Is the Standard Monk's Alignment Restriction Logical?

[Formless Entity]

Why does it seem that the monk must be focused on lawful endeavors as reflected in it's alignment restriction and some of it's powers.

Surely a monk searching spiritually and physically for freedom could make sense, as well as a monk searching to be non-lethal and kind or a monk seeking to be able to harm while keeping up a façade or even more interestingly a monk trying to escape the pre-conceived notions of law, chaos, good, and evil and trying to elevate themselves beyond such concepts.

Would it not make more sense to leave the alignment and alignment specific powers open or have several monk schools which have different focuses that are alignment specific.

[GnomishPride]

I believe the rationale is that Monks get their powers through sheer discipline, meaning that they must be lawful. I agree that this idea is bonkers, and it should totally be either lifted, or have alternate Monks focusing on other alignments.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Why does it seem that the monk must be focused on lawful endeavors as reflected in it's alignment restriction and some of it's powers.

Surely a monk searching spiritually and physically for freedom could make sense, as well as a monk searching to be non-lethal and kind or a monk seeking to be able to harm while keeping up a façade or even more interestingly a monk trying to escape the pre-conceived notions of law, chaos, good, and evil and trying to elevate themselves beyond such concepts.

Would it not make more sense to leave the alignment and alignment specific powers open or have several monk schools which have different focuses that are alignment specific.

A monk must have discipline to learn and harness his abilities which lends its self to law.

[Gildedragon]

doesn't make much sense to me; while self discipline is a big part of why they are made lawful, ascetic traditions can just as much revere the upsetting of convention, order, and regard reality as illusory, which is a fairly chaotic stance.

[Aquillion]

I think the idea is that, in addition to discipline and the like, monks tend to have a degree of a martial code; even the evil ones will often respect their masters and tend to duel you rather than braining you on the head with a rock.

But yeah, I think it's silly. Lots of wuxia characters (which the Monk is supposed to be the in-game way to represent) have extremely Chaotic outlooks.

(I suspect another reason they did it was to balance out the Barbarian and Bard as nonlawfuls. Hey, come to think of it, how come the Bard is nonlawful, and the Rogue isn't? I can see a vague argument for making the Bards nonlawful, but it's obviously a weaker argument than applies to Rogues. And, I mean, yes, you can have a lawful thief, but it's really bizarre that they went that way with Rogues and not with Bards or Monks.)

[Geddy2112]

By definition, monks and monasteries are based in tradition, which is textbook lawful. Monks go through incredible amounts of training, routine, discipline, the works...all the good lawful stuff.

But they are not and should not be lawful stupid. Their traditions could be to seek freedom, or some kind of novel experience- an adventurer in a game may well be cast out to go and be free as part of the monastic training. A facade requires discipline and conviction to keep up, maybe it is the idea that only through training and routine can you become a second face.
And maybe they are trying to get beyond morality...maybe some monk schools do, but they have a system and order. When you master the system you beat morality kind of thing.

Chaotic alignments just don't seek that kind of monastic life, and neutral alignments see a bigger pragmatism. Monks could strive to become anything, including pure energy/entropy, but the order and path is discipline, order, tradition, law.

[Snowbluff]

It plays them against the bard.

Monks are lawful.
Bards are chaotic.
Monks build monasteries (from which they get their names), and use discipline and tradition to learn.
Most bards are wanderers who picks up their skills as they went.
Monks bring misery to the forums.
Bard bring joy.
Monks suck.
Bards rock.

[Aquillion]

By definition, monks and monasteries are based in tradition, which is textbook lawful. Monks go through incredible amounts of training, routine, discipline, the works...all the good lawful stuff.

But they are not and should not be lawful stupid. Their traditions could be to seek freedom, or some kind of novel experience- an adventurer in a game may well be cast out to go and be free as part of the monastic training. A facade requires discipline and conviction to keep up, maybe it is the idea that only through training and routine can you become a second face.
And maybe they are trying to get beyond morality...maybe some monk schools do, but they have a system and order. When you master the system you beat morality kind of thing.

Chaotic alignments just don't seek that kind of monastic life, and neutral alignments see a bigger pragmatism. Monks could strive to become anything, including pure energy/entropy, but the order and path is discipline, order, tradition, law.My problem is that (just like with the hypothetical Chaotic-only Rogues, which the game rightfully rejects), this doesn't reflect the full range of the Monk's inspirations in fiction. If you look at, say, Yang Guo from Return of the Condor Heroes, or at Jen or Jade Fox from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, there's no way they're lawful.

[Geddy2112]

My problem is that (just like with the hypothetical Chaotic-only Rogues, which the game rightfully rejects), this doesn't reflect the full range of the Monk's inspirations in fiction. If you look at, say, Yang Guo from Return of the Condor Heroes, or at Jen or Jade Fox from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, there's no way they're lawful.

True, and while I think lawful rogues can be a thing, monks don't fall for being nonlawful. I like the idea that some characters can be martial experts and forgo or even turn their back on said martial training. Monks just decide to go other routes, but they won't lose their powers by shifting alignment. Just to train as a monk requires that lawful training.

[daremetoidareyo]

Chaotic alignments just don't seek that kind of monastic life, and neutral alignments see a bigger pragmatism. Monks could strive to become anything, including pure energy/entropy, but the order and path is discipline, order, tradition, law.

The problem is assuming that monks need a monastery or that chaotic individuals cannot have self discipline limits your monk to a trope. It would be like claiming that a scientist class couldn't be chaotic because science needs to respect tradition and requires the type of fastidious patience that a chaotic person is poor at.

Mostly, the prohibition of alignment for monks is about barbarian multiclassing: the two classes are supposed to be polar opposite approaches.

Monks don't cow to systems of order in the real world. Some of the world's best anti establishment protest and ideology comes from monastic orders. I don't buy the chaotic prohibition and treat it as fluff.

[Formless Entity]

A monk must have discipline to learn and harness his abilities which lends its self to law.

One could say the same of the wizard.

[Formless Entity]

By definition, monks and monasteries are based in tradition, which is textbook lawful. Monks go through incredible amounts of training, routine, discipline, the works...all the good lawful stuff.

But they are not and should not be lawful stupid. Their traditions could be to seek freedom, or some kind of novel experience- an adventurer in a game may well be cast out to go and be free as part of the monastic training. A facade requires discipline and conviction to keep up, maybe it is the idea that only through training and routine can you become a second face.
And maybe they are trying to get beyond morality...maybe some monk schools do, but they have a system and order. When you master the system you beat morality kind of thing.

Chaotic alignments just don't seek that kind of monastic life, and neutral alignments see a bigger pragmatism. Monks could strive to become anything, including pure energy/entropy, but the order and path is discipline, order, tradition, law.

I would contest that.

By your definition an organization of anarchist would be lawful.

All classes and all characters go through some amount of training, routine, and discipline as well.

[Formless Entity]

It plays them against the bard.

Monks are lawful.
Bards are chaotic.
Monks build monasteries (from which they get their names), and use discipline and tradition to learn.
Most bards are wanderers who picks up their skills as they went.
Monks bring misery to the forums.
Bard bring joy.
Monks suck.
Bards rock.

If all you are going to do is bring rhetoric then you can wander right out of this thread.

[Telonius]

Having known several people who live in monasteries: absolutely not. I remove the alignment restriction in all of my games.

[Formless Entity]

Having known several people who live in monasteries: absolutely not. I remove the alignment restriction in all of my games.

I can second this statement.

Also though not a monk per say.

I am a martial artist and not all martial traditions, let alone oriental ones, are focused on order or even discipline.

[Troacctid]

I don't think it's supposed to be about monasteries. I think it's supposed to be about the mental focus and discipline required to channel one's ki, which is reflected in abilities like Still Mind.

[Ashtagon]

It depends a bit on your alignment definitions.

In 2e, law-chaos alignment was based more on whether your allegiance was to big society and an established body of rules and laws, or to smaller, spontaneous communities and ad hoc justice (nb ad hoc justice can still be fair in this model; the key difference is focus on the specific case's circumstances rather than a set of rules for determining everything). In this model, the lawful thing made a certain sense, since the monastery would be part of a wider community of monasteries, with long-standing traditions and training regimens.

3e kinda messed up alignment (like, totally). You could be chaotic for wanting to overthrow a regime and replacing it with your own ordered regime, and lawful for following a code of discipline (even your own personal code that no one else had). You could even be chaotic because you follow your own personal ethos; stuff coming from within swings both ways like that. It's like, they totally messed it up to the point of meaningless.

But the real reason monks are lawful in 3e? It's because monks were lawful in 1e.

[digiman619]

I personally always found that restriction ridiculous when you think about it: Who is the iconic monk in folklore? Sun Wukong/Son Goku, the Monkey King. You know, the one that was practically the only CG member of their entire pantheon!

[Ashtagon]

I personally always found that restriction ridiculous when you think about it: Who is the iconic monk in folklore? Sun Wukong/Son Goku, the Monkey King. You know, the one that was practically the only CG member of their entire pantheon!

Actually, Son Goku was more like the archetypal trickster in that mythology -- not so much a monk or even a martial artist. The D&D monk's primary inspiration was the Shaolin monastery, in both the historical and talked-up reputation versions.

[ZeroiaSD]

Nope.

It's based on the idea that martial arts = discipline = lawful... but personality traits are not alignment, and Wuxia films are *full* of rebellious martial artists with strange powers.

Loners, tricksters, robin hoods, individuals trying to tear down the government (and not, like, to impose a new order, but out of just disliking the current one).

[Conradine]

Yes, it's logical. Because Monks aren't simply martial artists, not even magically enached ones. They are not simply disciplined - even a CM Wizard must discipline his mind.
Monks seek for a very specific achievement, an "illumination" of some kind. They aren't simply stoic, they idealize stoicism, ascetism, control of emotions.

In my opinion, the main difference between a disciplined lawful and a disciplined chaotic is that the first act disciplined because he wants to act disciplined, the second does that because he needs to in order to achieve something. But if he could, a chaotic character would be much happier to follow istinct and passion.

[Fizban]

Ashtagon hit the nail on the head (or punched it in the face). They diversified alignment without everyone agreeing on what it actually meant, probably without having actually thought about it before. The Monk is lawful because Monks are supposed to be lawful, and that's it.

If you take one of the more effective interpretations of alignment, lawful indicates your rules come from outside rather than inside, usually from a society, ruling body, or god, while chaotic indicates that you do what you think is best.

Un-lawful restrictions can make sense for barbarians and bards, for whom a lawful alignment shift indicates they've lost the self-direction that enabled their emotion based powers, and continue to make sense for paladins who receive power from an alignment based source that tells them to act a certain way.

Coming back to the monk, it depends on how much you identify with the idea that following a code gives you strength on it's own. While most people can easily identify with following your heart and thus how the bard/barbarian work, very few people in modern life can take the former idea seriously, we just don't experience it. You can say that just like bardic music won't come if you've stifled yourself, monkness won't come if you stray from the path, but in real life no one gains special power just from following the rules. Martial artists get strong because they train. The monk doesn't turn into the hulk or make literal magic music, it's just a martial artist.

Monks are always described as having done years of physical training, when they should be described in the exact opposite way if you want their alignment to have any impact: monks barely train in combat at all, but because they are so focused their martial arts are better than those of people who refuse to live the same ordered lives they do. People who only pay lip service just can't get the same effects, and thus non-lawfuls cannot enter the class.

[Necromancy]

I had a lawful evil monk that used to roll merchants in dark alleys with the party rogue. Lawful means you have a strict set of rules you abide by, not that you adhere to "the law"

[Formless Entity]

Yes, it's logical. Because Monks aren't simply martial artists, not even magically enached ones. They are not simply disciplined - even a CM Wizard must discipline his mind.
Monks seek for a very specific achievement, an "illumination" of some kind. They aren't simply stoic, they idealize stoicism, ascetism, control of emotions.

In my opinion, the main difference between a disciplined lawful and a disciplined chaotic is that the first act disciplined because he wants to act disciplined, the second does that because he needs to in order to achieve something. But if he could, a chaotic character would be much happier to follow istinct and passion.

Your argument is self-defeating.

[Honest Tiefling]

One could say the same of the wizard.

Yeah, this was going to be my argument. And the argument that there's no reason that a chaotic person could not be so utterly devoted to their own ideals, self, or freedom that they would inherently lack such discipline.

But apparently learning to punch things requires more discipline then telling the Universe to move over and become your slave.

[Troacctid]

Monks have to meditate and empty their minds and stuff. Wizards just have to read books, wave their hands around, and mutter some nonsense syllables.

[ZeroiaSD]

Yes, it's logical. Because Monks aren't simply martial artists, not even magically enached ones. They are not simply disciplined - even a CM Wizard must discipline his mind.
Monks seek for a very specific achievement, an "illumination" of some kind. They aren't simply stoic, they idealize stoicism, ascetism, control of emotions.

None of that says 'lawful'.

Being incredibly stoic, ascetic, and in control of emotions doesn't mean you aren't wielding that against the force of law.


In my opinion, the main difference between a disciplined lawful and a disciplined chaotic is that the first act disciplined because he wants to act disciplined, the second does that because he needs to in order to achieve something. But if he could, a chaotic character would be much happier to follow istinct and passion.

Nah, personality types aren't alignments.

Now, some personality types may tend to some alignments, someone following instinct and passion is probably more likely to be chaotic... but it can also show itself as deep love of their lawful home and thus end up quite lawful.

And someone can decide chaoticness is the best for people, and devote themselves entirely to the task.

[Formless Entity]

Monks have to meditate and empty their minds and stuff. Wizards just have to read books, wave their hands around, and mutter some nonsense syllables.

Thus showing you know nothing of the lore behind the Wizard class.

Thank you for sharing that information.

[Dragonexx]

Monks have to meditate and empty their minds and stuff. Wizards just have to read books, wave their hands around, and mutter some nonsense syllables.

That's the same ****ing thing!

Really, all this proves is that alignment is a stupid, outdated concept that needs to be downplayed as much as possible.

[Troacctid]

Thus showing you know nothing of the lore behind the Wizard class.

Thank you for sharing that information.

So you're saying wizards don't have to read books and perform incantations?

[Formless Entity]

So you're saying wizards don't have to read books and perform incantations?

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

Moving on from that, you either know what I was meaning or you are not going to be useful for this discussion.

[Agrippa]

I don't think it makes much sense at all. The way I see it, the Law/Chaos spectrum is about collectivism and the importance of the group versus individualism and personal freedom. Which of course has nothing to do with discipline in and of its self. Besides, do you want every Evil monk to be a member of a ruthless cold-blooded society that imposes a brutal and harsh discipline upon it's members or some jackbooted fascist thug. That's what Lawful Evil means to me. Oh wait, there's The Scarlet Brotherhood (http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Scarlet_Brotherhood).

[Formless Entity]

I don't think it makes much sense at all. The way I see it, the Law/Chaos spectrum is about collectivism and the importance of the group versus individualism and personal freedom. Which of course has nothing to do with discipline in and of its self. Besides, do you want every Evil monk to be a member of a ruthless cold-blooded society that imposes a brutal and harsh discipline upon it's members or some jackbooted fascist thug. That's what Lawful Evil means to me. Oh wait, there's The Scarlet Brotherhood (http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Scarlet_Brotherhood).

I agree with your ideas of what Chaos and Law should mean in the alignment system.

[Ashtagon]

I don't think it makes much sense at all. The way I see it, the Law/Chaos spectrum is about collectivism and the importance of the group versus individualism and personal freedom. Which of course has nothing to do with discipline in and of its self. Besides, do you want every Evil monk to be a member of a ruthless cold-blooded society that imposes a brutal and harsh discipline upon it's members or some jackbooted fascist thug. That's what Lawful Evil means to me. Oh wait, there's The Scarlet Brotherhood (http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Scarlet_Brotherhood).

And not at all by coincidence, when monks were first written in D&D, the Scarlet brotherhood is where they were canonically placed.

[Formless Entity]

To be fair I might not be looking at this objectively enough, because I tend to disagree with how the alignment system is normally implemented.

[Florian]

To be fair I might not be looking at this objectively enough, because I tend to disagree with how the alignment system is normally implemented.

That´s obviously the case.

Before enlightenment, carrying buckets of water and training.
After enlightenment, carrying buckets of water and training.

