Where did the association between monks and martial arts come from?

[Talakeal]

Anyone ever noticed that almost all RPGs (and even many non-RPGs) associate monks and martial arts? Anyone ever thought about why this is?

In my setting the vast majority of the monks are of the friar Tuck sort rather than the kung-fu badass; yet when I was working on a martial artist NPC I kept inserting monastic references into his background without even thinking about it. Even though the character is explicitly not a monk I just can't help but thinking about him as such.

In most RPGs that I have played, both tabletop and video games, monk and martial artist are synonymous and you almost never see one without the other.

I know historically there exist certain orders of fighting monks, but they were not the norm, and I believe most of them used weapons. I assume it has something to do with a fad in kung-fu movies when Gygax was creating AD&D, but I don't know the specifics? Anyone got any insight?

[kyoryu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery

[Raine_Sage]

Basically it's cribbing from the concept of eastern monastic orders which often practice some martial art as a form of both exercise and meditation. Xiaolin Monks are by far the most famous example. Since "monk" is the only word the english language has to describe the structure of these temples, monk is the word that got used when porting over the concept of "disciplined bare handed fighter from a rigid philosophical and/or religious background" with the western version of the monk being essentially folded into the description of the cleric or in the case of monks like St. Francis possibly the Druid.

[Talakeal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery

That's fascinating, thank you.

[Darth Ultron]

First of all, it is by no means ALL Buddhist monks that are associated with martial arts, just a few subgroups--specifically the Shaolin monks and Kung Fu, and the Zen monks and swordsmanship.

The thing about the origin of both martial arts and Buddhism in China is that we have very little documentation that an historian would regard as reliable, but we have lots of oral tradition that sounds more or less goofy. Buddhism obviously migrated from India to China, but nobody knows exactly when or how. Buddhist tradition refers to a single person, Bodhidharma or Damo, but I think that is regarded as an unlikely legend by the historians.

In any case, the most of the stories in the martial arts world that I have heard link Kung Fu with this Bodhidharma --that he arrived in China and taught Buddhism to an already existing group of monks, and also taught some form of martial arts based on Indian martial arts and/or dance. The reason he did this was variously given as the monks were out of shape, or needed to defend themselves, or China was too cold to sit in yoga meditation and so he invented a moving meditation.

In the case of Zen and swordsmanship, most of the stories that I have heard are about swordsmen seeking out Zen training, in order to learn meditation and mental strength, or to find peace of mind.

Eastern philosophies tend to be more potpourris than is the case in the West, and both martial arts and Buddhism include heavy emphasis on concentration, meditation, and mental focus, so the real answer is probably that the pursuits have a natural affinity for each other.

From what I know, at a certain moment it was prohibited in China to carry weapons, while at the same time there was a good chance to be robbed by armed robbers when traveling around. It seems that for that reason, the monks of some temples decided that they should be able to defend themselves without weapons. I think this is where the Kung Fu tradition originated.

In Japan there was a very strongly developed warrior culture alongside Buddhism. Somehow, it seems that these warriors saw the advantages of some Buddhist meditation techniques for concentration and mental control, and at the same time, some monks decided that e.g. archery was a skill that combined well with their sitting practice.

[JusticeZero]

The other part of the link between zen monks being nasty fighters comes from the fact that the samurai soldier/police types had no way to retire save by religious monastic vows. So as fighters got enough experience that they were A: scary and B: too PTSD laden to fight or at least C: aware that their higher effectiveness just meant they were going to get the ridiculous suicide missions, they suddenly discovered religion and retreated to monasteries to live the rest of their lives in solitude and contemplation,immune to unreasonable demands to go get in more stupid fights.

[Technetium]

Blame Hong Kong cinema.

[Mastikator]

Praise Hong Kong cinema.

Fixed it for you. ;)

[Frozen_Feet]

The other part of the link between zen monks being nasty fighters comes from the fact that the samurai soldier/police types had no way to retire save by religious monastic vows. So as fighters got enough experience that they were A: scary and B: too PTSD laden to fight or at least C: aware that their higher effectiveness just meant they were going to get the ridiculous suicide missions, they suddenly discovered religion and retreated to monasteries to live the rest of their lives in solitude and contemplation,immune to unreasonable demands to go get in more stupid fights.

This did happen quite a bit in Europe as well, though the occidental warrior monks have been folded into the cleric, paladin and druid classes.

[Segev]

While I certainly was aware of the shaolin monastic trope when I was introduced to D&D, for some reason I did not connect the 1e AD&D "monk" class to it. I really did picture the Benedictine/Gregorian/Friar Tuck kind of monk when I read of the class.

I was therefore baffled as to why they had unarmed damage, and were such deadly unarmed combatants. Or why they had titles like "Grand Master of Flowers."

It wasn't until I saw the picture of the iconic monk in D&D 3.0's PHB that it clicked for me. I felt really, really silly for having had it take at least 4 years for me to make the connection.


As to why...it's really because the D&D monk was inspired directly by the kung fu monk.

Why martial artists always have monastic ties? Because the time period - or at least the historical fictional setting - to which our fantasy settings allude are a time when fighting styles, like many other professions, were closely-guarded secrets of the organizations that taught them. Guilds, monasteries, orders of knights, magical fraternities... you had to become a member to learn their secrets, and part of becoming a member really did involve earning your way up the ranks and being immersed in their culture to the point that you identified with them. You considered their secrets "our" secret, not something to be shared with outsiders.

To learn martial arts, you studied at a monestary. You became a monk. They didn't have dojos to teach wealthy kids in weekly classes; it was a way of life.

[comicshorse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery


Also I suspect this might have something to do with it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)

P.S
Kung Fu first aired in 1972 and D&D came out in 1974 so I think there's a good chance it was a influence

[obryn]

Also I suspect this might have something to do with it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)

P.S
Kung Fu first aired in 1972 and D&D came out in 1974 so I think there's a good chance it was a influence
This is correct.

The Monk class was specifically written because one of Gary's players wanted to play Caine.

[hamishspence]

The Monk class was specifically written because one of Gary's players wanted to play Caine.

A bit like this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html

But with "Monk" instead of "Ninja"? :smallamused:

[Technetium]

Fixed it for you. ;)

Praise Hong Kong cinema. Indeed.

Through the years, I've been fed steadily on a diet of chop-socky martial arts action; and I love the completely fake noises and the bewildering movements. Sometimes, things don't have to be realistic for you to love them. All they need to be is enjoyable, and Hong Kong cinema is one of them.

All hail Hong Kong cinema! Long live Hong Kong cinema!

