the time, and if you look across Europe it varied drastically. The idea of the 'peasant army' is believed to be Victorian romanticism, most combat was done by knights and yeoman archers or their equivalents, and the training of knights was an intensive affair as it was a case of life and death, and to say they won simply because they had better armour and were mobile is quite insulting (thoughout most of the middle ages knights or their equivalents did not wear plate but rather chain mail). A knight was trained in a variety of weapons, not just as cavalry (in the 1400s it was common for armoured knights to duel with glaives for instance) and also in leadership. And the use of a variety of weapons is actually an indication of a more complex martial arts system, not the opposite as your M16 example gives: if you only use one weapon you are not an artist, you are a moron. Martial artists are actually trained in a variety of weapons, samurai for instance used a variety of weapons including the bow (which was actually their main weapon, not the katana) in addition to swords and fists. As for training for unusual positions and situations that were not practical, Bruce Lee would like to talk to you as the impracticality of modern martial arts was one of the reasons he developed his own, believing them to no longer be of any use except for sport.

 

I have a best friend who has four or five black belts in martial arts (I forget which ones, I'm too busy noting what he's got in his Menoth army), hell he was showing me a video of him when he was younger breaking the usual stuff martial artists do last weekend when I wrote the last post, and one of the things he has told me is that martial arts is, basically, a sport, that's it. He's also done Iaido with his wife, the martial art of drawing your sword and killing someone with it at the same time, and you want to know what that was developed for? Not for some philosophical reasons but simply because samurai wanted to kill peasants quickly in peacetime in an intimidatory way. That's not intended as derogatory, in fact it's quite smart: in peacetime you don't carry your sword out, you keep it sheathed, but if you need time to draw your sword then not only is an attacker going to get blows in but his mates are going to have time to think about joining in. By killing a person quickly as you draw your sword and then quickly flicking the blood off and sheathing it you don't give time for his mates to join in and by sheathing it you let it be known the matter is 'done' in an intimidatory way. It is pure intimidation, pure and simple, and is a tactic used in modern militaries around the world now. Same reason why fencing was developed, for a specific role, in the case of fencing it was developed for one on one dueling against another using the same weapon and style of fighting.

 

Take capoiera, it was not developed as a spiritual thing or philosophy, it was developed as a martial art in the form of dancing so that it could be practiced in front of their slave owners without them realising that they were actually preparing for combat, yet it is still considered a martial art. And Krav Maga, the Israeli martial art, it is purely military training yet it's still classed as a martial art.

 

I'm not trying to 'win' the argument, I don't really care what you want to believe and if you were to actually prove me wrong then I would like that as it meant I had learnt something, but I do feel the need to point out when something like this is wrong when someone tries to use it as justification for an argument as there is already enough misinformation going around as it is. In short, I try to combat this:

 

 

I'm not sure it's effective however...

[Shadenuat]

AGX-17 is my hero, seriously. But to outwalltext Umberlin is't really possible, because she really seems to believe that backtracking to "it's fiction" argument on any discussion about consistencry of style of the setting is a perfectly legit tactic.

[temporalTemptation]

To answer what I see a monk as in terms of fluff and lore, one must first understand how I see the monk mechanically. It's an interesting class (and not just because it's inexplicably Eastern in an otherwise European setting) but because it seems to be a jack of all trades. Monks, as we all know, are masters of kung fu no matter what their origins. As well as being strong and tough, they're also nimble and able, have dexterity to match their strength, have an array of skills that stem from a similar source as their fighting abilities (hence why kung fu masters always get you to do chores before training you). Lastly, there's the chi/divine powers, a power that seems similar to that the religiously devout, except channelled inwards, to make them better at what they do.

 

They are like bards (or, in the context of Project Eternity, chanters) in a lot of ways, in the sense that they have no particular strength, but are just capable in many different areas. The difference is that the bard traditionally uses their skills to aid others in combat (such as singing or using their minor magics to help allies), but the monk is his own man. He can carry his own weight very well, but at the extent of not being able to carry anyone else's. He can take his fair share of damage, but he can't take damage for other characters, can't be a tank. He can detect traps and avoid them, but he can't disable them, can't make the progress of his allies easier. He can cast magic, but only on himself, only to make him stronger or more nimble or more resilient, or to remove poisons and diseases from his body. He is perfect for soloing, so good in fact, that even when he's in a group, it still feels like he's soloing it up.

 

So what does this tell me of the lore behind the monks? I see them people who have trained, perhaps in isolation, perhaps under a master. They have trained their bodies, their souls, have turned all their attention inwards. They go on quests of self-discovery, of self-perfection. All their attention is in the internal, in the personal. The word "monk" does not have religious conotations, but spiritual ones. It means that the person, whoever and wherever they are, have devoted no small part of their time to perfecting themselves (though what "perfection" means varies from monk to monk). They don't need to know martial arts, they might not even need to know all that much about fighting, what they do know about is unity, about moving their body and soul as one.

 

That's how I see it, anyway. Spritual warrior first. Kung fu badasses second.