I think you´re too deep into the whole Great Wheel and cosmic truths thinking and therefore overlook some very basic facts. By themselves, alignments are simply a great power source. Get aligned to it and you can learn to tap into that power. A "fall" happens when you lose touch with your power source and until you can reestablish your connection.

D&D simply works with the basis that certain things just work by connecting you with a power source. For example, that´s why the whole "Vow" featline works. Taking and going thru with the vow is a source of power.

Same holds true for the monk. Their more mystic powers stem from being able to tap into the Lawful alignments. That is their power source, their training only helped unlocking that and reinforces sticking to it. Without that, it might be a martial artist but is not a Monk.

The aforementioned difference between Monk and Wizard when it comes to discipline, is that the Wizard only needs to be disciplined once, when having the patience to cram the spells into his mind, while the Monk has to stay disciplined the whole time.

Beyond that, what discipline and Lawful actually mean, is quite setting-depenendent. "Don´t steal", "be community minded" are rather things based in the Great Wheel and will erode even when using FR or Golarion.

[Honest Tiefling]

To be fair I might not be looking at this objectively enough, because I tend to disagree with how the alignment system is normally implemented.

You and probably 99% of this forum, buddy.


I think you´re too deep into the whole Great Wheel and cosmic truths thinking and therefore overlook some very basic facts. By themselves, alignments are simply a great power source. Get aligned to it and you can learn to tap into that power. A "fall" happens when you lose touch with your power source and until you can reestablish your connection.

D&D simply works with the basis that certain things just work by connecting you with a power source. For example, that´s why the whole "Vow" featline works. Taking and going thru with the vow is a source of power.

What's preventing me from Warlocking or Ur-Priesting this power source and stealing it? Are you saying I can steal from the embodiment of evil and the divine creators of the universe, but not this particular cosmic force?

[Florian]

What's preventing me from Warlocking or Ur-Priesting this power source and stealing it? Are you saying I can steal from the embodiment of evil and the divine creators of the universe, but not this particular cosmic force?

In a sense, you could. But that, again, is dependent on the setting used. Ur-Priest makes a lot of sense with the Great Wheel but falls flat when used with FR or Golarion. In the same sense, a lot of Golarion-spefic archetypes would allow to play your class with Monk benefits, as you learned to bypass those restrictions.

But that is a distraction to the original question, a red herring. Someone gaining their power from "Freedom" simply is not a Monk. "I meditate on freedom" simply will lead to a very different class, as the Monk class powers simply are subsumed under Lawful.

[Telonius]

The issue of discipline is one of the things that always bothered me about the Law/Chaos divide. There's the classic sticky example of a person who has a completely rigorous personal code of conduct, but who believes it would be absolutely illegitimate for him to enforce that code on others. I've heard good arguments about that person being Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral.

My own view is that discipline implies Law, but doesn't require it. A person can have a code of honor, even a large amount of self-discipline, and still be Chaotic. Also true on the other end, with a Bard. He doesn't stop being a Bard the moment he takes a music theory class and realizes that he's been using a very strict system of applied math all along.

[Honest Tiefling]

My own view is that discipline implies Law, but doesn't require it. A person can have a code of honor, even a large amount of self-discipline, and still be Chaotic. Also true on the other end, with a Bard. He doesn't stop being a Bard the moment he takes a music theory class and realizes that he's been using a very strict system of applied math all along.

When you think of ancient stories and how they help build a unified cultural identity and reinforce cultural norms and establish taboos...Yeah, non-lawful bards make just as much sense as lawful-only monks which apparently require a very particular setting and particular personality traits being lawful-only.

[Formless Entity]

That´s obviously the case.

Before enlightenment, carrying buckets of water and training.
After enlightenment, carrying buckets of water and training.

I think you´re too deep into the whole Great Wheel and cosmic truths thinking and therefore overlook some very basic facts. By themselves, alignments are simply a great power source. Get aligned to it and you can learn to tap into that power. A "fall" happens when you lose touch with your power source and until you can reestablish your connection.

D&D simply works with the basis that certain things just work by connecting you with a power source. For example, that´s why the whole "Vow" featline works. Taking and going thru with the vow is a source of power.

Same holds true for the monk. Their more mystic powers stem from being able to tap into the Lawful alignments. That is their power source, their training only helped unlocking that and reinforces sticking to it. Without that, it might be a martial artist but is not a Monk.

The aforementioned difference between Monk and Wizard when it comes to discipline, is that the Wizard only needs to be disciplined once, when having the patience to cram the spells into his mind, while the Monk has to stay disciplined the whole time.

Beyond that, what discipline and Lawful actually mean, is quite setting-depenendent. "Don´t steal", "be community minded" are rather things based in the Great Wheel and will erode even when using FR or Golarion.

I am looking at "cosmic truths"?.......im an atheist.....

[Formless Entity]

You and probably 99% of this forum, buddy.



What's preventing me from Warlocking or Ur-Priesting this power source and stealing it? Are you saying I can steal from the embodiment of evil and the divine creators of the universe, but not this particular cosmic force?

Warlocks make pacts, so not a good example.

Besides in many editions clerics can get their powers from ideals, though they are said to be a very small minority.

[ngilop]

I am looking at "cosmic truths"?.......im an atheist.....

A very, very short one at that because what he said went completely over your head.

grubmles about somestuff then explains

You see, contrary to your 'atheistic' stance or what have you.. You bellieveing in the aboslutelness of no higher ebing existence has ABSOULTELY NOTHING to do with the concepts that are inherent in a made up game of fantasy that is popularly know as D&D.

there ARE undeniable cosmic truths in the 'in game' universe, whether or not you are this or that in the real world does not mean anything.

I think that is the base of your issue here, you out of the game beliefs and you super duper 'I'm this' is getting in the way of you just kicking back and enjoying a game about 'muder-hoboing' as is popularly called in this forum.

TL;DR You being an atheist, good for you.. don't mean squat because D&D is a damn game, not real life.

[Honest Tiefling]

Warlocks make pacts, so not a good example.

Ah, but warlocks can also gain powers from a tainted bloodline or ancestors who made pacts. I guess I'm still a little confused how Cosmic Law can defend itself better from having its power stolen then a Devil, but I guess that's pretty setting based.

[Formless Entity]

A very, very short one at that because what he said went completely over your head.

grubmles about somestuff then explains

You see, contrary to your 'atheistic' stance or what have you.. You bellieveing in the aboslutelness of no higher ebing existence has ABSOULTELY NOTHING to do with the concepts that are inherent in a made up game of fantasy that is popularly know as D&D.

there ARE undeniable cosmic truths in the 'in game' universe, whether or not you are this or that in the real world does not mean anything.

I think that is the base of your issue here, you out of the game beliefs and you super duper 'I'm this' is getting in the way of you just kicking back and enjoying a game about 'muder-hoboing' as is popularly called in this forum.

TL;DR You being an atheist, good for you.. don't mean squat because D&D is a damn game, not real life.

I do not believe in the absoluteness of no higher being.

[Formless Entity]

A very, very short one at that because what he said went completely over your head.

grubmles about somestuff then explains

You see, contrary to your 'atheistic' stance or what have you.. You bellieveing in the aboslutelness of no higher ebing existence has ABSOULTELY NOTHING to do with the concepts that are inherent in a made up game of fantasy that is popularly know as D&D.

there ARE undeniable cosmic truths in the 'in game' universe, whether or not you are this or that in the real world does not mean anything.

I think that is the base of your issue here, you out of the game beliefs and you super duper 'I'm this' is getting in the way of you just kicking back and enjoying a game about 'muder-hoboing' as is popularly called in this forum.

TL;DR You being an atheist, good for you.. don't mean squat because D&D is a damn game, not real life.

Also please do not cuss and get angry on the forum, it does not do anyone any good.

[Florian]

I do not believe in the absoluteness of no higher being.

Still out of luck. For this game, it is declared to be so.

[Troacctid]

To be fair, it depends on the setting. Any atheist in the Forgotten Realms is going to have a tough time, but it's a pretty reasonable stance in Athas.

[Aquillion]

Also, you could be an atheist in a setting like that by having a different view of what it means to be a god... for instance, you could argue that yes, Lolth or whoever is real, but that they're just very powerful spirits and that worshiping them as divinities is inappropriate.

[Anlashok]

Also, you could be an atheist in a setting like that by having a different view of what it means to be a god... for instance, you could argue that yes, Lolth or whoever is real, but that they're just very powerful spirits and that worshiping them as divinities is inappropriate.

You could argue that they're not worthy of worship pretty easily, but arguing they aren't divinities is sort of like arguing that sheep shouldn't be called sheep. God is a term with a defined meaning in a setting like that.

[BowStreetRunner]

...Hey, come to think of it, how come the Bard is nonlawful, and the Rogue isn't? I can see a vague argument for making the Bards nonlawful, but it's obviously a weaker argument than applies to Rogues. And, I mean, yes, you can have a lawful thief, but it's really bizarre that they went that way with Rogues and not with Bards or Monks.)
Sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief. Thief-takers, detectives, and the like are frequently going to be rogue-type characters themselves.

As for the alignment-restricted classes, there's game balance and then there is the attempt to instill a sense of moral realism in the game. My feeling is that neither was managed very well in the rules. Both game balance and a realistic alignment system always seemed to be far too subjectively implemented.

[Snowbluff]

If all you are going to do is bring rhetoric then you can wander right out of this thread.

That's exactly what you're doing. Not that there is anything wrong with rhetoric, just that there is something wrong with telling me it's wrong while using it.

[Formless Entity]

Still out of luck. For this game, it is declared to be so.

Correct.

Well correct in most settings.

But in any case I was saying I am not projecting ideas of deific moral absolutes into the game like it seemed to be implied.

[Formless Entity]

Also, you could be an atheist in a setting like that by having a different view of what it means to be a god... for instance, you could argue that yes, Lolth or whoever is real, but that they're just very powerful spirits and that worshiping them as divinities is inappropriate.

True, that is how many of my characters tend to look at it.

In most settings an atheist would have to be a very ignorant person and I would not be an atheist in most D&D settings in anycase.

[Formless Entity]

That's exactly what you're doing. Not that there is anything wrong with rhetoric, just that there is something wrong with telling me it's wrong while using it.

I am using logic.

If you cannot tell the difference between logic and rhetoric you have much to look forward to as far as education is considered.

[Formless Entity]

To be fair, it depends on the setting. Any atheist in the Forgotten Realms is going to have a tough time, but it's a pretty reasonable stance in Athas.

Yeah, you would have to be pretty dense to be an atheist in the Forgotten Realms setting.

Atheists in Ebberon can make sense too.

[Florian]

Correct.

Well correct in most settings.

But in any case I was saying I am not projecting ideas of deific moral absolutes into the game like it seemed to be implied.

I think you missed an important point concerning how D&D works, even before settings come into it to modify that. That´s that most classes need to connect to an outside power source to gain their actual powers. It´s not your power, it´s something you learned to tap into. You get unaligned, you drop out from your power source. The powers we talk about are not something internal, but external then.

Therefore, things like "Lawful" or "Nature" are hard metaphysical concepts that exist alongside more simple things like "Gravity". That has nothing to do with what you as a player (and by extension, your character) believes.

The things a Monk or Druid are able to do, come not only from within bust mostly from without.

[NerdHut]

"Lawful" in D&D has less to do with following the law of the land, and more to do with following a strict code. Killing every kobold you can, as quickly as you can, could be considered a Lawful path on the alignment scale, though murder probably is against the law. A monk is sworn to follow his order and behave in a particular manor, but not necessarily to uphold the King's Law in his country.

[Formless Entity]

I think you missed an important point concerning how D&D works, even before settings come into it to modify that. That´s that most classes need to connect to an outside power source to gain their actual powers. It´s not your power, it´s something you learned to tap into. You get unaligned, you drop out from your power source. The powers we talk about are not something internal, but external then.

Therefore, things like "Lawful" or "Nature" are hard metaphysical concepts that exist alongside more simple things like "Gravity". That has nothing to do with what you as a player (and by extension, your character) believes.

The things a Monk or Druid are able to do, come not only from within bust mostly from without.

I would agree with the druid but not with the monk.

The monk does internal training and it is never suggested it has power from an external source any more than it says a barbarian or bard does.

Also Monks do not lose all of their powers if they are no longer lawful.

[Formless Entity]

"Lawful" in D&D has less to do with following the law of the land, and more to do with following a strict code. Killing every kobold you can, as quickly as you can, could be considered a Lawful path on the alignment scale, though murder probably is against the law. A monk is sworn to follow his order and behave in a particular manor, but not necessarily to uphold the King's Law in his country.

The problem with that is that would be saying lawful is subjective to the person which does not make sense in a world where "lawful" obviously exists on an objective basis.

[NerdHut]

The problem with that is that would be saying lawful is subjective to the person which does not make sense in a world where "lawful" obviously exists on an objective basis.

Now that I think about it, you make an excellent point. Theft is clearly defined as a chaotic action in D&D (or at least I think it is), so stealing exclusively gold from the rich and giving it to the needy would always be chaotic, no matter how reliably you do it.

But I stand by Lawful meaning more than the law of the land. I think the alignment restrictions are more about keeping character themes cohesive. A Monk-Barbarian would be formidable on the battlefield, but doesn't make a great deal of thematic sense.

I guess if you're wanting a non-lawful monk, just speak to your DM and make your case for why it should still work.

[Formless Entity]

Now that I think about it, you make an excellent point. Theft is clearly defined as a chaotic action in D&D (or at least I think it is), so stealing exclusively gold from the rich and giving it to the needy would always be chaotic, no matter how reliably you do it.

But I stand by Lawful meaning more than the law of the land. I think the alignment restrictions are more about keeping character themes cohesive. A Monk-Barbarian would be formidable on the battlefield, but doesn't make a great deal of thematic sense.

I guess if you're wanting a non-lawful monk, just speak to your DM and make your case for why it should still work.
I tend to be the DM XD

Really I just wanted a nice conversation about whether it makes sense.

It was like I forgot I was on the internet or something....

[NerdHut]

It was like I forgot I was on the internet or something....

Oh, right. I forgot, too. Here, lemme start raging. *ahem* HOW DARE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTLOOK ON A HIGHLY VARIABLE TOPIC THAN MY OWN!!

Now that that's out of the way:

I think the monk's alignment restriction makes sense in MOST cases. And which cases it makes sense in depends a great deal on how your group interprets alignment. "Is it a result of your actions, or are your actions a result of your alignment?" comes to mind as a question to ask as a side note to the whole alignment restriction discussion.

[Formless Entity]

Oh, right. I forgot, too. Here, lemme start raging. *ahem* HOW DARE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTLOOK ON A HIGHLY VARIABLE TOPIC THAN MY OWN!!

Now that that's out of the way:

I think the monk's alignment restriction makes sense in MOST cases. And which cases it makes sense in depends a great deal on how your group interprets alignment. "Is it a result of your actions, or are your actions a result of your alignment?" comes to mind as a question to ask as a side note to the whole alignment restriction discussion.

Yeah. I tend to advocate re-doing the alignment system.

Ideally I would like to have a person who indentifies with every alignment in the current system to ty to make one with a variety of views.

I identify as true neutral under the current alignment system.

[AnimeTheCat]

So, I'm not particularly opposed or supportive of the alignment system overall. My biggest question in all of this is if it matters? I don't mean in personal opinion or anything like that, I mean in game terms. There is no game mechanic that prevents a chaotic character from adventuring with lawful characters so there's no problem there. Monks don't lose any of their class abilities if they cease being lawful. That's lighter than you would get off if you were a paladin where you lose so much. So as far as needing to stay lawful, there's no game reason why you can't cease to be lawful.

So I guess the big question is, does it really matter that the monk has a lawful alignment restriction?

[squiggit]

So I guess the big question is, does it really matter that the monk has a lawful alignment restriction?

If you want to play a neutral or chaotic monk, yes.

[Formless Entity]

So, I'm not particularly opposed or supportive of the alignment system overall. My biggest question in all of this is if it matters? I don't mean in personal opinion or anything like that, I mean in game terms. There is no game mechanic that prevents a chaotic character from adventuring with lawful characters so there's no problem there. Monks don't lose any of their class abilities if they cease being lawful. That's lighter than you would get off if you were a paladin where you lose so much. So as far as needing to stay lawful, there's no game reason why you can't cease to be lawful.

So I guess the big question is, does it really matter that the monk has a lawful alignment restriction?

You can no longer progress as a monk if you are not lawful, and if you are playing 3.5 you lose some class features if I am not mistaken.