[Xuc Xac]

First of all, it is by no means ALL Buddhist monks that are associated with martial arts, just a few subgroups--specifically the Shaolin monks and Kung Fu, and the Zen monks and swordsmanship.


Shaolin is the name of one temple dedicated to Ch'an Buddhism. Zen is just the Japanese translation of Ch'an.
Kung Fu includes the use of very many weapons, including several varieties of sword.
Samurai favored Zen sects over other forms of Buddhism due to the specifics of its religious doctrines, which I won't go into here. The only way for a samurai to retire was to become a monk, so a lot of older samurai joined Zen monasteries.
Zen is associated with archery far more than fencing. Although, archery is the traditional weapon of the samurai, so that connection still fits.

[Thrudd]

Praise Hong Kong cinema. Indeed.

Through the years, I've been fed steadily on a diet of chop-socky martial arts action; and I love the completely fake noises and the bewildering movements. Sometimes, things don't have to be realistic for you to love them. All they need to be is enjoyable, and Hong Kong cinema is one of them.

All hail Hong Kong cinema! Long live Hong Kong cinema!

Amen! Lol, years and years of training have made no difference, the choreographed insanity of Kung fu cinema still makes me grin. I just rewatched five element ninjas/super ninjas this week, just because. It never gets old.

[Technetium]

Amen! Lol, years and years of training have made no difference, the choreographed insanity of Kung fu cinema still makes me grin. I just rewatched five element ninjas/super ninjas this week, just because. It never gets old.

I never get over the ridiculous shouting; unfortunately for me, my family comes from Hong Kong, so I know exactly what all the Cantonese voices are saying, and sometimes I wish that I didn't so I could snigger like my friends do!

[kyoryu]

Also I suspect this might have something to do with it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)

P.S
Kung Fu first aired in 1972 and D&D came out in 1974 so I think there's a good chance it was a influence

Of course. But the show had a monk doing martial arts because of the Shaolin Temple :)

[Thrudd]

To learn martial arts, you studied at a monestary. You became a monk. They didn't have dojos to teach wealthy kids in weekly classes; it was a way of life.

This isn't really true. Wealthy families absolutely would hire experts to teach their children. Military was a much more common place to learn martial arts, and veterans and generals returning to their villages passed on their knowledge to their families and communities to protect them. Monasteries learned martial arts from generals and soldiers that retired there or stayed nearby, and altered them over the centuries blending with chan, Taoism, and nei gong practices.

The movie/legendary image of shaolin and similar places being the sole source and origin of all martial arts is mainly a fantasy. Few people became a monk in order to learn martial arts. More commonly would they learn martial arts first, as a soldier, and then become monks later in life. Young monk warriors would learn from those guys the skills to defend the temple, and improve those skills when they were recruited to participate in combat campaigns by the emperor's generals.

Today, there are probably more people going to shaolin to learn martial arts than there ever were historically. The modern shaolin temple has brought in martial arts masters from all around the local region, and other parts of the country, in order to recreate its famous reputation (which is not undeserved, necessarily, it's just that the stories are exaggerated and confused with fantasy/political propaganda/martial arts hyperbole)

[Joe the Rat]

While I certainly was aware of the shaolin monastic trope when I was introduced to D&D, for some reason I did not connect the 1e AD&D "monk" class to it. I really did picture the Benedictine/Gregorian/Friar Tuck kind of monk when I read of the class.

I was therefore baffled as to why they had unarmed damage, and were such deadly unarmed combatants. Or why they had titles like "Grand Master of Flowers."
The super-sprinting, sneaky, slow-falling, pimp-slapping Friar Tuck. You're not the only one who didn't get it at first.

After 4 editions, you'd think someone would've come up with a better name by now. It's not like class names are entirely sacred (I'm looking at you, Rogue!).

[Segev]

This isn't really true. Wealthy families absolutely would hire experts to teach their children. Military was a much more common place to learn martial arts, and veterans and generals returning to their villages passed on their knowledge to their families and communities to protect them. Monasteries learned martial arts from generals and soldiers that retired there or stayed nearby, and altered them over the centuries blending with chan, Taoism, and nei gong practices.

The movie/legendary image of shaolin and similar places being the sole source and origin of all martial arts is mainly a fantasy. Few people became a monk in order to learn martial arts. More commonly would they learn martial arts first, as a soldier, and then become monks later in life. Young monk warriors would learn from those guys the skills to defend the temple, and improve those skills when they were recruited to participate in combat campaigns by the emperor's generals.

Today, there are probably more people going to shaolin to learn martial arts than there ever were historically. The modern shaolin temple has brought in martial arts masters from all around the local region, and other parts of the country, in order to recreate its famous reputation (which is not undeserved, necessarily, it's just that the stories are exaggerated and confused with fantasy/political propaganda/martial arts hyperbole)

Oh, sure. But what we know of as "martial arts" and what the medieval people thought of a "martial arts" are quite different. We think if unarmed fighting techniques, specifically of the Eastern flavor. They thought of "anything you do to fight better."

Technically, it is a romanticization of the eastern martial arts that makes us think of them as more highly skilled and graceful than the "brutish" sword styles of the knights. The truth is, knights trained every bit as hard and were at least as deadly with their chosen weapons. It was just a different, and to us more familiar style, so we tend to romanticize the skill involved less (and focus more on the chivalry and such).

Also, the unarmed master fighter is usually a "monk" because the adaptations of the military styles to monastic styles involved a lot of "um, we don't wield military weapons, former samurai-san," and thus the unarmed masteries, particularly combined with the zen-like behaviors, really were mostly associated with the eastern monestaries.

That said, yes, there's less truth to it than romanticization tells us. But the question is why we developed this popular association, not what really happened. And we developed it because our perceptions are through that lens, and we associate the near-mystic fighting styles with the unarmed styles and strangely graceful emphasis on balance and poise of said unarmed styles. And those were heavily influenced by the monastic traditions which collected and adapted them.

If you're an aristocrat, you hired people to train your kids in actual war-fighting techniques. Not in unarmed combat. Not as the MAIN focus, anyway, nor the go-to fighting technique they'd use.

[Cikomyr]

Martial Artist monks comes from Wuxia-derived folklore and traditional storytelling in Chinese culture. The idea that super-warriors can jump dozens of feet, walk on water or catch arrows is basic Wuxia rules, with or without weapons.

The emergence of unarmed monks kicking ass comes from after the institution of the harshest.Dynasties (especially the Manchu Qing dynasty) that outlawed possession of weapons for non-military personels. Which means anyone capable of defending themselves was de facto an outlaw or... Those learnings unarmed combat techniques.