[Snowbluff]

I am using logic.

If you cannot tell the difference between logic and rhetoric you have much to look forward to as far as education is considered.

If you're calling what I'm doing Rhetoric, and what you're doing Logic, you're short the Pathos and Ethos of what I am doing. :smalltongue:

[Formless Entity]

If you're calling what I'm doing Rhetoric, and what you're doing Logic, you're short the Pathos and Ethos of what I am doing. :smalltongue:

If my ethics did not include freedom of speech. I would have reported you for trolling.

[Aquillion]

But is that a lawful position to take, or a chaotic one?

It is actually an interesting discussion! Commitment to freedom is Chaotic, but a structured commitment to freedom as a basic inalienable right is Lawful, isn't it?

[Florian]

But is that a lawful position to take, or a chaotic one?

It is actually an interesting discussion! Commitment to freedom is Chaotic, but a structured commitment to freedom as a basic inalienable right is Lawful, isn't it?

"Freedom" is actually the problematic issue here, because it´s not really specified what´s meant by that. Without context, it´s pretty much an empty word at that point, lacking any meaning.

The dividing line here will be between "Am I forced to do something" or "Am I prevented from doing something".

Compare your typical western democracy with a caste system. Both are lawful societies at their core.
The democracy will have laws and law enforcement in place to ensure equal freedom for all citizens.

Now what does the nebulous term "freedom" mean here? Am I nor free because there´s laws preventing my from simply robbing a bank because I can and I think it´s the proper thing to do? Or live by the credo of "Take what you want, give nothing back", or "Do whatever you want shall be the only law"? Freedom from Tyranny? Freedom to tyrannize?

It´s simply a useless and overinflated term.

[BowStreetRunner]

"Freedom" is actually the problematic issue here, because it´s not really specified what´s meant by that. Without context, it´s pretty much an empty word at that point, lacking any meaning.

There is also the issue that some people confuse the rationalization of their alignment with the alignment itself. Freedom isn't the alignment, Chaos is. In this case, Freedom is simply the rationalization of why they are motivated to choose Chaos. This in no way makes Freedom the exclusive domain of Chaotic characters. It is simply used to justify their choice with an ideal.

[AnimeTheCat]

You can no longer progress as a monk if you are not lawful, and if you are playing 3.5 you lose some class features if I am not mistaken.

True that you can't progress with monk if you're not lawful, but you don't lose anything. The "ex-monks" bit very clearly states "A monk retains all of her class abilities".

If you truly feel that the Lawful alignment restriction is too much for the monk, look at the battle dancer. It is a different variant of unarmed martial character that embodies a more spontaneous spirit and reflects that in a chaotic alignment restriction. I'm not sure which one it's in, but I know its in Dragon Magazine.

I realize that was a little off the topic, but I do fee that the standard monk's alignment restriction is logical, based on the description of lawful, chaotic, and the description of the class.


"Lawful" characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties....
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.


Dotted across the landscape are monasteries--small, walled cloisters inhabited by monks who pursue perfection through action as well as contemplation.... She cares primarily for the perfection of her art and, thereby, her personal perfection... A monk's training requires strict discipline. Only those who are lawful at heart are capable of undertaking it.... A monk may feel a deep connection to the monastery or school, to the monk who taught her, to the lineage into which she was trained, or to all of these.


"Chaotic" characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it....
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

Based on those three quotes from the Player's Handbook, monks are very solidly described as lawful in their fluff, and by the definition of lawful. With that being said, I can't truly use my personal definition of lawful or monk to answer the original post, I have to keep it within game knowledge and game relative. Do I personally feel like a monk could be Chaotic (According to D&D terms) yeah, because you're got the evil monks who are expert assassins, thiefs, spies, etc. where lying, killing because reasons, and disruption of order are a norm. Do I think that this can all be rolled in to the "law" that they are required to follow in their monastery? yeah.

To further explain what I mean:
1) A monk seeks personal perfection, and lawful characters judge those who fall short of their duties. Those seem to pretty definitively go hand in hand with one another. You're not going to have someone strive for perfection and then not be disappointed with the one who has great potential, yet decides not to do it.
2) Having devotion to a school, elder monk, lineage, or all of the above falls right in to the category of respecting authority, honoring tradition, honor, and obedience to authority.

Using the in book descriptions I have drawn distinct connections between the monk and the lawful alignment, so in game terms it is entirely logical for a monk to be lawful.

[Formless Entity]

But is that a lawful position to take, or a chaotic one?

It is actually an interesting discussion! Commitment to freedom is Chaotic, but a structured commitment to freedom as a basic inalienable right is Lawful, isn't it?

True, but I identify as neutral on the law-chaos scale so it makes sense I would adhere to a code that includes freedom.

[Formless Entity]

True that you can't progress with monk if you're not lawful, but you don't lose anything. The "ex-monks" bit very clearly states "A monk retains all of her class abilities".

If you truly feel that the Lawful alignment restriction is too much for the monk, look at the battle dancer. It is a different variant of unarmed martial character that embodies a more spontaneous spirit and reflects that in a chaotic alignment restriction. I'm not sure which one it's in, but I know its in Dragon Magazine.

I realize that was a little off the topic, but I do fee that the standard monk's alignment restriction is logical, based on the description of lawful, chaotic, and the description of the class.


Based on those three quotes from the Player's Handbook, monks are very solidly described as lawful in their fluff, and by the definition of lawful. With that being said, I can't truly use my personal definition of lawful or monk to answer the original post, I have to keep it within game knowledge and game relative. Do I personally feel like a monk could be Chaotic (According to D&D terms) yeah, because you're got the evil monks who are expert assassins, thiefs, spies, etc. where lying, killing because reasons, and disruption of order are a norm. Do I think that this can all be rolled in to the "law" that they are required to follow in their monastery? yeah.

To further explain what I mean:
1) A monk seeks personal perfection, and lawful characters judge those who fall short of their duties. Those seem to pretty definitively go hand in hand with one another. You're not going to have someone strive for perfection and then not be disappointed with the one who has great potential, yet decides not to do it.
2) Having devotion to a school, elder monk, lineage, or all of the above falls right in to the category of respecting authority, honoring tradition, honor, and obedience to authority.

Using the in book descriptions I have drawn distinct connections between the monk and the lawful alignment, so in game terms it is entirely logical for a monk to be lawful.

I would say though that I seek personal perfection and have at the very least respect for my martial arts lineages.

But I would also say I am innovate, free-spirited, and agree with the ideals of freedom.

So does that mean for example I could not be a monk in game but could be a martial artist out of game?

[Florian]

No. It just means that you have not understood the alignment system at all and see borders everywhere instead of opportunities.

[Wardog]

It's based on the idea that martial arts = discipline = lawful...

Isn't a Fighter supposed to be disciplined too?

[Gildedragon]

On that note: bards come in traditions and colleges

[Flickerdart]

On that note: bards come in traditions and colleges
Barbarians come from, well, barbarian tribes, who are nothing if not defined by their traditions.

[AnimeTheCat]

I would say though that I seek personal perfection and have at the very least respect for my martial arts lineages.

But I would also say I am innovate, free-spirited, and agree with the ideals of freedom.

So does that mean for example I could not be a monk in game but could be a martial artist out of game?

Yes, that means that in game you would not be a monk. You would be either a fighter that has focused in unarmed combat, a battle dancer, a ranger that has focused in unarmed combat, etc. The thing is that you can be a martial artist without being specifically a monk. Yes Fighters has masters. Yes Fighters have discipline. But fighters are not bound by that discipline. You can be a fighter that focuses on nothing, but is good at a wide variety of martial skills (improved unarmed strike with point blank shot, rapid shot, mounted combat, two weapon fighting, etc.). You can't be a monk that wears armor or fights with most martial weapons, and in the case of flurry of blows any martial weapons, because it isn't a part of that discipline. Even if you take the time to become proficient with a weapon, you can't use that weapon with monk class abilities. Fighters can use any martial weapon, without any additional (aka feats) training. Its a different use of the word discipline.


Fighters may be of any alignment.... Lawful fighters may be champions who protect the land and its people. Chaotic fighters may be wandering mercenaries.



1) a field of study
2) training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character
3) a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity


In the fighter's case and in the monk's case, definition 1 apply. Definition 2 and 3 can apply to fighters, but always applies to monks. Due to the way that monasteries are structured in D&D, Monks will always have a certain code to follow and a certain governing body to follow. If they disobey this (thereby becoming non-lawful) they are kicked out of the monastery and no longer allowed to train under the masters there, effectively halting their progress as a monk. If the fighter disobeys his master, that master refuses to train him and he goes to find a new person to teach him in the way of the sword. Due to the way that martial arts are written in D&D, its a rare and ancient tradition that is unique to a very select few individuals meaning that its not as simple for the monk to just "transfer" monasteries like the fighter can transition to a new master. Is it the same in the real world? No, but what in D&D says that the game world is the same as the real world? Not much. I'm not arguing the point that when compared to real life the alignment restriction makes sense, but when looked at in context of the game world, it does.

On the note of Bards and Barbarians:


It is said that music has a special magic, and the bard proves that saying true. Wandering across the land, gathering lore, telling stories, working magic with his music and living off the gratitude of his audience--such is the life of a bard... Bards are wanderers, guided by whim and intuition rather than by tradition or law. The spontaneous talent, magic, and lifestyle of the bard are incompatible with a lawful alignment.


From the frozen wastes of the north and the hellish jungles of the south come brave, even reckless, warriors. Civilized people call them barbarians or berserkers and suspect them of mayhem, impiety, and atrocities... To the enemies who underestimated them, they have proved their cunning, resourcefulness, and mercilessness. Barbarians are never lawful. They may be honorable, but at heart they are wild. This wildness is their strength, and it could not live in a lawful soul. At best, barbarians of chaotic alignment are free and expressive. At worst, they are thoughtlessly destructive.

So, with the bard you see that, by the text, they are not bound by tradition and should favor whim and intuition versus following a certain code. With barbarians you see that even though they can be honorable and may follow a tribal tradition, but due to the source of their power being a wild heart, they can not embody a lawful spirit. Its all in the flavor and it all makes logical sense within the game. Again, NO I don't think that it logically transitions to the real world, but that's why there are logical descriptions within the texts.

I am in no way trying to ruffle anyone's feathers or say that anyone's wrong because if this were supposed to be a 100% accurate representation of the real world within a game, I would have the exact same view and opinion as many of you, however when the text explains why something is the way it is, I find it incredibly difficult to find it illogical. For every class there is a section that describes the common alignment and explains the reasons behind any alignment restrictions.

[Tectorman]

George Lucas made Star Wars. Does he get to decide that in his universe, the ability to cast lightning is reserved only for those who have embraced the dark side of the Force?

In the Iron Kingdoms RPG, the only people who can become monks are humans from the Protectorate of Menoth. Do the people behind Iron Kingdoms get to decide that?

Does Lucas have the right to say that Storm and Thor from Marvel Comics are evil for casting lightning just because that's how it works in Star Wars?

Are non-human monks in settings like Faerun or Eberron not allowed simply because Privateer Press chose to have the only people in their setting that could figure out how to be a monk be humans from Menoth?

The creative team behind Faerun gets to decide how monks behave in Faerun. The creative team behind Eberron gets to decide how monks behave in Eberron. George Lucas gets to decide whether casting lightning is evil or not in Star Wars.

D&D is not a setting. It is a game system that then (later and separately) has a setting added to the process. As such, it doesn't get to say that monks of every race in every nation on every world in every setting springing forth from across the entirety of all human imagination ever, ever, ever, ever, ever MUST be lawful (hell, the enormity and absurdity of that claim should make it obvious just how ridiculous it is). It doesn't have that purview.

Star Wars Saga Edition gets to say that casting lightning is a dark side act because that game system is only written for one specific setting: the Star Wars setting where that restriction fits.

The Core Rulebook saying that all monks must be lawful is the same thing as answering the question "Is the use of lightning evil?" before you've answered the question "Are we even playing in Star Wars?"

As such, the monk's alignment restriction is just about the furthest thing from being logical that I can imagine.

Let's suppose I'm making an RPG. It's meant for several settings. Definitely Star Wars and Marvel, as well as others that will be written in later years.

Which is more logical?

1) Write in the Core Rulebook that casting lightning is evil. When the Marvel setting is released, put in language to the effect of "Contrary to the core rules, use of lightning is not evil in this setting". And then put in that language in every other setting that comes as well, all because it was a mechanics decision influenced by fluff that was only pertinent to one setting?

2) Or refrain from making any rules regarding how evil or not it is to cast lightning in the Core Rulebook, and leave such matters to the game setting books where those sorts of rules are actually pertinent?

Chucking out the monk's alignment restrictions, as well as every other instance where the core rules overstep their implicit boundaries, is nothing more than making the core rules actually serve their function.

Or do you think that Storm and Thor are evil for casting lightning?

[Troacctid]

George Lucas made Star Wars. Does he get to decide that in his universe, the ability to cast lightning is reserved only for those who have embraced the dark side of the Force?
Yes.


In the Iron Kingdoms RPG, the only people who can become monks are humans from the Protectorate of Menoth. Do the people behind Iron Kingdoms get to decide that?
Yes.


Does Lucas have the right to say that Storm and Thor from Marvel Comics are evil for casting lightning just because that's how it works in Star Wars?
No, and that's not how it works in Star Wars, BTW.


Are non-human monks in settings like Faerun or Eberron not allowed simply because Privateer Press chose to have the only people in their setting that could figure out how to be a monk be humans from Menoth?
Nonhuman monks are explicitly allowed in those settings, and they're controlled by Wizards, not by Privateer, so I dunno what you're talking about.


The creative team behind Faerun gets to decide how monks behave in Faerun. The creative team behind Eberron gets to decide how monks behave in Eberron. George Lucas gets to decide whether casting lightning is evil or not in Star Wars.
Great. So we're agreed then. The authors have the right to decide that monks must be Lawful.

[AnimeTheCat]

George Lucas made Star Wars. Does he get to decide that in his universe, the ability to cast lightning is reserved only for those who have embraced the dark side of the Force?

In the Iron Kingdoms RPG, the only people who can become monks are humans from the Protectorate of Menoth. Do the people behind Iron Kingdoms get to decide that?

Does Lucas have the right to say that Storm and Thor from Marvel Comics are evil for casting lightning just because that's how it works in Star Wars?

Are non-human monks in settings like Faerun or Eberron not allowed simply because Privateer Press chose to have the only people in their setting that could figure out how to be a monk be humans from Menoth?

The creative team behind Faerun gets to decide how monks behave in Faerun. The creative team behind Eberron gets to decide how monks behave in Eberron. George Lucas gets to decide whether casting lightning is evil or not in Star Wars.

D&D is not a setting. It is a game system that then (later and separately) has a setting added to the process. As such, it doesn't get to say that monks of every race in every nation on every world in every setting springing forth from across the entirety of all human imagination ever, ever, ever, ever, ever MUST be lawful (hell, the enormity and absurdity of that claim should make it obvious just how ridiculous it is). It doesn't have that purview.

Star Wars Saga Edition gets to say that casting lightning is a dark side act because that game system is only written for one specific setting: the Star Wars setting where that restriction fits.

The Core Rulebook saying that all monks must be lawful is the same thing as answering the question "Is the use of lightning evil?" before you've answered the question "Are we even playing in Star Wars?"

As such, the monk's alignment restriction is just about the furthest thing from being logical that I can imagine.

Let's suppose I'm making an RPG. It's meant for several settings. Definitely Star Wars and Marvel, as well as others that will be written in later years.

Which is more logical?

1) Write in the Core Rulebook that casting lightning is evil. When the Marvel setting is released, put in language to the effect of "Contrary to the core rules, use of lightning is not evil in this setting". And then put in that language in every other setting that comes as well, all because it was a mechanics decision influenced by fluff that was only pertinent to one setting?

2) Or refrain from making any rules regarding how evil or not it is to cast lightning in the Core Rulebook, and leave such matters to the game setting books where those sorts of rules are actually pertinent?

Chucking out the monk's alignment restrictions, as well as every other instance where the core rules overstep their implicit boundaries, is nothing more than making the core rules actually serve their function.

Or do you think that Storm and Thor are evil for casting lightning?

So, are you saying that the Player's Handbook is wrong because other supplements (Aka, Something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.) change the scope? Or are you saying that it is wrong to set a baseline like the Player's Handbook then create exceptions with other publications are released? Or are you saying that because the 3.5 player's handbook explains itself and its reasons that it is illogical?

If you're not saying any of the above I'm sorry, I don't really understand. I'm not pointing fingers, pointing out fallacies, pointing out flaws, or anything else. I just truly don't understand. Directly, how does comparing Star Wars and D&D prove something, in D&D, illogical when the two universes are vastly different, and written in a different way, for different purposes.

The core rules, which the monk's lawful alignment restriction is pulled from, do ample job of providing a logical explanation and reason for that rule being there. Is that to say that under no circumstances can that ever change? No. As you've pointed out, supplements change and tweak the rules. Its by design. The Core Rulebook provides a framework and general rules that can be enhanced by supplements fairly easily. That's where you get your campaign settings. The core rulebook doesn't overstep any boundaries, it sets them. It came first. Other books can change those boundaries, but when looking at the context of one subject, you have to keep all arguments and perspectives relative to the subject. That's what I've done with pulling key statements all from the same book as to not cloud the perspective that I'm pulling the information from.

If the post was about a specific class from a specific campaign setting I would have pulled the information from that book directly as opposed from the Player's Handbook. As it is though, the Player's Handbook is where the Monk is presented, and this discussion is about the vanilla 3.5 monk, not a spur off in a campaign setting book. All I'm trying to do is keep my perspective and answers within that scope so that I don't blur any lines. If there is a splat book or additional resource that says "Monks aren't Lawful in this case" then boom, you have your answer and in those specific circumstances, a monk need not be lawful, but only in those circumstances. To me, that means that, for instance, Eberron is the home of chaotic monks, you should not be playing a chaotic monk in a Faerun campaign, because the description does not fit the circumstances.

[Waker]

I think the comparison that Tectorman is trying to make with the references to Star Wars, Marvel and the others is that the Monk (and by extension the Bard,Barbarian and Paladin) have their alignments determined by fluff aspects that don't apply across the board. The PHB is largely just a source of general rules and outside of the section containing the deities, doesn't really pertain to any specific setting. So why is it that these classes are shackled mechanically by fluff reasons that don't really pertain to what they do?
I mean, can you really define what the difference is between a Lawful and Chaotic society? Is it determined by the presence of a written, codified law? A rigid class structure for its citizens? A centralized leadership? How is it that every Barbarian is required to be non-lawful? Because they get angry? And they are all illiterate regardless of background?
What about music makes a Bard so Chaotic? What about Court Bards? And the Trumpeters for Reveille in the Army really hate all that structure I bet.
Why are all Paladins bound by the same code of conduct, even if they follow different gods? Shouldn't the rules be a little different if one followed Heironeous and another St. Cuthbert?

[Tectorman]

I think the comparison that Tectorman is trying to make with the references to Star Wars, Marvel and the others is that the Monk (and by extension the Bard,Barbarian and Paladin) have their alignments determined by fluff aspects that don't apply across the board. The PHB is largely just a source of general rules and outside of the section containing the deities, doesn't really pertain to any specific setting. So why is it that these classes are shackled mechanically by fluff reasons that don't really pertain to what they do?

Exactly my point.

D&D isn't the game system for the Forgotten Realms. It's not the game system for Eberron nor for Dragonlance.

It's the game system for the Forgotten Realms AND Eberron AND Dragonlance AND Ravenloft AND Greyhawk. AND every other campaign setting I didn't list. AND every other 3rd party campaign setting also written for D&D. AND every non-published homebrewed setting that any given gaming group may wish to use it for.

I'm saying that "be the game system for ALL (yes, ALL, and that's including that other one way over there, too) campaign settings" is part and parcel of being a setting-neutral game. That's your design goal and what you're trying to accomplish. And within that is included an implicit obligation and a responsibility to not include fluff or mechanics that, yes, might maybe be appropriate for some settings but in other cases, have as much to do with those worlds as a moral component has to do with casting lightning in Marvel, i.e., none.

And I'm saying that the "lawful only" alignment restriction of the monk (as well as other such restrictions), no matter how closely it may fit the fluff they decided to use based on this or that single specific game setting, exists in complete contradiction to that implicit obligation.

And I notice that neither Troacctid not AnimeTheCat specifically addressed this:


Let's suppose I'm making an RPG. It's meant for several settings. Definitely Star Wars and Marvel, as well as others
Which is more logical?

1) Write in the Core Rulebook that casting lightning is evil. When the Marvel setting is released, put in language to the effect of "Contrary to the core rules, use of lightning is not evil in this setting". And then put in that language in every other setting that comes as well, all because it was a mechanics decision influenced by fluff that was only pertinent to one setting?

2) Or refrain from making any rules regarding how evil or not it is to cast lightning in the Core Rulebook, and leave such matters to the game setting books where those sorts of rules are actually pertinent?

Which is more logical?

Another example:

Let's say I'm writing a primary combatant class and replacing the Fighter, Warblade, and other similar classes with it. As written, it covers pretty much everything one might want out of the Fighter (not just what the Fighter currently does, but what it should ideally be capable of).

Except, I threw a dart at a dart board and decided to add in a restriction that they can only use axes. And then to cover my bases, I wrote material for the setting we're playing in at the time to explain this (so it fits there). And then, long after we've left this setting behind, I ensure that this new axe-only-using Fighter-replacement is still the only primary combatant class available. And make it just as much a knock-down, drag-out, philosophical war for my players to play a sword-using (or mace-, polearm-, etc.) primary combatant as it is for any given player to play a non-lawful monk.

Never mind whether I get to do this within my own gaming group. Is any of that logical?

[AnimeTheCat]

Exactly my point.

D&D isn't the game system for the Forgotten Realms. It's not the game system for Eberron nor for Dragonlance.

It's the game system for the Forgotten Realms AND Eberron AND Dragonlance AND Ravenloft AND Greyhawk. AND every other campaign setting I didn't list. AND every other 3rd party campaign setting also written for D&D. AND every non-published homebrewed setting that any given gaming group may wish to use it for.

I'm saying that "be the game system for ALL (yes, ALL, and that's including that other one way over there, too) campaign settings" is part and parcel of being a setting-neutral game. That's your design goal and what you're trying to accomplish. And within that is included an implicit obligation and a responsibility to not include fluff or mechanics that, yes, might maybe be appropriate for some settings but in other cases, have as much to do with those worlds as a moral component has to do with casting lightning in Marvel, i.e., none.

And I'm saying that the "lawful only" alignment restriction of the monk (as well as other such restrictions), no matter how closely it may fit the fluff they decided to use based on this or that single specific game setting, exists in complete contradiction to that implicit obligation.

Easy there buckwheat. Which came first, the core rulebook or the campaign setting? Who chose to use the D&D game system? Who had the opportunity when writing their campaign setting supplement to change that alignment restriction? Don't blame the core rules for being illogical or inadequate when the references you're making not only came later, but had more than enough chance to make the changes you're ranting about.


And I notice that neither Troacctid not AnimeTheCat specifically addressed this:

Which is more logical?


Which is more logical?

1) Write in the Core Rulebook that casting lightning is evil. When the Marvel setting is released, put in language to the effect of "Contrary to the core rules, use of lightning is not evil in this setting". And then put in that language in every other setting that comes as well, all because it was a mechanics decision influenced by fluff that was only pertinent to one setting?

2) Or refrain from making any rules regarding how evil or not it is to cast lightning in the Core Rulebook, and leave such matters to the game setting books where those sorts of rules are actually pertinent?

I'll answer your questions in order:
1) This first questions is a logical one yes. By having something in an original rule set, then later amending it in every supplement, you are effectively making a logical progression from the original system. And there is nothing wrong with that. Here's a counter question for you though; does every setting need to change that rule, or can it be viable in other settings?

2) This second question is also a logical progression. Its a different way of formatting a system. You start with broad and general terms then let the supplements refine and define them for themselves. There is nothing wrong with this approach either. Here's a counter questions for this though; can you still play as detailed a game from a general rules set as you can a broad one?

Newest Example) I'll break this one down in quotes better so I don't get confused and to better illustrate my points.


Another example:

Let's say I'm writing a primary combatant class and replacing the Fighter, Warblade, and other similar classes with it. As written, it covers pretty much everything one might want out of the Fighter (not just what the Fighter currently does, but what it should ideally be capable of).

So you've made a fighter/warblade/everything martial combo class that is incredible, great. That sounds amazing, where do I sign up?!


Except, I threw a dart at a dart board and decided to add in a restriction that they can only use axes.

Well that's a bummer, but axes can be cool too. You've got Battleaxes, Throwing Axes, Hand Axes, etc. I can make this work without killing my flow too much.


And then to cover my bases, I wrote material for the setting we're playing in at the time to explain this (so it fits there).

Awesome, you've given me a cool background and story that I can build in to my character's back story. That's great! Good on you Author!


And then, long after we've left this setting behind, I ensure that this new axe-only-using Fighter-replacement is still the only primary combatant class available.

Wait... so it's setting specific... but it is applying to all the settings now... like it was in the original system rules? I don't think it works like that. If you're not in that setting why do I have to use your setting specific class?


And make it just as much a knock-down, drag-out, philosophical war for my players to play a sword-using (or mace-, polearm-, etc.) primary combatant as it is for any given player to play a non-lawful monk.

Never mind whether I get to do this within my own gaming group. Is any of that logical?

Everything up until the point where you were stating that a class designed and made for a single campaign setting made sense and was perfectly logical. When you tried to impress that something from a campaign specific source would effect all the rest of the system is where you got illogical. You said yourself that D&D is a system, not a setting. If there was only a single flop of a martial class in the system, I expect there would be more martial classes presented in the setting splat books, but as that is purely speculation I'm not going to use that as fact or reason why I don't agree with you.

TL;DR: It is the Third Party author's choice as to what system they use. Eberron, Dragonlance, Faerun, etc. all chose D&D. They could have changed the alignment restriction at that time without any problem. They didn't. Both of your questions are logical in progression, yet both also have flaws. We all know D&D is far from flawless. You can't have something specific to a campaign overwrite the source system without making a change to the source system or directly referencing the campaign setting the new class was created for in future systems.

[Tectorman]

Easy there buckwheat. Which came first, the core rulebook or the campaign setting? Who chose to use the D&D game system? Who had the opportunity when writing their campaign setting supplement to change that alignment restriction? Don't blame the core rules for being illogical or inadequate when the references you're making not only came later, but had more than enough chance to make the changes you're ranting about.

But they shouldn't have to be making those changes is my point. "Lightning is evil" only exists in the scenario because of the Star Wars setting. Putting that into the game when and only when the Star Wars campaign setting actually comes out serves the entirety of "Lightning is evil"'s reason for being without needlessly dragging other settings into that assumption and then having to backtrack (or worse, not bothering to backtrack and leaving it for individual players to have to fight that uphill battle).


I'll answer your questions in order:
1) This first questions is a logical one yes. By having something in an original rule set, then later amending it in every supplement, you are effectively making a logical progression from the original system. And there is nothing wrong with that. Here's a counter question for you though; does every setting need to change that rule, or can it be viable in other settings?

2) This second question is also a logical progression. Its a different way of formatting a system. You start with broad and general terms then let the supplements refine and define them for themselves. There is nothing wrong with this approach either. Here's a counter questions for this though; can you still play as detailed a game from a general rules set as you can a broad one?

I asked which one was more logical. You didn't say which.

Answering your counter-questions:
1) Yes, it can, by pure and lucky coincidence, also be viable in those other settings. You do not know that that will be the case, so why not refrain from making that assumption such that you don't need so much backtracking?

2) Yes. Just keep everything clearly delineated as to what pertains to what. Creating "Monk: as the class, but alignment: any", and then putting in details of the specific setting in question, including how Monks specifically in this specific setting, contrary to the core rules written for more than just this specific setting, have to be lawful only, provides just as detailed a game for that setting without creating the unnecessary uphill battle that I'm fairly sure is the last thing prospective players are looking forward to during their Saturday afternoon unwinding (or whenever you play), especially when there's just as good a chance if not better that they won't necessarily be playing in that setting, something that you know well in advance.

For example, 5E's Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide includes the Battlerager variant for the Barbarian as well as the Bladesinger variant for the Wizard. It goes on to say that only dwarves may be Battleragers and only Elves and Half-elves can be Bladesingers. It then goes on to say that those race restrictions are only meant to apply in the Forgotten Realms specifically and have no bearing anywhere else. The fluff is tied to the mechanics for that specific setting and, because they know ahead of time that D&D is a setting-neutral game and all that that entails, they clearly delineate how far that fluff goes and where it stops.


Newest Example) I'll break this one down in quotes better so I don't get confused and to better illustrate my points.

So you've made a fighter/warblade/everything martial combo class that is incredible, great. That sounds amazing, where do I sign up?!

Well that's a bummer, but axes can be cool too. You've got Battleaxes, Throwing Axes, Hand Axes, etc. I can make this work without killing my flow too much.

Awesome, you've given me a cool background and story that I can build in to my character's back story. That's great! Good on you Author!

Wait... so it's setting specific... but it is applying to all the settings now... like it was in the original system rules? I don't think it works like that. If you're not in that setting why do I have to use your setting specific class?

Everything up until the point where you were stating that a class designed and made for a single campaign setting made sense and was perfectly logical. When you tried to impress that something from a campaign specific source would effect all the rest of the system is where you got illogical. You said yourself that D&D is a system, not a setting. If there was only a single flop of a martial class in the system, I expect there would be more martial classes presented in the setting splat books, but as that is purely speculation I'm not going to use that as fact or reason why I don't agree with you.

Okay, now I'm confused. How are you expressing precisely my conflict with the Monk's alignment restrictions here, and yet defending precisely the same skewed mindset everywhere else?

So let me just expand on my hypothetical axe-only fighter-replacement. In this hypothetical, I decided to limit it to a selection of weapons for no other reason than the evulz. I picked axes because of the dart (it could just as easily have been nets). I knew ahead of time that this fighter-replacement would be the enforced primary combatant class for all my future campaigns and settings. I knew, when I went back and wrote the fighter-replacement's history in its debut campaign, that that history wouldn't apply anywhere else. And the logical thought-processes that tell me to do all this are...

Heck if I know. Switching the question to the Monk.

I contend that the writers included the Red Wizard of Thay prestige class (a Forgotten Realms reference), the Greyhawk pantheon (a Greyhawk reference), and the Great Wheel cosmology (a Greyhawk/Planescape reference), among other elements from other settings. I contend that use of these other-setting elements constitutes foreknowledge that the game is meant for more than just the setting the writers had in mind when they wrote down whatever fluff they decided on and then tied to whichever mechanics. I also contend that, since they put in fluff for specific mechanical elements based on the setting they had in mind without also establishing said setting in the Core Rules (the Core Rules contain no world setting map, no setting history, no list, comprehensive or loose, about the nations of this setting, etc.), they knew that whatever setting they had in mind would not be what individual gaming groups would end up in. And because the PHB and DMG continually include such language as "in your world", I contend the writers could not possibly not know that the function of their setting-neutral game was meant to be for so much infinitely more than just the setting they had in mind.

Are you contending that the writers were truly ignorant of all that? That it snuck up on them somehow? "Hey, that gaming group used the D&D game system and our open invitation for them to come up with their own world to come up with a campaign setting for their games that doesn't resemble exactly or even broadly what we had in mind! Inconceivable!"

So...

I'm creating a Fighter-replacement.
They made the Monk class.

I decide to restrict him to axes-only.
They make the Monk lawful only.

I provide in-universe fluff to justify (in one setting) why this Fighter-replacement can only use axes.
They write in fluff based on the setting they had in mind for why the Monk is lawful only.

I know ahead of time that the in-universe fluff for that one setting will not apply in other settings.
They know ahead of time that prospective gaming groups, at their own invitation, will not end up in the setting they, the writers, had in mind.

You raise questions about what the heck I was thinking in making my Fighter-replacement the way I did.
You defend the exact same malfunction in the case of the Monk.

I don't get it.


TL;DR: It is the Third Party author's choice as to what system they use. Eberron, Dragonlance, Faerun, etc. all chose D&D. They could have changed the alignment restriction at that time without any problem. They didn't. Both of your questions are logical in progression, yet both also have flaws. We all know D&D is far from flawless. You can't have something specific to a campaign overwrite the source system without making a change to the source system or directly referencing the campaign setting the new class was created for in future systems.