Unarmed martial arts were taughts following multiple traditions. Modern viewers especially know of the Shaolin monastery, of a buddhist tradition, but stories also had a 2nd "really popular" monastery: Wudang (mentioned in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon). The Wudang monastery was of Taoist tradition, and there was some rivalry between them and Shaolin (reflecting the Taoist vs. Buddhist religious rivalry).

Basically, monks were the only people who could stand up to the Dynasty's oppression without being outright outlaws, and therefore were seen as defenders of the people.

[SiuiS]

While I certainly was aware of the shaolin monastic trope when I was introduced to D&D, for some reason I did not connect the 1e AD&D "monk" class to it. I really did picture the Benedictine/Gregorian/Friar Tuck kind of monk when I read of the class.

I was therefore baffled as to why they had unarmed damage, and were such deadly unarmed combatants. Or why they had titles like "Grand Master of Flowers."

It wasn't until I saw the picture of the iconic monk in D&D 3.0's PHB that it clicked for me. I felt really, really silly for having had it take at least 4 years for me to make the connection.


As to why...it's really because the D&D monk was inspired directly by the kung fu monk.

Why martial artists always have monastic ties? Because the time period - or at least the historical fictional setting - to which our fantasy settings allude are a time when fighting styles, like many other professions, were closely-guarded secrets of the organizations that taught them. Guilds, monasteries, orders of knights, magical fraternities... you had to become a member to learn their secrets, and part of becoming a member really did involve earning your way up the ranks and being immersed in their culture to the point that you identified with them. You considered their secrets "our" secret, not something to be shared with outsiders.

To learn martial arts, you studied at a monestary. You became a monk. They didn't have dojos to teach wealthy kids in weekly classes; it was a way of life.

Amazing. :smallsmile:



Shaolin is the name of one temple dedicated to Ch'an Buddhism. Zen is just the Japanese translation of Ch'an.
Kung Fu includes the use of very many weapons, including several varieties of sword.
Samurai favored Zen sects over other forms of Buddhism due to the specifics of its religious doctrines, which I won't go into here. The only way for a samurai to retire was to become a monk, so a lot of older samurai joined Zen monasteries.
Zen is associated with archery far more than fencing. Although, archery is the traditional weapon of the samurai, so that connection still fits.


Kung fu is any endeavor at which you excel through focused dedication. A chef who lives through their kitchen has good king fu.

It's a good word.

[Mr Beer]

It happened because Bruce Lee was a huge deal at the time and someone thought it would be cool and a nice change to have a mystical unarmed ass-kicker as a change from the cleric/wizard/thief paradigm.

[LibraryOgre]

I know historically there exist certain orders of fighting monks, but they were not the norm, and I believe most of them used weapons. I assume it has something to do with a fad in kung-fu movies when Gygax was creating AD&D, but I don't know the specifics? Anyone got any insight?

Pretty much this. The Monk/Mystic came out about the same time as Kung Fu (the TV series). Much like the 2e Ranger was meant to let you play Drizzt, the 1e monk was meant to let you play Caine.

[Arbane]

Praise Hong Kong cinema. Indeed.

Through the years, I've been fed steadily on a diet of chop-socky martial arts action; and I love the completely fake noises and the bewildering movements. Sometimes, things don't have to be realistic for you to love them. All they need to be is enjoyable, and Hong Kong cinema is one of them.

All hail Hong Kong cinema! Long live Hong Kong cinema!

Is there a good d20 game/supplement to play the more whacked-out sort of wuxia character? (As seen in Storm Riders, Weapons of the Gods, or Kung Fu Cult Master - the guys who leap tall building in a single bound, pulverize anvils with their fists, and swing their staffs so hard they kill their enemy seven times over.)

[comicshorse]

Feng Shui, perhaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_Shui_(role-playing_game)

[Arbane]

Feng Shui, perhaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_Shui_(role-playing_game)

I have and like Feng Shui, but I meant a d20 kung-fu game. Seems like it's an unfilled niche.

[Vitruviansquid]

Anyone ever noticed that almost all RPGs (and even many non-RPGs) associate monks and martial arts? Anyone ever thought about why this is?


Are you sure you have not confused "DnD" with "almost all RPGs (and even many non-RPGs)?"

[BootStrapTommy]

After 4 editions, you'd think someone would've come up with a better name by now. It's not like class names are entirely sacred (I'm looking at you, Rogue!).

Or we could all stop being stupid, Eurocentric cretants and realize that history happened other places in the world other than Europe and the Levant!

[Cikomyr]

Is there a good d20 game/supplement to play the more whacked-out sort of wuxia character? (As seen in Storm Riders, Weapons of the Gods, or Kung Fu Cult Master - the guys who leap tall building in a single bound, pulverize anvils with their fists, and swing their staffs so hard they kill their enemy seven times over.)

I know a great Wuxia game, but its hardly d20...

[BootStrapTommy]

Here everybody is all kinds of confused by Monks being the kung fu movie construct of an oriental contemplative instead of a western Friar Tuck.

Meanwhile Druids were just the Celtic societal elite, not woods-dwelling treehuggers. And Paladins were Germanic mercenary cavalry in the employ of Charlemagne, not religious champions of Goodness and Law.

Oh, and friars aren't monks. Monks take a vow of quiet contemplation in a religious community. Friars take a vow of evangelization, living among the people. More like free-range priests who take their vows of poverty seriously than anything close to a monk.

Friar Tuck makes mead because he thinks a pint lubricates a man's mind for the Divine! And because he's an alcoholic.

[veti]

Or we could all stop being stupid, Eurocentric cretants and realize that history happened other places in the world other than Europe and the Levant!

That would be a lot more convincing if every other base class weren't rooted and described firmly in terms of European archetypes. "Shaman" isn't a base class, nor is "guru" or "ninja" or "dervish" or "tohunga"...

But then there's the Shaolin monk, this - person from a culture on the far side of the world who's just been picked up, appropriated the name of a very different type of person who's already present in their target culture, and transplanted into medieval Europe without so much as a semi-plausible backstory.


And Paladins were Germanic mercenary cavalry in the employ of Charlemagne, not religious champions of Goodness and Law.

Not really, paladins were Charlemagne's most trusted personal henchmen. There were only ever 12 of them.

[Gnoman]

And Paladins were Germanic mercenary cavalry in the employ of Charlemagne, not religious champions of Goodness and Law.


The D&D Paladin class is indirectly (via a novel that was loosely based on them) based in equal parts on King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and the Twelve Peers of Roland, a legendary French hero and devoted servant of Charlemagne. Tales of these as warriors of great virtue and holiness date back to the 1100s.

[BootStrapTommy]

Not really, paladins were Charlemagne's most trusted personal henchmen. There were only ever 12 of them. And they just happened, like almost any Dark Age warriors, to be little more than well paid mercenaries.

[BootStrapTommy]

The D&D Paladin class is indirectly (via a novel that was loosely based on them) based in equal parts on King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and the Twelve Peers of Roland, a legendary French hero and devoted servant of Charlemagne. Tales of these as warriors of great virtue and holiness date back to the 1100s.
All of whom's real life inspirations were little more than brutish Dark Age warlords.

It's also from King Arthur's tales that we get our stupid, fantasy Druids through Merlin, which means you failed to see my point.

[BootStrapTommy]

That would be a lot more convincing if every other base class weren't rooted and described firmly in terms of European archetypes. "Shaman" isn't a base class, nor is "guru" or "ninja" or "dervish" or "tohunga"...

But then there's the Shaolin monk, this - person from a culture on the far side of the world who's just been picked up, appropriated the name of a very different type of person who's already present in their target culture, and transplanted into medieval Europe without so much as a semi-plausible backstory.
Because conceptionally, all other other eastern concepts fit neatly into to those supposed "European archtypes".

Want a samurai? Paladin or Lawful Fighter bounded to a lord. Or the actual Samurai class. Shaman? Druids or Sorcerers. Or, you know, the Spirit Shaman. Ninja? Rogue or the Monk. Or the actual Ninja. Guru? Wizard or Archivist. Or maybe as Weapons Master or Sword Saint?

And they aren't "appropriating the name of a very different type of person." The only difference between a western monk and eastern monk is that the eastern monk was smart enough to assume maruaders might want to steal the wealth from their monestary and take the precautions necessary.

[Talakeal]

Are you sure you have not confused "DnD" with "almost all RPGs (and even many non-RPGs)?"

Of the top of my head Diablo, Mortal Kombat, Everquest, and Warcraft all do it. I am sure I could come up with more if I actually went through my game collection.

[Gnoman]

Of the top of my head Diablo, Mortal Kombat, Everquest, and Warcraft all do it. I am sure I could come up with more if I actually went through my game collection.

Final Fantasy's a big user as well.

[Thrudd]

Of the top of my head Diablo, Mortal Kombat, Everquest, and Warcraft all do it. I am sure I could come up with more if I actually went through my game collection.

Diablo, Everquest and Warcraft can all be considered D&D derivatives, and we've established where the monk came from in D&D (Quai Chang Kaine/Chinese kung fu movies).
Mortal Kombat is a fighting game which, like most, is primarily using representations of East Asian unarmed martial arts, so of course their "monks" are meant to be Chinese or Japanese warrior monks in the shaolin chan/zen tradition (also from Chinese Kung fu movies).

[kyoryu]

Diablo, Everquest and Warcraft can all be considered D&D derivatives, and we've established where the monk came from in D&D (Quai Chang Kaine/Chinese kung fu movies).
Mortal Kombat is a fighting game which, like most, is primarily using representations of East Asian unarmed martial arts, so of course their "monks" are meant to be Chinese or Japanese warrior monks in the shaolin chan/zen tradition (also from Chinese Kung fu movies).

Mortal Kombat was also pretty heavily influenced by Big Trouble in Little China :)

[Rakoa]

Diablo, Everquest and Warcraft can all be considered D&D derivatives, and we've established where the monk came from in D&D (Quai Chang Kaine/Chinese kung fu movies).
Mortal Kombat is a fighting game which, like most, is primarily using representations of East Asian unarmed martial arts, so of course their "monks" are meant to be Chinese or Japanese warrior monks in the shaolin chan/zen tradition (also from Chinese Kung fu movies).

You have a point with Mortal Kombat, but rolling Diablo, Everquest, and Warcraft all together as D&D derivatives is doing all of them a disservice. They're fantasy, and that's about it.

[Arbane]

You have a point with Mortal Kombat, but rolling Diablo, Everquest, and Warcraft all together as D&D derivatives is doing all of them a disservice. They're fantasy, and that's about it.

They're all class-and-level systems using XP, HP, etc. and 'plots' that are about killing monsters and taking their stuff, often through dungeon-crawls. What else COULD they be but D&Derivatives?

[Obak]

Technically the knights templar, the teutonic otder and the knights hospitaller where monks, so while asian monks dance around in a bedsheet and a bamboo stick s0imitating animals, his christian counterpart dons full plate armour and brings down the wrath of God upon the heathen from atop his war horse.

[Frozen_Feet]

Diablo, Everquest and Warcraft can all be considered D&D derivatives...

All CRPGs ever can be considered D&D derivatives.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

While I certainly was aware of the shaolin monastic trope when I was introduced to D&D, for some reason I did not connect the 1e AD&D "monk" class to it. I really did picture the Benedictine/Gregorian/Friar Tuck kind of monk when I read of the class.

I was therefore baffled as to why they had unarmed damage, and were such deadly unarmed combatants. Or why they had titles like "Grand Master of Flowers."

They did get moved a little further away from the more European-themed classes when Oriental Adventures came out.

[Karl Aegis]

Technically the knights templar, the teutonic otder and the knights hospitaller where monks, so while asian monks dance around in a bedsheet and a bamboo stick s0imitating animals, his christian counterpart dons full plate armour and brings down the wrath of God upon the heathen from atop his war horse.

To be fair, Japanese warrior-monks didn't have access to quality iron to make armor with. Some weapons could cut through a horse and its rider, so dodging attacks was far more effective than alternatives. They also preferred using real weapons like the naginata, the tetsubo and the bow rather than trying to punch someone wielding a long spear.

[Thrudd]

All CRPGs ever can be considered D&D derivatives.

Pretty much. A lot of fantasy novels and settings written since the early 1980's, too. Everything people now think of as "generic fantasy" is actually D&D fantasy.

"Simpsons did it first!"


Technically the knights templar, the teutonic otder and the knights hospitaller where monks, so while asian monks dance around in a bedsheet and a bamboo stick s0imitating animals, his christian counterpart dons full plate armour and brings down the wrath of God upon the heathen from atop his war horse.
That's pretty offensive, and not accurate at all. Warriors everywhere in all cultures, monks or not, used the weapons of warfare when they engaged in warfare, according to the technology available to them at the time.

Shaolin monks were known for their skill with spears when they went to battle. They wore armor, too, if it was available. One particular monk warrior was so fearsome and effective in a battle against Japanese pirates that officials asked him not to return to the temple so he could train and lead troops. They got their reputation for a reason.