"Pick the hill you want to die on." Or just, "pick your battles". Just because the authors of some campaign settings keep alignment in their settings doesn't mean they would have put it in there independently. Sometimes, it's just a matter of deciding where to compromise.

For example, FR's cosmology used to be the same as the standard model. In 3rd, it switched from being alignment-based to being faith-based. Later, Ed Greenwood Presents: Elminster's Forgotten Realms comes out, describing everyday daily life within FR. And I don't remember a single reference to Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos being independent cosmic forces. So I have to wonder: was alignment originally in FR because the FR writers were eager and giddy to have it? Or were they chaffing in that chokehold, and waiting for the opportunity to get out from under alignment's heel and finally have the campaign setting they wanted to have in the first place but were unable to at the time because it would have made too many waves?

I don't have faith that it wasn't the latter. You act like officially published writers have 100% autonomy in the settings they write. And that it's a simple and guaranteed matter for gaming groups (or individual players within a group) to get out from under that heel.

Yes, sometimes a player can get incredibly lucky and find himself in a group with reasonable people. But sometimes he has to sit there and suffer in silence or vote with his feet and leave to not get dragged down.

Yes, a player in my hypothetical Fighter-replacement scenario could just copy my Fighter-replacement, leave, nix the axes-only restriction, and find another group. Yes, he can dodge that bullet. But he shouldn't have to dodge that bullet because what business have I in firing a bullet in the first place?

[Tetsubo 57]

I've never liked the Lawful Only restriction. I rule it as Nothing Chaotic. By the same token Barbarians are Nothing Lawful.

[Anlashok]

I think you could go further than that and just dump them entirely. Chaos doesn't preclude rigorous training as seen by.. really every other class.

And for Barbarians I honestly think a Lawful one is almost easier to fluff than a chaotic one. Tribal societies, especially in fiction, are practically defined by their traditions and rituals, far moreso than more advanced societies, which tend to slowly drift away from those concepts over time.

And if we're going the 'discipline = law' route, a Barbarian has complete control over their inner rage. It never works against them and they can unleash it or contain it at will. They also have an indomitable will, at least at level 14, and the ability to simply ignore some part of attacks made against through purely their own capabiltiies.

And that sounds disciplined as hell.

[Fungi]

In my opinion, the restriction not only doesn't make sense for the monk specifically, but the concept of restriction also doesn't make sense for classes in general. That's just imposing an arbitrary limitation on how creative I'm allowed to be with my characters, and the definitions of the various alignments are all highly debatable anyway (which, in my opinion, they should be). The fact that this question can be debated logically from multiple perspectives I think supports that the restriction does not make sense, because clearly there are people who feel they can justify chaotic or lawful monks. Besides, what exactly a monk is and how their power works is basically up to setting/DM/group at the end of the day anyway, so for example if I want to play a character who's great at hand-to-hand fighting but isn't explicitly a wuxia, the monk class should be available as a template for that type of character. Sure, monks are written as having mystical qualities, but to say they can only attain those by either studying through lawful means or by connecting to a metaphysical lawful force doesn't make sense, particularly when compared to any other instance of a character acquiring enlightenment or magic powers or whatever. My 2 cp.

[AnimeTheCat]

But they shouldn't have to be making those changes is my point. "Lightning is evil" only exists in the scenario because of the Star Wars setting. Putting that into the game when and only when the Star Wars campaign setting actually comes out serves the entirety of "Lightning is evil"'s reason for being without needlessly dragging other settings into that assumption and then having to backtrack (or worse, not bothering to backtrack and leaving it for individual players to have to fight that uphill battle).



I asked which one was more logical. You didn't say which.

Answering your counter-questions:
1) Yes, it can, by pure and lucky coincidence, also be viable in those other settings. You do not know that that will be the case, so why not refrain from making that assumption such that you don't need so much backtracking?

2) Yes. Just keep everything clearly delineated as to what pertains to what. Creating "Monk: as the class, but alignment: any", and then putting in details of the specific setting in question, including how Monks specifically in this specific setting, contrary to the core rules written for more than just this specific setting, have to be lawful only, provides just as detailed a game for that setting without creating the unnecessary uphill battle that I'm fairly sure is the last thing prospective players are looking forward to during their Saturday afternoon unwinding (or whenever you play), especially when there's just as good a chance if not better that they won't necessarily be playing in that setting, something that you know well in advance.

For example, 5E's Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide includes the Battlerager variant for the Barbarian as well as the Bladesinger variant for the Wizard. It goes on to say that only dwarves may be Battleragers and only Elves and Half-elves can be Bladesingers. It then goes on to say that those race restrictions are only meant to apply in the Forgotten Realms specifically and have no bearing anywhere else. The fluff is tied to the mechanics for that specific setting and, because they know ahead of time that D&D is a setting-neutral game and all that that entails, they clearly delineate how far that fluff goes and where it stops.



Okay, now I'm confused. How are you expressing precisely my conflict with the Monk's alignment restrictions here, and yet defending precisely the same skewed mindset everywhere else?

So let me just expand on my hypothetical axe-only fighter-replacement. In this hypothetical, I decided to limit it to a selection of weapons for no other reason than the evulz. I picked axes because of the dart (it could just as easily have been nets). I knew ahead of time that this fighter-replacement would be the enforced primary combatant class for all my future campaigns and settings. I knew, when I went back and wrote the fighter-replacement's history in its debut campaign, that that history wouldn't apply anywhere else. And the logical thought-processes that tell me to do all this are...

Heck if I know. Switching the question to the Monk.

I contend that the writers included the Red Wizard of Thay prestige class (a Forgotten Realms reference), the Greyhawk pantheon (a Greyhawk reference), and the Great Wheel cosmology (a Greyhawk/Planescape reference), among other elements from other settings. I contend that use of these other-setting elements constitutes foreknowledge that the game is meant for more than just the setting the writers had in mind when they wrote down whatever fluff they decided on and then tied to whichever mechanics. I also contend that, since they put in fluff for specific mechanical elements based on the setting they had in mind without also establishing said setting in the Core Rules (the Core Rules contain no world setting map, no setting history, no list, comprehensive or loose, about the nations of this setting, etc.), they knew that whatever setting they had in mind would not be what individual gaming groups would end up in. And because the PHB and DMG continually include such language as "in your world", I contend the writers could not possibly not know that the function of their setting-neutral game was meant to be for so much infinitely more than just the setting they had in mind.

Are you contending that the writers were truly ignorant of all that? That it snuck up on them somehow? "Hey, that gaming group used the D&D game system and our open invitation for them to come up with their own world to come up with a campaign setting for their games that doesn't resemble exactly or even broadly what we had in mind! Inconceivable!"

So...

I'm creating a Fighter-replacement.
They made the Monk class.

I decide to restrict him to axes-only.
They make the Monk lawful only.

I provide in-universe fluff to justify (in one setting) why this Fighter-replacement can only use axes.
They write in fluff based on the setting they had in mind for why the Monk is lawful only.

I know ahead of time that the in-universe fluff for that one setting will not apply in other settings.
They know ahead of time that prospective gaming groups, at their own invitation, will not end up in the setting they, the writers, had in mind.

You raise questions about what the heck I was thinking in making my Fighter-replacement the way I did.
You defend the exact same malfunction in the case of the Monk.

I don't get it.



"Pick the hill you want to die on." Or just, "pick your battles". Just because the authors of some campaign settings keep alignment in their settings doesn't mean they would have put it in there independently. Sometimes, it's just a matter of deciding where to compromise.

For example, FR's cosmology used to be the same as the standard model. In 3rd, it switched from being alignment-based to being faith-based. Later, Ed Greenwood Presents: Elminster's Forgotten Realms comes out, describing everyday daily life within FR. And I don't remember a single reference to Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos being independent cosmic forces. So I have to wonder: was alignment originally in FR because the FR writers were eager and giddy to have it? Or were they chaffing in that chokehold, and waiting for the opportunity to get out from under alignment's heel and finally have the campaign setting they wanted to have in the first place but were unable to at the time because it would have made too many waves?

I don't have faith that it wasn't the latter. You act like officially published writers have 100% autonomy in the settings they write. And that it's a simple and guaranteed matter for gaming groups (or individual players within a group) to get out from under that heel.

Yes, sometimes a player can get incredibly lucky and find himself in a group with reasonable people. But sometimes he has to sit there and suffer in silence or vote with his feet and leave to not get dragged down.

Yes, a player in my hypothetical Fighter-replacement scenario could just copy my Fighter-replacement, leave, nix the axes-only restriction, and find another group. Yes, he can dodge that bullet. But he shouldn't have to dodge that bullet because what business have I in firing a bullet in the first place?

Ok, i'm gonna try to explain since it appears I confused you. That's fine, it was a long post with a lot of info so anyone could have gotten confused.

First, arguing whether something "should" or "should not" have to happen is less about logic and more about efficiency. I am trying to stay focused on logic. That answers the first part you quoted me on.

Second, I didn't answer the question because "which is most logical?" Isn't really a good question since "logic" is a check of completion from beginning to end. Efficiency is ensuring the best route from beginning to end. Also, efficiency depends on scenario. The scenario will dictate which logical statement is most efficient. That, I hope, explains my though process behind why I didn't answer the question. To me, and sincerely no harm is intended when I say this, the question was flawed.

Third. This response kind of upset me a little because it seems like you're changing your own opinion/view on the D&D system. In an earlier post you have explicitly stated that it is a system, not a setting, yet in you're response you're making it seem like it's a setting and not a system. Which do you consider it? You said you replaced the original text for the fighter making it seem like it's in a supplementary book, however then you said that you would make it so that your new class replaced the fighter. All I pointed out was that you would then be changing the core rules and it would then no longer be a setting specific class but a system class. If it merely remains a setting class, you can't force me to use it in a different setting. If you want me to explain in further detain please let me know, because the only way that we can understand each other'so viewpoints is through dialogue.

Lastly, if you're the author, publisher, liscensee, etc, you have all the reason in the world to do whatever you feel is best for your audience. That means that in every situatiin, you have free reign in your game world. Most of your arguments are about efficiency rather than logic. The text is logical. It may not be efficient or preferred, but it is entirely logical since all connections are made for you. In the D&D system, monks come from monasteries or urban schools that are lawful. As you said, the core rule book contains no setting. That means that the class is bound to the system rather than a setting and the fluff text is tied to the system. Does what i'm saying make sense? If it isnt, let me know specifically what isn't so I can better focus what I say and better convey my opinion as to prevent tempers or emotions from getting out of hand and interrupting a nice discussion.

[Sun Elemental]

Yeah, another vote for abolishing or ignoring alignment class restrictions. Bards have colleges, barbarians have traditions, monks can be undisciplined streetfighters, what other people said.

Another strike against alignment is that it's generally thrust on new characters as a sort of personality quiz, and the questions are about big, heavy stuff that you probably don't know about your character.
How do you feel about government, or intense discipline, or <insert what Lawful means to the DM>?
Do you love anarchy, or personal freedom, or <insert what Chaotic means to the DM>?
Good and Evil are just as bad, because you can start using arguments from the greatest European philosophers, who never actually 'solved' morality. Is an action Good because of the intention behind it, the way it was performed, or the outcome of it? Is suicide ever ok? Something something lying to Nazis about Jews?
These questions will never speed up a game of D&D!

My solution is to remove alignment entirely, and use 13th Age's Icon system. It's basically a MMO reputation system, with 13 or so world famous NPCs that all have different agendas and lead a faction/army/country.

Example: Is that orc evil? We know he has X reputation with the Orc Warchief, and Z reputation with the Lich King, and we hate those guys... so yeah, he's evil to us.

It also saves the Paladin from alignment arguments that can happen, especially from a jerk DM. Make your Icon someone who seems the most Lawful and Good. The Paladin's Code is now just the code of conduct dictated from the Icon to their most devoted subjects. You can ask the NPC for clarifications in-character, even!

[Morty]

Any arguments in favour of the restrictions are post-fact justifications, rather than reasons why it's a good idea for it to be there in the first place. The concept of lawful monks don't lose anything if others are actually allowed.

[Ashtagon]

Any arguments in favour of the restrictions are post-fact justifications, rather than reasons why it's a good idea for it to be there in the first place. The concept of lawful monks don't lose anything if others are actually allowed.

Isn't this true of all alignment restrictions?

[Aquillion]

Most of them, but Lawful Good is pretty central to the concept of Paladins.

(I mean some people might argue that that concept is silly and should be expanded, but the basic idea of "you must follow the narrow path of righteousness" would be weakened or at least altered by that.)

[Morty]

Isn't this true of all alignment restrictions?

Of course it is.

[AnimeTheCat]

Ok, bards have loose, informal congregations referred to as "colleges" (PHB pg. 27). That's the nature of being a bard. Bards don't go to school to learn and study, they're taken on as apprentices by other bards. That's not "tradition" or "college" in the sense that makes it lawful. In fact, its quite anarchic, and free spirited making it VERY chaotic. Tradition, in the case of the barbarian, would have to be tied to the race. A human barbarian from the wastes would have different "traditions" from the orc barbarian of the jungle. Also, these "traditions" that you're referencing are nowhere in the descriptive text, leading me to believe that the traditions that you think they're following are something that you've come up with within your gaming groups. There's nothing wrong with that and if that's how you explain away that barbarians are allowed to be lawful, no problems, but there is nothing that ties the barbarian to tradition in the text and there is nothing that ties a bard to a formal college in the text. Again, if you use a formal bard school as a means to allow a bard to be lawful, that's fine and I would be in the wrong if I said you weren't allowed to do that.

What I will say is this:

No, according to the text, a monk can't be an undisciplined street fighter because the system doesn't support that. If you want an undisciplined street fighter play a fighter with improved unarmed strike and superior unarmed strike. That's an undisciplined street fighter. Monks seek to find inner perfection. That is not something that a free roaming, wandering, dirty fighting monk can do according to their monastic tradition. It goes against their teachings. That's the Tradition and Discipline. Discipline in this sense is almost exactly aligning with "Lawful" in the sense that they are disciplined to think a certain specific way and follow strict guidelines. All the classes that allow you to be any alignment offer the chance for you to be trained in such a way, but also any other way. Monks, Bard, Barbarians, and Paladins don't offer this and it is explained as to why. It isn't an after thought argument or post-fact justification, its just reading the words on the page. When you're writing a game system, you don't need justification for why you do something. That's YOUR game system. You can make it so that Monks are actually the only class in the game that can wear full plate. You don't need to justify it because its your book, your system, and your decision.

That is the answer to the original questions: "Is the Standard Monk's Alignment Restriction Logical?" the answer is Yes. There is a string of logic presented and spelled out and fully given within the text. There is no further discussion past that because it meets the logic check.

Here's my personal opinion on the matter of the alignment system:

I like the alignment system. It takes dialogue with the players in a campaign to decide what constitutes law and chaos/good and evil. If you can hold this dialogue and figure out what exactly is going on along the dual axis system then there's no confusion at all. If there ever is a question, just discuss it and figure out like adults. You don't need to go around campaigning for the abolishment of a system simply because you disagree with it. I think that it allows for good structure within a game and lets the PCs get creative with spells that allow for the detection of alignment and also gives the a guideline for what to expect from such characters they use said spells on. I don't think the alignment system is by any means perfect, but it is far from the worst thing in D&D. Everything in D&D functions and provides an intricate framework and model that can be molded and revised by anyone to make something they want. I don't think there's anything wrong with removing the alignment system, I just don't and have never found it necessary because its far from a problem.

[ZeroiaSD]

That's the Tradition and Discipline. Discipline in this sense is almost exactly aligning with "Lawful" in the sense that they are disciplined to think a certain specific way and follow strict guidelines.

Which doesn't mean they aren't focused on tearing down the system and transforming a strict hierarchy to a more chaotic governing system, and hold freedom as the highest virtue.


The "Wandering Do-Gooder," is one of the classic monk roles in fiction to boot.


Discipline and following guidelines don't line up with lawful- it's what those guidelines are that matter.

[Anlashok]

No, according to the text, a monk can't be an undisciplined street fighter because the system doesn't support that.

You realize how circular that is, right? You're essentially arguing monks must be lawful and barbarians must be chaotic... because monks must be lawful and barbarians must be chaotic. There's nothing material to that at all.

You can say that since the book says it you support it and that's how you think it should be, but that's not an argument as to whether or not it's good or sensible or it to be like that in the first place.