[Obak]

My point was that being a monk is a way of life, devoted to meditation and religion, not whether you bring a stick, a fist or a fullplate and war horse to battle.
Besides, everyone know that the lamest of templars would beat the living snot out of every samurai, ninja or shaolin monk, even if they where to gang up on him all together.

[kyoryu]

You have a point with Mortal Kombat, but rolling Diablo, Everquest, and Warcraft all together as D&D derivatives is doing all of them a disservice. They're fantasy, and that's about it.

There's a direct route from D&D to World of Warcraft and Diablo.

D&D->various MUDs (particularly Sojourn)->Everquest->World of Warcraft

Diablo is a slightly different path, as it's D&D->Nethack/Roguelikes->Diablo

[Karl Aegis]

There's a direct route from D&D to World of Warcraft and Diablo.

D&D->various MUDs (particularly Sojourn)->Everquest->World of Warcraft

Diablo is a slightly different path, as it's D&D->Nethack/Roguelikes->Diablo

How did you manage to skip Warcraft III on your way to World of Warcraft?

[Red Fel]

How did you manage to skip Warcraft III on your way to World of Warcraft?

In terms of its themes and characters, WoW descends from WC3 and its predecessors.

But in terms of its mechanics as an MMO, Kyoryu is quite right. World of Warcraft derived many, if not all, of its MMO mechanics from Everquest, which is generally acknowledged to be one of the major progenitors (along with UO) of the modern, graphical MMO. EQ in turn derived its concepts from the text-based MUD games. (For example, the idea that an enemy's name should be colored based on its challenge? Derived from the "consider" command in MUDs.) And MUDs, in turn, were derived from the idea of creating an online, Multi-User Dungeon (as in, "and Dragons") in which players could play against the machine, rather than requiring a human DM. The concepts therein - races, classes, levels, and such - tended to derive, at least at first, from TTRPGs.

And that's how you get from Caine to the Pandaren.

[Eldan]

There's a direct route from D&D to World of Warcraft and Diablo.

D&D->various MUDs (particularly Sojourn)->Everquest->World of Warcraft

Diablo is a slightly different path, as it's D&D->Nethack/Roguelikes->Diablo

Actually, there's two ways from D&D to Warcraft.


D&D->Warhammer Fantasy->Warcraft 1-3
¦ ¦
V V
Roguelikes/MUDs->Everquest->WoW

[kyoryu]

How did you manage to skip Warcraft III on your way to World of Warcraft?

Because I worked at SOE and knew people that worked at Blizzard on WoW at the time?

Clearly there's a flavor/setting/art influence from Warcraft III, but in terms of gameplay, it's very direct from EverQuest to WoW.

[One Tin Soldier]

My point was that being a monk is a way of life, devoted to meditation and religion, not whether you bring a stick, a fist or a fullplate and war horse to battle.
Besides, everyone know that the lamest of templars would beat the living snot out of every samurai, ninja or shaolin monk, even if they where to gang up on him all together.

You're really not doing much for your argument of "I'm not being racist" here.

[Red Fel]

Besides, everyone know that the lamest of templars would beat the living snot out of every samurai, ninja or shaolin monk, even if they where to gang up on him all together.

[citation needed]

[Karl Aegis]

The Black Knight still wanted to fight when he was only a head in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He might have not been a Templar, but I can assure you he was pretty lame.

[Segev]

Personally, given the mental image I had as a teen and that I wasn't alone, I'd be amused at examining what western monks who developed an unarmed/unarmored martial arts style might have looked like in terms of their "mystic" moves.

How much of shaolin monks are influenced by eastern philosophies, and how much are considered eastern because they just happened to be developed there?

What would the western monastic philosophies have done to how these arts were approached and the myths surrounding their more outlandish, semi-supernatural capabilities? And therefore, in a fantasy setting, what super-powers might they have? The same as the "standard" D&D monk, or would they look a little different?

[Knaight]

Oh, sure. But what we know of as "martial arts" and what the medieval people thought of a "martial arts" are quite different. We think if unarmed fighting techniques, specifically of the Eastern flavor. They thought of "anything you do to fight better."

Even in the context of east Asia, weapons were very much a thing in martial arts. Really, there are a lot of parallels regarding warrior-monks in Europe and east Asia (and a bunch of other places for that matter) - monastic life was frequently a way out of the soldier's life, monasteries are a pretty inviting target for raiding for a number of reasons, there's always at least some weapons which are pretty easy to get ahold of (frequently even pretty similar weapons), so you have part of the monastic class which are former soldiers and pretty capable with weapons, alongside others who have learned from them. Then there's the matter of younger children of the aristocracy being sent into monasteries, who often also had training in martial arts.

[SiuiS]

All of whom's real life inspirations were little more than brutish Dark Age warlords.

It's also from King Arthur's tales that we get our stupid, fantasy Druids through Merlin, which means you failed to see my point.

Or you failed to see their points. No one cares about history for D&D's basis. They care about the myth.

Why this myth?" Is a valid question. "Medieval people were brutish jerks" is not an answer. It's thread crapping.

[Drascin]

I'm a bit surprised at all the people who assumed the Monk class was meant to depict western Christian monks, I have to admit. Like, two lines into the abilities table it was clear to me that this was meant to be an Eastern monk. I mean, I'm European, I actually studied in a religious school and knew several actual Catholic monks with their robes and everything in person as a child (one was my math teacher), and I apparently had less strong associations of the word monk. It's just kinda surprising.

[Segev]

Even in the context of east Asia, weapons were very much a thing in martial arts. Really, there are a lot of parallels regarding warrior-monks in Europe and east Asia (and a bunch of other places for that matter) - monastic life was frequently a way out of the soldier's life, monasteries are a pretty inviting target for raiding for a number of reasons, there's always at least some weapons which are pretty easy to get ahold of (frequently even pretty similar weapons), so you have part of the monastic class which are former soldiers and pretty capable with weapons, alongside others who have learned from them. Then there's the matter of younger children of the aristocracy being sent into monasteries, who often also had training in martial arts.

Sure. But that's more going along with my point: what the ancient/medieval world thought of as "martial arts" is not what the phrase conjures to the modern western mind.

The modern western mind is brought to imagine kung fu monks in saffron robes, Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan performing (near-)supernatural feats with their bare hands or esoteric/adapted weapons.

That doesn't mean that Eastern martial arts were just that, any more than it means Western knights weren't martial artists. It just means that the connotation of the phrase to the modern Western ear brings to mind something different than what it would have to those who lived in the time periods closer to what our fantasy settings emulate.

You're absolutely right: aristocratic children learned war-fighting techniques involving all sorts of weapons, regardless of their geographic location. To them, "martial arts" encompassed any form of fighting, and would usually involve weapons because weapons made you better at fighting than people without them.

But the reason we conflate "martial arts" and "monks" in our fiction is because the phrase conjures, to us, something specific: unarmed fighting techniques. And for whatever reason, we're more apt to picture Eastern unarmed techniques and their exotic grace over, say, Greek wrestling techniques.

[Segev]

I'm a bit surprised at all the people who assumed the Monk class was meant to depict western Christian monks, I have to admit. Like, two lines into the abilities table it was clear to me that this was meant to be an Eastern monk. I mean, I'm European, I actually studied in a religious school and knew several actual Catholic monks with their robes and everything in person as a child (one was my math teacher), and I apparently had less strong associations of the word monk. It's just kinda surprising.

For me, it never occurred to me to think outside of the "medieval europe" box. It did strike me as weird, but for whatever reason, "monk" just did not bring to mind "shaolin" at the time. Even though I read the class backwards and forwards numerous times in the 1e AD&D PHB, I just kept picturing friar tuck with a punch of doom. I didn't even picture "martial arts" techniques in the sense of kung fu or karate or anything. I just pictured a punch that, for some reason, was doing a ton of damage.

It struck me as weird. But I didn't have the right image "click" for years.

[Obak]

I think that if one is looking for a christian type of monk, then one have to either go with paladin or cloistered cleric.

[Cikomyr]

Or Warblade, really..

[Red Fel]

But the reason we conflate "martial arts" and "monks" in our fiction is because the phrase conjures, to us, something specific: unarmed fighting techniques. And for whatever reason, we're more apt to picture Eastern unarmed techniques and their exotic grace over, say, Greek wrestling techniques.

I blame a fascination with the perceived exotic.

But this is an extremely good point. Technically speaking, "martial arts" just refers to any study of combat technique. The word "martial" doesn't mean hand-to-hand, it means relating to war or combat. Fencing is a martial art. Archery is a martial art. Coordinated artillery is a martial art. Yet to most minds, the phrase "martial art" means "hand-to-hand combat, generally of Asian origin."

Tell that to someone who practices Savate. Or Krav Maga. Or Sambo. Or Pankration. There are some remarkable hand-to-hand combat techniques that have emerged from places other than Asia. There are also some fascinating armed techniques, such as Nguni stick fighting, several schools of European fencing, the Canne de Combat, Turkish archery, Mau Rakau, or Bataireacht. (I'm a fan of a little-known American combat style called "plug and chug," involving a gun and a bottle of alcohol. Take a shot, then take a shot. Very versatile.) The point is that the term has taken on a modern, colloquial meaning far narrower than its more literal meaning.

It's even more infuriating when you realize, as others have mentioned, that the archetypical Asian "monk" upon which the class was based, such as the Shaolin, has proficiency in many martial and exotic weapons, and the class itself does not, because being an unarmed weakling with no armor to speak of is so much cooler than being a big bad dude with an oversized broadsword and a suit of armor that could stop a tank.

So much cooler.

[Knaight]

It's even more infuriating when you realize, as others have mentioned, that the archetypical Asian "monk" upon which the class was based, such as the Shaolin, has proficiency in many martial and exotic weapons, and the class itself does not, because being an unarmed weakling with no armor to speak of is so much cooler than being a big bad dude with an oversized broadsword and a suit of armor that could stop a tank.

Starting with the same weapons that military forces tended to use. Depending on edition the D&D monk often doesn't even have proficiency with a spear, which is a weapon that was somewhat emphasized in China.

[obryn]

By the way - I did a little more digging, and it turns out the Monk class was made for Jim Ward - Drawmij, if you will.

[BootStrapTommy]

Or you failed to see their points. No one cares about history for D&D's basis. They care about the myth.

Why this myth?" Is a valid question. "Medieval people were brutish jerks" is not an answer. It's thread crapping.

Even you failed to see my point.

If you're going to ask "why this myth?" about one, what reason do you have for not asking it about others? Why wuxia kung fu monks? Well, why treehugging hippie druids? Why champion of good and chivalry paladin?

Because the base classes are a broad-based attempt to collect various tropes for players to enjoy. And regardless of "european" or "eastern" aesthetic, no collection of fantasy tropes is complete without a skilled fist-fighter. Most convenience trope for that? A martial artist.

[GungHo]

For me, it never occurred to me to think outside of the "medieval europe" box. It did strike me as weird, but for whatever reason, "monk" just did not bring to mind "shaolin" at the time. Even though I read the class backwards and forwards numerous times in the 1e AD&D PHB, I just kept picturing friar tuck with a punch of doom. I didn't even picture "martial arts" techniques in the sense of kung fu or karate or anything. I just pictured a punch that, for some reason, was doing a ton of damage.

It struck me as weird. But I didn't have the right image "click" for years.

I did once play member of the Order of Saint Benedict as a drunken boxer (European boxing) named Father Callahan. I originally considered making him a Trappist but then I saw a documentary where it was claimed that they won't actually drink their brew, and I found that disappointing.

[Jay R]

I'm a bit surprised at all the people who assumed the Monk class was meant to depict western Christian monks, I have to admit.

So am I. When the class was introduced in Blackmoor in 1976, we all knew it was an Oriental idea. (Of course, Kung Fu was a very recent show then, and we all knew it.)


Of course. But the show had a monk doing martial arts because of the Shaolin Temple :)

I agree with the connection, but I suspect that you have it backwards. The show used a Shaolin temple because they wanted to have somebody doing martial arts and eastern philosophy in the old west.

[SiuiS]

For me, it never occurred to me to think outside of the "medieval europe" box. It did strike me as weird, but for whatever reason, "monk" just did not bring to mind "shaolin" at the time. Even though I read the class backwards and forwards numerous times in the 1e AD&D PHB, I just kept picturing friar tuck with a punch of doom. I didn't even picture "martial arts" techniques in the sense of kung fu or karate or anything. I just pictured a punch that, for some reason, was doing a ton of damage.

It struck me as weird. But I didn't have the right image "click" for years.

Ah, that's it then. I didn't assume medieval Europe at first. I say down one day at six in a used book store with the 1e AD&D monster manual, and I read all sorta of neat things. Like these gas bags that looked like beholder's that were just spore clouds in natural caves. The implied market for griffon eggs and baby Pegasi and dragon's fangs and stuff, and I guess I saw a bazaar and stalls, camels and griffons and manticore stings, men in turbans and helmets and broad brimmed hats haggling in the roads before a stark, black a tone tower with broad and majestic mountains in the backdrop.