You also keep saying 'nothing in the text supports it', but the paladin is the only class that actually has its fluff baked into its mechanics, so that's an argument against the restrictions as much as it's an argument for them.

[Hecuba]

Any arguments in favour of the restrictions are post-fact justifications, rather than reasons why it's a good idea for it to be there in the first place. The concept of lawful monks don't lose anything if others are actually allowed.

That depends on what a "Monk" is. It's always worth remembering that the D&D 3e system did not start as either weakly-class-basef or setting-agnostic. The default fluff for a monk is not "supernatural martial artist": it's "monk living at a traditional monetary who gains supernatural abilities form their Order's martial arts traditions."

For that kind of aesthetic, alignment restrictions are useful a useful way to further cement the bond between a mechanical class and the setting fluff.

Such strongly class-based core-setting based games are far less dominant now, but they are still a thing.

[AnimeTheCat]

Which doesn't mean they aren't focused on tearing down the system and transforming a strict hierarchy to a more chaotic governing system, and hold freedom as the highest virtue.


The "Wandering Do-Gooder," is one of the classic monk roles in fiction to boot.


Discipline and following guidelines don't line up with lawful- it's what those guidelines are that matter.

This once, I am going to pull from knowledge outside of the written material in the class description. Monasteries in real life are commonly some of the most strictly controlled places on earth. Rules govern your life down to what you have to do a specific times of day and how you must do them. In this sense, you don't have "freedom" and even in you're a "Wandering Do-Gooder" you have very strict rules that govern your conduct outside of the monastery. That does line up with lawful. Even in the flavor text of the class, that idea is supported. The training regiment of meditation, physical training, etc. is very rigorous and doesn't leave room for much beyond it. That is the life within the monastery.


You realize how circular that is, right? You're essentially arguing monks must be lawful and barbarians must be chaotic... because monks must be lawful and barbarians must be chaotic. There's nothing material to that at all.

You can say that since the book says it you support it and that's how you think it should be, but that's not an argument as to whether or not it's good or sensible or it to be like that in the first place.

You also keep saying 'nothing in the text supports it', but the paladin is the only class that actually has its fluff baked into its mechanics, so that's an argument against the restrictions as much as it's an argument for them.

I don't think that you're understanding what my argument is. I'm not arguing that "because the books say it, it must be so" so much as I'm arguing that "Since the books provide the reason behind it, that is how this class is designed to be played. That makes the restriction logical." Does that make sense? I don't know how to better say what I'm trying to say but if you're still not seeing where I'm coming from i'll do my best to elaborate further. Again, I'm not at all trying to say how I think it should be, I'm just trying to answer the original question in the post and say that the restriction is logical. While the monk does not lose anything if he/she ceases to be lawful, that doesn't mean that the fluff isn't baked in to the mechanics. If you read the descriptions of the abilities, it shows in the Ki abilities. They have come to such a point in their development that they have the ability to focus their life force into their attacks, just like a paladin, but they have come by it in a different method. They gained that through knowledge, training, and enlightenment which means that they can't just lose that. It hasn't been granted to them, it has been earned by them. Mechanically the class shows that they are very focused martial combatants with supernatural abilities gained through intense training and focus. That text supports the idea that it is a very rigid training program that they follow and not something that a care-free/free-spirited person could achieve simply because they lack the finite focus necessary. That's not meant to say any class is inferior because they can't be enlightened, etc. that's to say that the monk class is build upon that level of focus and training.

Think about a hurricane. Chaos is the rapid winds around the eye and Law is the calm center. If your mind is like the winds around the center you can't achieve enlightenment until you let the things that are causing you to be in turmoil go thereby making yourself more like the calm center.

[ZeroiaSD]

This once, I am going to pull from knowledge outside of the written material in the class description. Monasteries in real life are commonly some of the most strictly controlled places on earth. Rules govern your life down to what you have to do a specific times of day and how you must do them. In this sense, you don't have "freedom" and even in you're a "Wandering Do-Gooder" you have very strict rules that govern your conduct outside of the monastery. That does line up with lawful. Even in the flavor text of the class, that idea is supported. The training regiment of meditation, physical training, etc. is very rigorous and doesn't leave room for much beyond it. That is the life within the monastery.

One who leaves the monastery has left the monastery. Like, you're not necessarily considered a representative/member of it any more. And the monastery, itself, could very well include philosophies that are anti-authoritarian, "You train and discipline yourself so you may protect the common people," and all that.

Temples in real life were crushed by the government for being hotbeds of rebellion. Like, Shaolin Temple was once destroyed for the Qing government for this reason, and Shaolin temple is the temple above all others who the monk-martial-artist is based off of. From it's destruction, the 'Five Fugitive Monks' are then credited for helping spread Shaolin Kung Fu across China, and at least one of them, Gee Seen, then fought to try and overthrow the government.


Following rules in how you handle yourself has little to do with philosophy. Wuxia has former students who learned together on opposite sides of a rebellion all the darned time.

So no, 'being trained in a setting with strict rules,' does not lawful make. Not unless you make alignment purely about personal conduct and not wider philosophy on law vs chaos, views on governments, and etc..

[Tectorman]

Ok, i'm gonna try to explain since it appears I confused you. That's fine, it was a long post with a lot of info so anyone could have gotten confused.

I'm doing this out of order to frame my response.


Third. This response kind of upset me a little because it seems like you're changing your own opinion/view on the D&D system. In an earlier post you have explicitly stated that it is a system, not a setting, yet in you're response you're making it seem like it's a setting and not a system. Which do you consider it? You said you replaced the original text for the fighter making it seem like it's in a supplementary book, however then you said that you would make it so that your new class replaced the fighter. All I pointed out was that you would then be changing the core rules and it would then no longer be a setting specific class but a system class. If it merely remains a setting class, you can't force me to use it in a different setting. If you want me to explain in further detain please let me know, because the only way that we can understand each other'so viewpoints is through dialogue.

Okay, let me be clear about your objection. The current Fighter in the Core Rulebook is a non-setting Fighter and is the system Fighter. Other settings that come along later may or may not take that system Fighter and replace it with their own setting Fighter.

Regarding my hypothetical Fighter-replacement, you do not object to the current system Fighter being replaced by the Fighter-replacement, a setting Fighter, in the context of the setting to which it pertains. You object to my Fighter-replacement, a setting Fighter, taking the place of the systemic Fighter and masquerading as the new systemic Fighter, when, due to its setting specific lore AND restrictions, it can't be.

If I am correctly parsing out what your objection is to my hypothetical Fighter-replacement, then I can easily solve your confusion. D&D is a system. I believe it was always meant to be a system and only be a system. I created the hypothetical scenario of that axe-only Fighter-replacement to illustrate what it looks like when there's something broken in the system. Why?

Because I hold that exactly that is what happened with the Monk. We do not have a system Monk. We have a setting Monk, which must be lawful due to the specific influence of whichever setting the writers had in mind and inappropriately gave too much weight to while they were writing the game, and it is masquerading as a system Monk.

D&D is supposed to be a system. My hypothetical Fighter-replacement fails to be the system Fighter and, in so doing, fit the system when it takes setting specific fluff and applies it across the board. The Monk, in taking the lawful-only restriction and making it the default, is the same mistake.

Again, your objection to the axe-only Fighter is my objection to the lawful-only Monk. And if I'm accepting the lawful-only Monk, you are accepting the axe-only Fighter.


First, arguing whether something "should" or "should not" have to happen is less about logic and more about efficiency. I am trying to stay focused on logic. That answers the first part you quoted me on.



Second, I didn't answer the question because "which is most logical?" Isn't really a good question since "logic" is a check of completion from beginning to end. Efficiency is ensuring the best route from beginning to end. Also, efficiency depends on scenario. The scenario will dictate which logical statement is most efficient. That, I hope, explains my though process behind why I didn't answer the question. To me, and sincerely no harm is intended when I say this, the question was flawed.

You're saying that I'm misidentifying the specific kind of wrong that I'm assigning to the Monk and the writers that made it the way they did. So what would you call your objection to the axe-only Fighter-replacement? What kind of wrong are we labeling that? Is it illogical? Inefficient? Inappropriate? Was someone overstepping their bounds?


Lastly, if you're the author, publisher, liscensee, etc, you have all the reason in the world to do whatever you feel is best for your audience. That means that in every situatiin, you have free reign in your game world. Most of your arguments are about efficiency rather than logic. The text is logical. It may not be efficient or preferred, but it is entirely logical since all connections are made for you. In the D&D system, monks come from monasteries or urban schools that are lawful. As you said, the core rule book contains no setting. That means that the class is bound to the system rather than a setting and the fluff text is tied to the system. Does what i'm saying make sense? If it isnt, let me know specifically what isn't so I can better focus what I say and better convey my opinion as to prevent tempers or emotions from getting out of hand and interrupting a nice discussion.

Again, I'm saying there is no system Monk class or system Monk fluff. By making it lawful only, they have a setting Monk passing itself off as a system Monk. As we're both saying, the core rule book contains no setting. But part and parcel of "no setting" is that there are no assumed monasteries or urban lawful schools for a Monk to come from. Ergo, the assumed lawful background that causes the "lawful only" aspect of the so-called system Monk (that is really a setting Monk in disguise) cannot be assumed.

Which makes your logical connections begin with, essentially, "HP Error 404 Not Found". At least, from a system point of view. Had D&D been billed from the getgo as a specific game system for a specific game setting, such that there is no such thing as starting from a system point of view, then this would not be an issue.

It was not so billed. So A cannot connect to B and from there to C and so on because there is no A to begin with.

[LoyalPaladin]

Would it not make more sense to leave the alignment and alignment specific powers open or have several monk schools which have different focuses that are alignment specific.
If you're looking for a homebrew fix, then I suppose you can do whatever suits your table. I've played at a table where the the lawful requirement was changed to a neutral requirement, which was interesting.

Incarnate is a fairly alignment centric class, if I remember correctly.


I believe the rationale is that Monks get their powers through sheer discipline, meaning that they must be lawful.
Yep. That's about all the reasoning behind it.

[ZeroiaSD]

Yep. That's about all the reasoning behind it.

Which was pretty lazy of them.

Cleric alignment restriction makes sense. Obviously, your god cares about how you act. Ditto anything else that draws magic or powers *from* something that may have an ethical stance.

Even Paladin, to an extent- "This is a class made for followers of Lawful-and-Good gods." Though a bit of wiggle room would've made sense, a LN or NG seem like they'd both work, but the reasoning is fairly sound.

IMO Monk and Barbarian alignment restrictions are worth tossing out. They're about how you train and what you fight, not what you believe in.

[Luccan]

Cleric alignment restriction makes sense. Obviously, your god cares about how you act. Ditto anything else that draws magic or powers *from* something that may have an ethical stance.

Even Paladin, to an extent- "This is a class made for followers of Lawful-and-Good gods." Though a bit of wiggle room would've made sense, a LN or NG seem like they'd both work, but the reasoning is fairly sound.

IMO Monk and Barbarian alignment restrictions are worth tossing out. They're about how you train and what you fight, not what you believe in.

I pretty much agree with this.

Clerics and other characters who revere a deity should be within however many alignment steps from their deity seem appropriate. I'd actually push Druids out of this group without a deity, as a Druid's personal view of nature can already effect them on the good-evil access and the law-chaos axis if they are lawful or chaotic neutral, so their dedication to neutrality doesn't really make any sense. I see the argument for Monks, but I think Bards basically disqualifies that. It might not take as much discipline to play an instrument so well you get magic powers as it would to learn Improved Unarmed Strike, but it still requires a fair amount of discipline. If the argument for lawful monks is discipline, it invalidates both the monk and bard alignment restrictions. Even if you say a bard has magic powers due to ancestry, their close comparisons to sorcerers still means their alignment restrictions make no sense.

And as others have said, there are plenty of examples of monks and monk-like characters in fiction who are not particularly "lawful". Likewise, a bard being chaotic doesn't even seem to have a fluff reason. Barbarians being non-lawful is an issue because no one else from tribal societies is required to be chaotic, so except for the super-powered anger (which is actually remarkably controlled), their restrictions make no sense either. Now this can make sense in a given setting, but there's no reason it has too, in terms of character abilities.

Also, considering the ACF Paladins of different alignments, I'm sure you can apply similar ideas to monk abilities tied to alignment.

Basically, the game's basis for alignment restriction is a little arbitrary, although I agree with alignment restrictions for prestige classes.

[ZeroiaSD]

Likewise, a bard being chaotic doesn't even seem to have a fluff reason.

I think it's because the 'wandering minstrel' was the archetype in mind.... overlooking that you could have a king's personal bard too.




Barbarians being non-lawful is an issue because no one else from tribal societies is required to be chaotic, so except for the super-powered anger (which is actually remarkably controlled), their restrictions make no sense either. Now this can make sense in a given setting, but there's no reason it has too, in terms of character abilities.

Yea. Heck, I bet if I dug up the celtic mythology (which strikes me as the source of the most barbarian-like myth types, like they have heroes who's big power is to go berserk) I'm sure I could find fairly lawful ones. At the least, more lawful than 'take down the government' monks.




Basically, the game's basis for alignment restriction is a little arbitrary, although I agree with alignment restrictions for prestige classes.

*Nods*

Hellknights are lawful, that's one that makes sense. Ditto most others on specific organizations- Going in to the 'monks belonging to a monastery,' thing, a monk prestige class or archetype may put them in a specific monastery or type of monastery, which does fit the alignment more.


Any that requires sacrifice of intelligent beings, the evil requirement makes sense.

Any that involves working with celestials, good.

And so on. Prestige classes are normally much more narrow.

[Sliver]

Monks are tied to Lawful so that they are a bit harder to refluff. The idea that Chaotic = Lack of self discipline confuses me a lot. Being Chaotic means that you believe in personal freedom, it doesn't mean that you suffer from ADHD. A bard needs to practice his skills intensely to get good, he doesn't just pick up a lute and whacks it until music comes out. Wandering minstrels were also scribes and an information network of their own, passing events in the forms of songs that were usually written by others. Those skills require discipline, but they don't force a traveling bard out of a chaotic alignment. (Not to mention that bards shouldn't be forced to have chaotic alignment in the first place)


Most of them, but Lawful Good is pretty central to the concept of Paladins.

(I mean some people might argue that that concept is silly and should be expanded, but the basic idea of "you must follow the narrow path of righteousness" would be weakened or at least altered by that.)

You know that Paladins of Freedom/Slaughter/Tyranny exist, right? And there are also Crusaders...

[Sayt]

Which was pretty lazy of them.

Cleric alignment restriction makes sense. Obviously, your god cares about how you act. Ditto anything else that draws magic or powers *from* something that may have an ethical stance.

Even Paladin, to an extent- "This is a class made for followers of Lawful-and-Good gods." Though a bit of wiggle room would've made sense, a LN or NG seem like they'd both work, but the reasoning is fairly sound.

IMO Monk and Barbarian alignment restrictions are worth tossing out. They're about how you train and what you fight, not what you believe in.

This.
IMHO, Monks Gaining their power from Discipline and Law is a sufficient but not necessary explanation. Give someone moderately creative an hour or two (Timeframe is a guess) and they could come up with a justification for a class exactly like the monk but with a wildly chaotic bent. They could strike many times because they are wildhearted and energetic, spells do not affect them because they choose not to be affected, they do not age because they see the flow of time as more of a suggestion. It doesn't help that law and chaos are often murkier than Good and Evil. Is obedience to a law that manumits slaves Lawful or Chaotic? Obedience to laws has the qualia of Lawfulness, the freeing of slaves has the qualia of Chaos.

On the other hand, the alignment restrictions on Clerics or Paladins are a 'necessary' explanation. Paladins are empowered to dispense healing, and strike down creatures which threaten harm, and given abilities to assist them in this. The requirement for them to be Good makes sense, but I'd certainly be scratching my head if the Paladin's ruleset required me to be evil to use them (Not that there couldn't be, but I suspect they would be convoluted and contrived). ((I always liked the descriptivist explanation of a Paladin's power: Because they are good, not in exchange for being good.))

That said 3.5's and Pathfinder's Monks have a strong touchstone in Buddhist teachings, and especially the Zen Buddhist teachings of the Shaolin temple, (Or at least the sense of them) which possess the qualia of Law as defined by the Alignment system. But that is not the only plausible explanation, and it doesn't mesh with other potential touchstones such as, for example, Sun Wukong the monkey king.

[Florian]

Which was pretty lazy of them.

Cleric alignment restriction makes sense. Obviously, your god cares about how you act. Ditto anything else that draws magic or powers *from* something that may have an ethical stance.

Even Paladin, to an extent- "This is a class made for followers of Lawful-and-Good gods." Though a bit of wiggle room would've made sense, a LN or NG seem like they'd both work, but the reasoning is fairly sound.

IMO Monk and Barbarian alignment restrictions are worth tossing out. They're about how you train and what you fight, not what you believe in.

I wonder where and how you got gods mixed up with the Paladin concept? That´s a non-core assumption that isn´t really well supported beyond some Dragon articles and the FR setting.

As AnimeTheCat pointed out, this is system-based but can be affected by setting if need be.

[AnimeTheCat]

So, I've done a little bit of research so that I can be more informed for the discussion.

First:

But that is not the only plausible explanation, and it doesn't mesh with other potential touchstones such as, for example, Sun Wukong the monkey king.

Sun Wukong was not in any shape form or fashion a monk in D&D terms. He did not train at a monastery, he did not seek personal enlightenment, he was not seeking personal perfection, in fact he was only focused on using his staff which the story says he would shrink down to the size of a needle and put behind his ear when not using it. On top of that, he wore a chain shirt. In the legend. Right there. Sun Wukong is not a monk in D&D terms, he's a fighter, as evident by the extremely vast knowledge of weapon arts and combat in general that you see more commonly among fighter/generals/knights and less among Monks and those following monastic traditions.

Second:

Barbarians being non-lawful is an issue because no one else from tribal societies is required to be chaotic, so except for the super-powered anger (which is actually remarkably controlled), their restrictions make no sense either. Now this can make sense in a given setting, but there's no reason it has too, in terms of character abilities.

There is a reason.



Civilized - marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other.
polite, reasonable, and respectful.
pleasant and comfortable

Civilization - the condition that exists when people have developed effective ways of organizing a society and care about art, science, etc.
a particular well-organized and developed society
a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically: the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained

It is stated specifically that those tribal areas that Barbarians come from are UNcivilized meaning that they don't have laws, or rules about how to behave with each other. Regardless of whether they can control their rage, they shouldn't act like a pretty pretty princess because that's not how they've been characterized. This is proven in the fact that they are illiterate and have to buy the ability to read and write!

Third:

I think it's because the 'wandering minstrel' was the archetype in mind.... overlooking that you could have a king's personal bard too.

The only restriction is that you can't be lawful... you don't have to be chaotic... Why can't I be a neutral bard of a king?

Lastly:

Monks are tied to Lawful so that they are a bit harder to refluff. The idea that Chaotic = Lack of self discipline confuses me a lot. Being Chaotic means that you believe in personal freedom, it doesn't mean that you suffer from ADHD.

Chaotic does not equal a lack of self discipline. It has nothing to do with that directly. As many have pointed out, a barbarian can end his rage at will, thereby having an extreme amount of self-discipline. Chaotic means that you believe in personal freedom, meaning you don't feel bound by the rules of society. That is not the way monks are brought up in temples. their daily lives are very structured and they follow those directives to at T. That's how they train and derive their strength. If a bard doesn't like something, he just does it his own way. There's no sort of specific directive that bards live by.

Let me end with this though. I'm not responding to anyone in a personal or particularly aggressive way. If I come across that way I sincerely apologize. In my honest opinion, any of the above methods for dealing with the restriction are great and seem like they would work well. I just don't have a problem with the alignment restriction so I never seem to have the need or desire to change it or do away with it.

[Wardog]

Civilized -
polite, reasonable, and respectful.
pleasant and comfortable

As a counter-point:

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

More seriously, the idea that all barbarian tribes (or at least, all barbarian tribespeople with the 'barbarian' class) don't have any rules or laws about how to behave towards each other looks to me like setting-specific fluff, rather than something inherent in the concept.

(And its not as if there can only be a binary choice between being a raging barbarian with no care or concept for laws or rules of conduct, and being a 'pretty pretty princess'. Also, I'm suddenly envisaging the character concept of a pretty pretty princess - with the 'barbarian' class).

In fact, I think in older versions of D&D, when the barbarian was first introduced, it couldn't be Chaotic unless it was Chaotic Good - because it was fluffed as requiring a code of honour or tribal law, and CG was assumed to be the only way you could have that while being Chaotic.

[CharonsHelper]

It mostly comes down to "lawful" in D&D not actually having much to do with specific laws. After all, a paladin doesn't have to uphold the legal system of devils.

It'd probably be better described as "order" or "discipline" which are more personal and would make it fit a monk rather more obviously.

[CharonsHelper]

Sun Wukong was not in any shape form or fashion a monk in D&D terms. He did not train at a monastery, he did not seek personal enlightenment, he was not seeking personal perfection, in fact he was only focused on using his staff which the story says he would shrink down to the size of a needle and put behind his ear when not using it. On top of that, he wore a chain shirt. In the legend. Right there. Sun Wukong is not a monk in D&D terms, he's a fighter, as evident by the extremely vast knowledge of weapon arts and combat in general that you see more commonly among fighter/generals/knights and less among Monks and those following monastic traditions.

If you can use Pathfinder classes, Su Wukong would fit pretty well as a Brawler. Martial Flexibility giving him just whatever combat knowledge he needs at the time certainly fits pretty well.

[AnimeTheCat]

More seriously, the idea that all barbarian tribes (or at least, all barbarian tribespeople with the 'barbarian' class) don't have any rules or laws about how to behave towards each other looks to me like setting-specific fluff, rather than something inherent in the concept.

(And its not as if there can only be a binary choice between being a raging barbarian with no care or concept for laws or rules of conduct, and being a 'pretty pretty princess'. Also, I'm suddenly envisaging the character concept of a pretty pretty princess - with the 'barbarian' class).

In fact, I think in older versions of D&D, when the barbarian was first introduced, it couldn't be Chaotic unless it was Chaotic Good - because it was fluffed as requiring a code of honour or tribal law, and CG was assumed to be the only way you could have that while being Chaotic.

So, I've tried to keep it specific to the class because it would not be unheard of for the tribes to be governed by an elder or a seer (druid, maybe a shaman) but the barbarian class is like the "young bucks" of the tribe and they are the unruly crazy fighters. Maybe the tribe has fighters too. And maybe even bards (skalds?). The way I see it, Raging is unleashing your inner anger, destructiveness, passion, etc. in to a focused, fearful assault. The tribe itself may have lose rules or guidelines they follow or they may have enough respect for their elder to listen when he/she speaks, but I was trying to get at the fact that the barbarian class may not abide by those guidelines as much. Think about vikings. The historical Berserkers would ravage and kill even their own kin if they got in the way. But not every person in the clan or band was a berserker. Not every tribe will be 100% barbarians.

[Sliver]

Lastly:


Chaotic does not equal a lack of self discipline. It has nothing to do with that directly. As many have pointed out, a barbarian can end his rage at will, thereby having an extreme amount of self-discipline. Chaotic means that you believe in personal freedom, meaning you don't feel bound by the rules of society. That is not the way monks are brought up in temples. their daily lives are very structured and they follow those directives to at T. That's how they train and derive their strength. If a bard doesn't like something, he just does it his own way. There's no sort of specific directive that bards live by.

Yes, I know that chaotic doesn't mean that you lack self discipline or that you suffer from ADHD, and that it's actually about personal freedom. That's what I said.

Yes, the monk you are presenting is the Lawful kind, but the class itself shouldn't be tied to this specific concept. A person who travels the land, learning martial arts while meditating under waterfalls and seeking balance between mind and body should fit under the Monk class just as well as your, or the creators', concept of monk, but this concept shouldn't be forced to be Lawful just because the creators of the class didn't think of other possibilities. That's the point of refluffing. Tying the class to Law means that other ideas are harder to implement for players without modifying the class, or playing other classes that wouldn't fit quite as well with what they are trying to do.

[BWR]

A Monk-Barbarian would be formidable on the battlefield, but doesn't make a great deal of thematic sense.


Hida Nichie begs to differ. (http://www.patriotgames.ltd.uk/store/product/3222/Hida-Nichie-Xp/)

[Trunamer]

I swear, I'll never get tired of these old arguments. :smallbiggrin:

Someone points out an inconsistency with alignment restrictions in a still-fairly-traditionalist edition, and some fans agree. Other fans insist there's totally good reasons for the legacy quirk, despite D&D clearly going the way of rules-less alignment.

Good times, good times!

[AnimeTheCat]

That's the point of refluffing. Tying the class to Law means that other ideas are harder to implement for players without modifying the class, or playing other classes that wouldn't fit quite as well with what they are trying to do.

I've never once said that refluffing was bad. I've never once said that I was against it. This whole time all I've been saying is that the alignment restriction is logical. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was for something cool like a (Spirit Lion Totem) barbarian monk with two weapon fighting and got 3 attacks on a charge, I would say go for it because that sounds badass. All I've said is that I've never particularly found a need to refluff anything because we just play the game that's printed in the book, and if what we want to do doesn't work within the rules we improvise. I've been trying to keep my personal opinion out of the original post and keep an objective view because it is my personal opinion that monks should be able to be anything but chaotic. There should be another martial arts style character that is neutral to chaotic but won't be tied to monasteries. The two would be like antipodes and it would provide some cool flavoring without losing the picture of the monk I have in my head. That's just what I would do if I really thought there were a problem.

[ZeroiaSD]

It mostly comes down to "lawful" in D&D not actually having much to do with specific laws. After all, a paladin doesn't have to uphold the legal system of devils.

It'd probably be better described as "order" or "discipline" which are more personal and would make it fit a monk rather more obviously.

Isn't that more personality type than alignment then?

And that goes against what alignment is supposed to be. I mean, aligning with a view is right in the name.




It is stated specifically that those tribal areas that Barbarians come from are UNcivilized meaning that they don't have laws, or rules about how to behave with each other. Regardless of whether they can control their rage, they shouldn't act like a pretty pretty princess because that's not how they've been characterized. This is proven in the fact that they are illiterate and have to buy the ability to read and write!

And if someone wants to portray a mythic figure who uses rages to fight for civilization, as actually happened in myth?



Third:

The only restriction is that you can't be lawful... you don't have to be chaotic... Why can't I be a neutral bard of a king?

If you're very loyal to a lawful king and always follow the rules when being bardy, and write propaganda songs supporting the lawful king, why can't you be lawful?

[Sliver]

I've never once said that refluffing was bad. I've never once said that I was against it.

I never said that you did. I simply don't agree that just because something is justified and logical, it makes it good. I don't believe that crunch should be tied with fluff, and just because the writers thought about one way for monks to be played, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to restrict and limit other ideas for the crunch.

I don't see why a free-spirited martial artist that seeks enlightenment shouldn't be a chaotic-aligned monk. It's fine for you if you don't want your monks to be chaotic, but it doesn't mean that it's good restricting others to your ideas, is it?

I also don't think that it matters if I can think of a concept that works or not. Someone else would have an idea that best works with the monk. Not everybody is comfortable with changing crunch, but convincing your DM to refluff is usually easier.

[Bakkan]

A person who travels the land, learning martial arts while meditating under waterfalls and seeking balance between mind and body should fit under the Monk class just as well as your, or the creators', concept of monk....

Could you elaborate on why you think this character concept should fit under the Monk class?

Clearly not every character concept needs to be able to be realized by every class, since no-one will argue that the "master of magic" concept should fit under the Fighter class. Therefore, any statement that a certain concept should fit into a certain class needs justification.

In your case, it seems that you consider a study of martial arts and/or seeking balance or perfection of mind and body to be the essential qualities of the Monk class, and a character concept involving these ideas should fit into the class.

Is this accurate? If so, then you are claiming that being Lawful is not an essential quality of the Monk class and therefore being Lawful shouldn't be necessary for a character concept to fit the Monk class.

However, this argument is begging the question, since there's nothing in the text to suggest that Lawfulness is less important to the Monk class than martial arts or personal perfection.

[Sliver]

I'm not claiming that every class should be able to fit every concept. But as I said, I believe that crunch and fluff should be separate, and alignment restrictions that are derived from the fluff the writers attached to the crunch are needlessly limiting.

Crunch-wise, there is only one feature that ties the Lawful alignment to the crunch, Ki Strike. So yes, I consider it minor compared to anything else the class is supposed to represent.

I don't think that the concept I suggested and the monk class are comparable to the concept of "master of magic" and the fighter class. The concept I suggested has direct crunch support in the monk class, while there is little that a fighter could offer to the "master of magic" concept. Please, at least try to have a relevant comparison, unless you aren't understanding the point I'm trying to make.

[Bakkan]

The "master of magic" with Fighther example was simply to establish what you stated above, that not every character concept needs to fit into every class.

Once that has been established, the statement "this character concept should fit under this class" requires justification. That justification is usually obtained either by showing that the character concept includes all the essential elements of the class or by explicit statement given in the text.

You claim that Lawfulness is not an essential element of the Monk class. That is not justified in the text, as the requirement for being Lawful is as much rules text as anything else.

[Sliver]

You claim that Lawfulness is not an essential element of the Monk class. That is not justified in the text, as the requirement for being Lawful is as much rules text as anything else.

No, I claim that it shouldn't be part of the class, not that it isn't. It's a restriction that comes from a fluff perspective, and I don't agree with fluff based restrictions, so I'm saying that this is a bad restriction and the class would be better off (comparatively, it's still a monk) without it, but you pretend as if I'm not aware that it's a restriction nonetheless. Since you are intent on pretending that I'm saying things that I am not, and then claiming them to be wrong without actually adding anything relevant to what I am actually saying, this will be my last post in response to you.

[Bakkan]

I am sorry that my post did not completely communicate what I was trying to convey. In fact, your last post allows me to (hopefully) clarify my meaning.


No, I claim that it shouldn't be part of the class, not that it isn't. It's a restriction that comes from a fluff perspective, and I don't agree with fluff based restrictions, so I'm saying that this is a bad restriction and the class would be better off (comparatively, it's still a monk) without it, but you pretend as if I'm not aware that it's a restriction nonetheless. Since you are intent on pretending that I'm saying things that I am not, and then claiming them to be wrong without actually adding anything relevant to what I am actually saying, this will be my last post in response to you.

The underlined section is the part that I would like some elaboration on. What defines a monk in general, since the definition is not based in the rules of the game?

[Seppo87]

What defines a monk in general, since the definition is not based in the rules of the game?
imho
Lives an ascetic lifestyle, seeks inner peace, likes to meditate, knows martial arts, fights unarmed, wears no armor, is very agile, his body can surpass more and more natural limitations while he gets closer to enlightment.

[Trunamer]

The underlined section is the part that I would like some elaboration on. What defines a monk in general, since the definition is not based in the rules of the game?
I believe the underlined bit is Sliver's side-comment about the monk's power level, rather than its conceptual definition.

[AnimeTheCat]

Hmm... This discussion has gotten me brainstorming about why I feel that the quintessential "Monk" has to be at a minimum neutral and not chaotic. I think this is because of my personal upbringing and how I view monks. I see them as both the monastic clergymen (follows strict rules, has their lives planned out for them, must follow tenants even while abroad, etc.) and the stylized monk of the Asian/Indian/"Eastern" cultures (traditionally following similar guidelines, seeking enlightenment, many of the same reasons I feel the monastic clergy are lawful). This makes me feel that the word "Monk" goes along with a lawful style of living. Respectful of other nation's laws, and functioning within them while still following their own code of conduct and rules of life. Now, many people have brought up very good points of these very people that I just said were always lawful causing uprisings and change and operating without regard to a nation's laws. Here's how I see those things, those are outliers but they are still a part of the same wholesome archetype that is "Monk". Then there are also the martial artists who specialize in unarmed combat that are not trained in a monastery but have no less resiliency or physical/mental prowess than the monastically trained monks. So I have two predicaments in my thought process. Here's what I've come up with as a fix that I would enjoy putting in my games if there was ever a time where someone wanted to play a chaotic "Monk" in my game.

I started with the monk base class and kept what I felt was truly tied to the flavor of "Monk". Here's what I kept:

Unarmed Strike
Evasion
Slow Fall
Improved Evasion
Good Saves
Unarmed Damage Progression
Unarmored AC Bonus
Unarmored Speed Bonus


Admittedly that is a very short list, but those are the things that I felt that the creators did "right" for a general style monk.