That was my standard D&D. All these forests and medieval England stuff is still novel to me. XD


Even you failed to see my point.

You're making assumptions. Give me the same benefit of doubt you want me to give you – unless this is just laying down truth and dropping your mic? In which case I'm not interested in monologue.

I do question every archetype. I have answers for all the questions that arise. When those answers don't fit any given game I reassess the choices and make decisions. I excuse things from the game I don't need. I put them back in later when I do. And I advocate you all do the same. Be conscientious and discerning, rational thinkers about your inner worlds. Do not consume and regurgitate. Understand before you change. If you think you understand and you vehemently disagree, try to understand more. Deeper. Integrate before you dismiss.


Because the base classes are a broad-based attempt to collect various tropes for players to enjoy. And regardless of "european" or "eastern" aesthetic, no collection of fantasy tropes is complete without a skilled fist-fighter. Most convenience trope for that? A martial artist.

Ah, so the Grecian pankratia fighters, right? Or the warrior monks of the Holy Roman Empire who practiced wrestling and various hand to hand disciplines? I mean, why not? We have the drug soaked hashashin from the Turkish world.

Monks weren't just fist fighters – fighters were. Monks were specifically mystical spirit warriors from the orient who could break things with hands and resist the world's rigors through discipline.

[golentan]

DnD to me is a kitchen sink and always has been. It's more european than not, but even there it gets in on pre-medieval periods and cultural touchstones (like my beloved druids, and various gods and their clerical traditions), but I love throwing in african and native american culture moments with my elves, for example, russian moments with my dwarves, modern with gnomes, roma fits nice with halflings, orcs and half orcs as their own thing, and humans with EVERYTHING. Middle eastern and east asian touchstones are great (Monk being an obvious point, but I also love caravans from deserts carrying word of new mathematical and magical developments, spices and silks from distant lands, samurai and ronin wandering the lands, sages from indian subcontinent inspired cultures, bronze age sumerian city-states, and so much more). Barbarians make equally good old germanic tribes and mongolian raiders or conquerers in my mind.

I hate when people try to trim it down so that the whole world can be encompassed by north-west late medieval/early renaissance european culture. Where no matter how far you travel, the gods are the same and it's all old world. It's a bugaboo of mine. I don't mind when the locals are provincial and it appears that way at first glance, but I do object when that's all there is, you know?

[BootStrapTommy]

I do question every archetype. I have answers for all the questions that arise. When those answers don't fit any given game I reassess the choices and make decisions. I excuse things from the game I don't need. I put them back in later when I do. And I advocate you all do the same. Be conscientious and discerning, rational thinkers about your inner worlds. Do not consume and regurgitate. Understand before you change. If you think you understand and you vehemently disagree, try to understand more. Deeper. Integrate before you dismiss. You mean like you did when to dismissed my argument as threadcrapping?


Ah, so the Grecian pankratia fighters, right? Or the warrior monks of the Holy Roman Empire who practiced wrestling and various hand to hand disciplines? I mean, why not? We have the drug soaked hashashin from the Turkish world.

Monks weren't just fist fighters – fighters were. Monks were specifically mystical spirit warriors from the orient who could break things with hands and resist the world's rigors through discipline. Warrior monks of the HRE who practiced hand to hand combat? You mean something those Europeans who can be represented by the same class, with flavor tweeks? And the hashashim preferred daggers, and there is a class to represent them. The Assassin (which is in part based on them). Samurai were adept hand-to-hand warriors. Yet we waste no effort on that small fact when compared to the other features for which we know them. And stat them for.

You are correct. Many Europeans fighters practiced martial arts. But almost exclusively for the same reason they are practiced by today's militaries, just in case.

Grecian prankratia fighters? Mostly former Hoplons and phalanxes who learn prankration to supplement warfare. Hashashim? If you head into a situation where you're wildly outnumbered and armed with only a small hidden knife, you better be ready if you get disarmed. Neither, however, focus exclusively on hand-to-hand combat, like many easterners did.

European warrior monks? The same reason as their eastern counterparts. Monestaries hold wealth. And unarmed, peaceful contemplitives make easy targets. Just ask the Vikings. Unarmed, skilled targets make dangerous enemies.

The problem I have with this is that it reeks of Eurocentricism. "Who put these Asians in my Europe?" Which annoys me more, since source material explains how to flavor the other classes "Eastern" and how to flavor the the wonk "Western".

[SiuiS]

You mean like you did when to dismissed my argument as threadcrapping?

Yes, like I did when in light of your multiple separate comments across an entire page denigrating everything as being. Nothing but historical sociopathy. Don't confuse the issue; you repeatedly made attempts to shut other people down by sayig hipster is full of murderers so why bother worrying about anything. I did not say what I did in response to a solitary or isolated issue.


Warrior monks of the HRE who practiced hand to hand combat? You mean something those Europeans who can be represented by the same class, with flavor tweeks?

No, I do not, because these warrior monks were not unarmored, routinely unarmed, proficient against poison, practiced in stealth, skulduggery and pratfalls, and routinely needed to dethrone each other to gain skill.

The monk class has been strictly oriental since inception in the LBB. It takes more than flavor to find an occidental historical counterpoint for them. It takes putting an oriental monk in Europe.


And the hashashim preferred daggers, and there is a class to represent them. The Assassin

Yes. That's where the word assassin comes from and that is why I made the point I did.


Samurai were adept hand-to-hand warriors. Yet we waste no effort on that small fact when compared to the other features for which we know them. And stat them for.

Incorrect.

Samurai were a DM only class for NPCs which had swords they did more damage with and who used a variant of jujitsu and tae kwon do – they had several kicking and punching techniques which could only be used in sequence, not spammed. They can be found in The Dragon.

We are talking genesis. Pointing to something even as late to the party as second edition advanced dungeons and dragons won't help; we need to look to history of the game. And historically, monks were 100% pure oriental mysticism, samurai were hand to hand beasts, assassins were based on romanticized hashashim,



Grecian prankratia fighters?

My point was that well known and suitably generic unarmed combatants existed. The monk is not one of them. The monk is not generic. The monk is very definitely oriental.



The problem I have with this is that it reeks of Eurocentricism. "Who put these Asians in my Europe?" Which annoys me more, since source material explains how to flavor the other classes "Eastern" and how to flavor the the wonk "Western".

That's a valid critique, if the game weren't very decidedly made with an anachronistic Western European bias. The farther easy you go, the more the archetypes become legends. Holy Roman Empire? Mystic paladins! The mysterious orient (aka anywhere past Russia)? Spirit monk warrior fighter mans!

The reverse is also true. I dislike when swashbucklers and the like are introduced into eastern games just because. And when Iron Age games use plate armor. But such is life.

[BootStrapTommy]

Yes, like I did when in light of your multiple separate comments across an entire page denigrating everything as being. Nothing but historical sociopathy. Don't confuse the issue; you repeatedly made attempts to shut other people down by sayig hipster is full of murderers so why bother worrying about anything. I did not say what I did in response to a solitary or isolated issue. Following the first, each of my comments was a failed attempt to defend against this same misconception. My point was that other classes took their origins from mythologized misconceptions. The monk was no different. In a world of magic, no matter how Euro-leaning, the concepts can be mismatched, even by location of origin. That's as valid a point as any when discussing why the monk is the way it is. Because it's a game of tropes, and spirit monk warrior fighter mans is a trope.


That's a valid critique, if the game weren't very decidedly made with an anachronistic Western European bias. The farther easy you go, the more the archetypes become legends. Holy Roman Empire? Mystic paladins! The mysterious orient (aka anywhere past Russia)? Spirit monk warrior fighter mans!

The reverse is also true. I dislike when swashbucklers and the like are introduced into eastern games just because. And when Iron Age games use plate armor. But such is life. I, as you might imagine, am not bothered by this. Though I do dislike full plate, largely on aesthetic grounds.

[SiuiS]

Following the first, each of my comments was a failed attempt to defend against this same misconception. My point was that other classes took their origins from mythologized misconceptions. The monk was no different. In a world of magic, no matter how Euro-leaning, the concepts can be mismatched, even by location of origin. That's as valid a point as any when discussing why the monk is the way it is. Because it's a game of tropes, and spirit monk warrior fighter mans is a trope.

I'm confused why you defaulted to all warriors being sociopaths as your method then, but I don't even really know why I was arguing in the first place. My mistake. Sorry.


I, as you might imagine, am not bothered by this. Though I do dislike full plate, largely on aesthetic grounds.

That's ironic. Full plate is pretty beautiful when it's well made. It just doesn't always fit the setting. Swashbucklers, too – that's far more specific than 'dex based light weapon unarmored melee guy'. Which is fine, but isn't what swashbuckler does. Although swashbuckler does a darn better job of being generic than the monk class.

Ach. I'm just rambling at this point.

[BootStrapTommy]

I'm confused why you defaulted to all warriors being sociopaths as your method then, but I don't even really know why I was arguing in the first place. My mistake. Sorry.
Here everybody is all kinds of confused by Monks being the kung fu movie construct of an oriental contemplative instead of a western Friar Tuck.

Meanwhile Druids were just the Celtic societal elite, not woods-dwelling treehuggers. And Paladins were Germanic mercenary cavalry in the employ of Charlemagne, not religious champions of Goodness and Law.
I think that more or less says it. Though it suffers succinctness.


That's ironic. Full plate is pretty beautiful when it's well made. It just doesn't always fit the setting. Swashbucklers, too – that's far more specific than 'dex based light weapon unarmored melee guy'. Which is fine, but isn't what swashbuckler does. Although swashbuckler does a darn better job of being generic than the monk class.
As for full plate, I prefer gritty, dark age/warring states aesthetic to chivalrous knights in shiny armor. So it's scale/chain/splint for me.

And I've always interpreted Swashbuckler as rambunctious, smooth talking fighter or sailor. A bar room brawler, with charisma and a quick hand. A brawnier rogue, who looks down on subtlety and stealth.

It feels more Pirates of the Caribbean than D'Artagnan to me. And despite our Eurocentric educations, Asian were involved in the Age of Piracy too.

[Jay R]

Swashbucklers, too – that's far more specific than 'dex based light weapon unarmored melee guy'. Which is fine, but isn't what swashbuckler does. Although swashbuckler does a darn better job of being generic than the monk class.
And I've always interpreted Swashbuckler as rambunctious, smooth talking fighter or sailor. A bar room brawler, with charisma and a quick hand. A brawnier rogue, who looks down on subtlety and stealth.

This is the problem with English words. They carry more connotations than denotations, and therefore mean different things to different people.

Originally a swashbuckler was a street tough who wandered through the streets banging on his small shield challenging others to come fight ("swashing his buckler"). But to most twentieth century people (me, but not everyone in this forum) it primarily means a musketeer or Errol Flynn style of hero.

[obryn]

It's even more infuriating when you realize, as others have mentioned, that the archetypical Asian "monk" upon which the class was based, such as the Shaolin, has proficiency in many martial and exotic weapons, and the class itself does not, because being an unarmed weakling with no armor to speak of is so much cooler than being a big bad dude with an oversized broadsword and a suit of armor that could stop a tank.

So much cooler.
You know the AD&D 1e Monk did, indeed, have proficiency in quite a few weapons - bo sticks, club, crossbow, dagger, hand axe, javelin, jo stick, polearms, spears, and staffs.

The "polearms" bit is key here; those are some of the best weapons in AD&D. And most Monks would use these until their Open Hand damage got significantly higher than their weapons ... unless they had cool magic weapons, that is. While swords would also be appropriate, older D&D restricts swords to a handful of classes as part of its game balance, given their prevalence and power in the magic item lists.

[Joe the Rat]

The problem I have with this is that it reeks of Eurocentricism. "Who put these Asians in my Europe?" Which annoys me more, since source material explains how to flavor the other classes "Eastern" and how to flavor the the wonk "Western".I'm having trouble parsing today: Are you saying there is or isn't source material for doing "Western"-flavored monks? (Mmmm... Mesquite).
I'm not so much interested in the how (I think we're a creative enough bunch to do it ourselves), but rather what has actually been published in this regard.

[Jayabalard]

Anyone ever noticed that almost all RPGs (and even many non-RPGs) associate monks and martial arts? Anyone ever thought about why this is?No, because I grew up watching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_%28TV_series%29

So I knew that monks = guys that did kung fu.

[Frozen_Feet]

Sure. But that's more going along with my point: what the ancient/medieval world thought of as "martial arts" is not what the phrase conjures to the modern western mind.

I'd go further and say what actual martial artists think the word means is not the same as non-martial artists. Red Fel mentioned a number of Non-Asian arts, but speaking as a practicioner of Okinawan Kobudo, I have to say the iconic Monk fighting style, to me, is using a staff or some polearm. (Esp. Monk's Spade.)

Of course, we martial artists often fight about the exact meaning just as often. Ironically, some think actual military arts should be excluded, since they're "too violent" etc. See also the Japanese distinction between "budo" and "bujutsu".