Then I decided to figure out what I felt made a "chaotic" monk still eligible for personal enlightenment since, even though I didn't see it this way originally, someone with turmoil in their mind may still be able to find that calm center from which they draw their power is a "frenzy" so to speak. I decided that what I felt separated a monastic/lawful monk from a chaotic monk was the concept of where they draw their power. I think that the monastic monk should draw it's power from wisdom, but the chaotic monk should draw it's power from charisma as I felt that the chaotic monk was more seeking to make a change and correct the injustices in the world. So now I have two paths for the monk to go down starting at first level, similar to the psion disciplines. You have the lawful path monk and the chaotic path monk. A neutral character can select either but if you are on an end of that spectrum, you must select the one that goes with your alignment. Once this is selected you can't change it. If you ever swing to the opposite end of the spectrum you lose that path's powers, but you don't gain the new path's powers until you perform that path's "atonement" quest or have the atonement spell cast on you. Here's what I came up with for the two classes.


My idea for this path was to make it less combat centric and more skills focused.

- Grant (6+wis)x4 at first level and 6+wis per level; A monk draws her knowledge not based on her personal intelligence, but on the connections she can draw to other ideas and concepts through the rigorous search for enlightenment.
- Add Decipher Script, Gather Information, Heal, all Knowledge skills taken individually, Search, Speak Language, and Use Magic Device as class skills.
- Remove Flurry of Blows as a class feature, Replace with 'Monastic Wisdom'.
- Remove Greater Flurry, replace with "Foresight"
- Remove Tongue of the Sun and Moon, replace with "Enlightened Mind"

Monastic Wisdom* - A monk of first level may add her wisdom bonus, up to her monk class level, to any skill that has charisma or intelligence as its key attribute as long as she has at least one skill point invested in the skill. This reflects the Monk's ability to draw logical connections from different sources of information as well as the great libraries of ancient texts that monasteries are known for.

Foresight* - A monk who has reached this level of training gains new insight into combat. She gains the dodge feat, except she may add her wisdom bonus as a dodge bonus to AC against one enemy instead of just a +1 dodge bonus normally granted by the dodge feat.

Enlightened Mind* - A Lawful Path monk is immune to mind control and thought detection. She has reached such a point in her training that her mind is beyond mundane processing.



The idea for the Chaotic Path was to be more combat oriented for those who find their center amid the rush of battle. Typically these are monks who have chosen to forego the monastic traditions to rally to some cause, be it righteous or just, that goes against the traditions of the temple or state. They can be visionaries or revolutionaries, or perhaps they just didn't care for the stifling air of the monasteries.

- Grant full base attack progression, as a fighter.
- Add Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Intimidate, and Sleight of Hand as class skills.
- Change the AC bonus from granting the Wisdom modifier to adding the Charisma modifier. This represents a chaotic monk's ability to force his virtues upon his enemy and plant even the smallest seed of doubt in their minds about why it is that they are trying to harm him.
- Change Flurry of blows to grant "Improved Flurry of Blows" at 6th level and "Greater Flurry of blows" at 11th level. Change the progression table to look like this:


1st
-1/-1


6th
+4/+4/-1/-1


11th
+9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1


- Remove Still Mind, replace with Unchangeable Mind*
- Remove Wholeness of Body, replace with Driving Spirit*
- Rename Diamond Body to Chaotic Metabolism
- Change the number of uses of Abundant Step to equal the charisma modifier of the Chaotic Path Monk
- Rename Diamond Soul to Resistance of Freedom. The calculation remains the same.

Improved/Greater Flurry of Blows - Improved flurry add an additional attack, and greater adds yet another, as if the user had improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting, however the chaotic path monk may also take Two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting allowing for a total of 10 attacks, 7 from flurry and 3 from two weapon fighting. The penalties of flurry of blows and two weapon fighting stack with each other

Unreadable Mind* - A Chaotic Path monk is far less susceptible to mind effecting effects. Because of his calling to his ideas and concepts enemies find it harder to take control of him or read his thoughts. He gets his charisma modifier as a bonus to any saves against mind affecting effects, and abilities (Including but not limited to Ex and Su).

Driving Spirit* - a chaotic path monk can use his devotion to his cause to rally those around him that support his cause. He can use an immediate action to create a spiritual aura effecting those who support his ideas with a radius equal to his monk level x 10 ft. This aura provides a bonus equal to his charisma modifier to his allies on all weapon attack and damage rolls, saves, and skill checks. This ability can last for a number of rounds per day equal to his monk level x his charisma modifier. This aura can never effect a lawful ally as the revolutionist lifestyle does not fall in line with law.


With both paths you have to achieve some kind of quest to acquire the abilities of the class. This should really just be DM discretion but when I repost this in the homebrew section I may add in some thoughts for how to build the quests. Some things don't make sense to lose, like the flurry progression, or the wisdom to certain skills. That's not something supernatural or granted to you so you can't lose it. But things like the aura that aren't compatible shouldn't carry over. Both classes end in enlightenment, but they go about it different ways, just like there are different ways to do everything. What do you guys thing for this a both a fix to monk as well as a fix to the alignment restriction? It keeps pretty good flavor without binding anyone down since neutral is "neutral ground" (see what I did there? :smallbiggrin: )

[Luccan]

What do you guys thing for this a both a fix to monk as well as a fix to the alignment restriction? It keeps pretty good flavor without binding anyone down since neutral is "neutral ground" (see what I did there? :smallbiggrin: )

I like what you did there. I think most people would just make a Monk's Ki Strike tie into Chaos, but I also like the idea of doing something similar to the Cleric and different types of Paladins, where you have different abilities tied into the alignment you draw your power from. I also like that you essentially created a skill Monk and a combat Monk.

[Honest Tiefling]

I like what you did there. I think most people would just make a Monk's Ki Strike tie into Chaos, but I also like the idea of doing something similar to the Cleric and different types of Paladins, where you have different abilities tied into the alignment you draw your power from. I also like that you essentially created a skill Monk and a combat Monk.

I like this. Make the abilities do different things without changing the chassis. Through I also suggest some alignment free aspects, because not every cause can be defined purely by alignment.

I also wouldn't make the chaos monk rely on charisma. In my opinion, a charismatic brawler is an interesting idea, but it's not a 'monk' as this game defines. There's nothing saying that chaotic people can't be contemplative or try to reach a personalized enlightenment.

[Wardog]

imho
Lives an ascetic lifestyle, seeks inner peace, likes to meditate, knows martial arts, fights unarmed, wears no armor, is very agile, his body can surpass more and more natural limitations while he gets closer to enlightment.

Most of that could be covered by a fighter with some alternative class features, and role-played as an ascetic seeker of enlightenment.

Personally, I think a 'Monk' class should have greater emphasis on the spiritual/religious/magical aspects of monkhood. (And preferably not just via a specific set of abilities that all monks get at the same level. They should chose a selection from a pool of abilities and/or spells. Spontaneously casting spells chosen from the Paladin spell list could be interesting and thematic).

[DevotedPacifist]

Why does it seem that the monk must be focused on lawful endeavors as reflected in it's alignment restriction and some of it's powers.

Surely a monk searching spiritually and physically for freedom could make sense, as well as a monk searching to be non-lethal and kind or a monk seeking to be able to harm while keeping up a façade or even more interestingly a monk trying to escape the pre-conceived notions of law, chaos, good, and evil and trying to elevate themselves beyond such concepts.

Would it not make more sense to leave the alignment and alignment specific powers open or have several monk schools which have different focuses that are alignment specific.

I would say that a monk's alignment restriction is because they are monks, not because they are martial artist.

That is why in pathfinder the Martial Artist archetype and the Brawler class does not have those restrictions.

[DevotedPacifist]

Most of that could be covered by a fighter with some alternative class features, and role-played as an ascetic seeker of enlightenment.

Personally, I think a 'Monk' class should have greater emphasis on the spiritual/religious/magical aspects of monkhood. (And preferably not just via a specific set of abilities that all monks get at the same level. They should chose a selection from a pool of abilities and/or spells. Spontaneously casting spells chosen from the Paladin spell list could be interesting and thematic).

The monks they are based on however do not have those abilities.

They are not seeking power from outside themselves but instead they gain power from within.

Getting power from an outside source would go against everything the monk stands for.

[Amechra]

Please, everyone, it's obvious you want the Hao-Han (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5448.msg78308#msg78308).

You know, the other official class based off wuxia tropes that got published by WotC?

[DevotedPacifist]

Hmm... This discussion has gotten me brainstorming about why I feel that the quintessential "Monk" has to be at a minimum neutral and not chaotic. I think this is because of my personal upbringing and how I view monks. I see them as both the Christian monastic clergymen (follows strict rules, has their lives planned out for them, must follow tenants even while abroad, etc.) and the shaolin style monks of the Asian/Indian/"Eastern" cultures (traditionally following similar guidelines, seeking enlightenment, many of the same reasons I feel the Christian monastic clergy are lawful). This makes me feel that the word "Monk" goes along with a lawful style of living. Respectful of other nation's laws, and functioning within them while still following their own code of conduct and rules of life. Now, many people have brought up very good points of these very people that I just said were always lawful causing uprisings and change and operating without regard to a nation's laws. Here's how I see those things, those are outliers but they are still a part of the same wholesome archetype that is "Monk". Then there are also the martial artists who specialize in unarmed combat that are not trained in a monastery but have no less resiliency or physical/mental prowess than the monastically trained monks. So I have two predicaments in my thought process. Here's what I've come up with as a fix that I would enjoy putting in my games if there was ever a time where someone wanted to play a chaotic "Monk" in my game.

I started with the monk base class and kept what I felt was truly tied to the flavor of "Monk". Here's what I kept:

Unarmed Strike
Evasion
Slow Fall
Improved Evasion
Good Saves
Unarmed Damage Progression
Unarmored AC Bonus
Unarmored Speed Bonus


Admittedly that is a very short list, but those are the things that I felt that the creators did "right" for a general style monk.

Then I decided to figure out what I felt made a "chaotic" monk still eligible for personal enlightenment since, even though I didn't see it this way originally, someone with turmoil in their mind may still be able to find that calm center from which they draw their power is a "frenzy" so to speak. I decided that what I felt separated a monastic/lawful monk from a chaotic monk was the concept of where they draw their power. I think that the monastic monk should draw it's power from wisdom, but the chaotic monk should draw it's power from charisma as I felt that the chaotic monk was more seeking to make a change and correct the injustices in the world. So now I have two paths for the monk to go down starting at first level, similar to the psion disciplines. You have the lawful path monk and the chaotic path monk. A neutral character can select either but if you are on an end of that spectrum, you must select the one that goes with your alignment. Once this is selected you can't change it. If you ever swing to the opposite end of the spectrum you lose that path's powers, but you don't gain the new path's powers until you perform that path's "atonement" quest or have the atonement spell cast on you. Here's what I came up with for the two classes.


My idea for this path was to make it less combat centric and more skills focused.

- Grant (6+wis)x4 at first level and 6+wis per level; A monk draws her knowledge not based on her personal intelligence, but on the connections she can draw to other ideas and concepts through the rigorous search for enlightenment.
- Add Decipher Script, Gather Information, Heal, all Knowledge skills taken individually, Search, Speak Language, and Use Magic Device as class skills.
- Remove Flurry of Blows as a class feature, Replace with 'Monastic Wisdom'.
- Remove Greater Flurry, replace with "Foresight"
- Remove Tongue of the Sun and Moon, replace with "Enlightened Mind"

Monastic Wisdom* - A monk of first level may add her wisdom bonus, up to her monk class level, to any skill that has charisma or intelligence as its key attribute as long as she has at least one skill point invested in the skill. This reflects the Monk's ability to draw logical connections from different sources of information as well as the great libraries of ancient texts that monasteries are known for.

Foresight* - A monk who has reached this level of training gains new insight into combat. She gains the dodge feat, except she may add her wisdom bonus as a dodge bonus to AC against one enemy instead of just a +1 dodge bonus normally granted by the dodge feat.

Enlightened Mind* - A Lawful Path monk is immune to mind control and thought detection. She has reached such a point in her training that her mind is beyond mundane processing.



The idea for the Chaotic Path was to be more combat oriented for those who find their center amid the rush of battle. Typically these are monks who have chosen to forego the monastic traditions to rally to some cause, be it righteous or just, that goes against the traditions of the temple or state. They can be visionaries or revolutionaries, or perhaps they just didn't care for the stifling air of the monasteries.

- Grant full base attack progression, as a fighter.
- Add Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Intimidate, and Sleight of Hand as class skills.
- Change the AC bonus from granting the Wisdom modifier to adding the Charisma modifier. This represents a chaotic monk's ability to force his virtues upon his enemy and plant even the smallest seed of doubt in their minds about why it is that they are trying to harm him.
- Change Flurry of blows to grant "Improved Flurry of Blows" at 6th level and "Greater Flurry of blows" at 11th level. Change the progression table to look like this:


1st
-1/-1


6th
+4/+4/-1/-1


11th
+9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1


- Remove Still Mind, replace with Unchangeable Mind*
- Remove Wholeness of Body, replace with Driving Spirit*
- Rename Diamond Body to Chaotic Metabolism
- Change the number of uses of Abundant Step to equal the charisma modifier of the Chaotic Path Monk
- Rename Diamond Soul to Resistance of Freedom. The calculation remains the same.

Improved/Greater Flurry of Blows - Improved flurry add an additional attack, and greater adds yet another, as if the user had improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting, however the chaotic path monk may also take Two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting allowing for a total of 10 attacks, 7 from flurry and 3 from two weapon fighting. The penalties of flurry of blows and two weapon fighting stack with each other

Unreadable Mind* - A Chaotic Path monk is far less susceptible to mind effecting effects. Because of his calling to his ideas and concepts enemies find it harder to take control of him or read his thoughts. He gets his charisma modifier as a bonus to any saves against mind affecting effects, and abilities (Including but not limited to Ex and Su).

Driving Spirit* - a chaotic path monk can use his devotion to his cause to rally those around him that support his cause. He can use an immediate action to create a spiritual aura effecting those who support his ideas with a radius equal to his monk level x 10 ft. This aura provides a bonus equal to his charisma modifier to his allies on all weapon attack and damage rolls, saves, and skill checks. This ability can last for a number of rounds per day equal to his monk level x his charisma modifier. This aura can never effect a lawful ally as the revolutionist lifestyle does not fall in line with law.


With both paths you have to achieve some kind of quest to acquire the abilities of the class. This should really just be DM discretion but when I repost this in the homebrew section I may add in some thoughts for how to build the quests. Some things don't make sense to lose, like the flurry progression, or the wisdom to certain skills. That's not something supernatural or granted to you so you can't lose it. But things like the aura that aren't compatible shouldn't carry over. Both classes end in enlightenment, but they go about it different ways, just like there are different ways to do everything. What do you guys thing for this a both a fix to monk as well as a fix to the alignment restriction? It keeps pretty good flavor without binding anyone down since neutral is "neutral ground" (see what I did there? :smallbiggrin: )

Sir, it is against forum rules to bring up real religions.

[kellbyb]

Please, everyone, it's obvious you want the Hao-Han (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5448.msg78308#msg78308).

You know, the other official class based off wuxia tropes that got published by WotC?

An excellent example of how we can remove alignment restrictions from classes by simply refluffing them. I wonder if we could do the same thing to the monk?

[Wardog]

The monks they are based on however do not have those abilities.


And I've seen otehr monls in other stories that do have similar powers. All you have to do is make them optional (alternativel class features, or chose your powers from a set of powers so you can either have the standard ones, or something else, or a combination).



They are not seeking power from outside themselves but instead they gain power from within.

Getting power from an outside source would go against everything the monk stands for.

That's just a matter of how the abilities are fluffed. Meditate long enough on the mysteries of the cosmos and of the Way, and you can learn how to perform miracles. Ki = energy/life/spirit, so with enough training and enlightenment you should be able to duplicate the effects of positive energy spells. Etc. (Or whatever other explanation you perfer).

[AnimeTheCat]

Sir, it is against forum rules to bring up real religions.

I apologize if I caused any offense. I edited the post and removed any words that were associated with real religions.

[kellbyb]

I apologize if I caused any offense. I edited the post and removed any words that were associated with real religions.

For what it's worth I don't think anything you said was out of line and our green friend is just trying to use the forum rules to make himself sound important.