Developing monastic orders in a high fantasy world WITHOUT kung fu monks

[Scalenex]

I'm not a big fan of the monk class and neither is anyone in my gaming group. I don't think fighting monks or nuns makes any senses, even in a fantasy world.


A character with the abilities of a 3.5 or 5th edition fighting monk would need three things according to my friend.

1) People who have a strong need to protect themselves
2) People who legal or practical factors limiting weapons and armor available
3) People who have lots of time on their hands to practice.

I figure most monasteries in order to exist at all, would need the support of the local populace. With the support of the local populace, the monks and nuns would probably be allowed to own weapons and armor if they wish, they could train fighters or paladins indoctrinated in their faith instead of half-naked fighting monks.

My friend actually adapted the 3.5 monk to an enslaved group of humans and half-orcs. "Monks" were actually "Freedom Fighters" who secretly learned advanced fighting techniques in secret from their master. The only difference was "must be Lawful" was changed to "must not be Lawful."

As cool as the concept was, no one in my group wanted to play a freedom fighter, but our group was sympathetic them and allied with some NPCs that were in this group.



But in any event, in the real world, without getting into specifics both Western and Eastern religions had remarkable similar monasteries despite all the religious differences.

The commoners and ruling elite alike both sponsored both supported monasteries because they seemed to take comfort in having a class of people whose job it was to contemplate deep things and strive to live exemplary lives of purity. A lot of monks and nuns provided services to the needy, but they didn't always do this and if the goal was simply charity, there are easier ways to set up charitable organizations.

My friends and I were discussing this. The argument was made that in a fantasy world with skulking goblins, rampaging orcs, marauding dragons and all the other monsters and baddies you usually see in a high fantasy world, very few people would want to donate land, money, and resources to a bunch of naval gazers who are likely to be a liability in times of woe.

In game mechanics, my system uses a points buy system rather than classes and levels. So the idea occurred to me that maybe these monasteries could produce monks and nuns who have awesome magical powers but cannot fight their way out of a wet paper bag. In this case they might be useful enough to society for the local unwashed masses to work to protect them and supply them, but without giving them awesome powers, I don't think monasteries would last long in a typical fantasy world full of dangers.

What do you all think?

[SteveLightblade]

I'm not a big fan of the monk class and neither is anyone in my gaming group. I don't think fighting monks or nuns makes any senses, even in a fantasy world.


A character with the abilities of a 3.5 or 5th edition fighting monk would need three things according to my friend.

1) People who have a strong need to protect themselves
2) People who legal or practical factors limiting weapons and armor available
3) People who have lots of time on their hands to practice.

I figure most monasteries in order to exist at all, would need the support of the local populace. With the support of the local populace, the monks and nuns would probably be allowed to own weapons and armor if they wish, they could train fighters or paladins indoctrinated in their faith instead of half-naked fighting monks.

My friend actually adapted the 3.5 monk to an enslaved group of humans and half-orcs. "Monks" were actually "Freedom Fighters" who secretly learned advanced fighting techniques in secret from their master. The only difference was "must be Lawful" was changed to "must not be Lawful."

As cool as the concept was, no one in my group wanted to play a freedom fighter, but our group was sympathetic them and allied with some NPCs that were in this group.



But in any event, in the real world, without getting into specifics both Western and Eastern religions had remarkable similar monasteries despite all the religious differences.

The commoners and ruling elite alike both sponsored both supported monasteries because they seemed to take comfort in having a class of people whose job it was to contemplate deep things and strive to live exemplary lives of purity. A lot of monks and nuns provided services to the needy, but they didn't always do this and if the goal was simply charity, there are easier ways to set up charitable organizations.

My friends and I were discussing this. The argument was made that in a fantasy world with skulking goblins, rampaging orcs, marauding dragons and all the other monsters and baddies you usually see in a high fantasy world, very few people would want to donate land, money, and resources to a bunch of naval gazers who are likely to be a liability in times of woe.

In game mechanics, my system uses a points buy system rather than classes and levels. So the idea occurred to me that maybe these monasteries could produce monks and nuns who have awesome magical powers but cannot fight their way out of a wet paper bag. In this case they might be useful enough to society for the local unwashed masses to work to protect them and supply them, but without giving them awesome powers, I don't think monasteries would last long in a typical fantasy world full of dangers.

What do you all think?

The monk typically has mystic elements tied to it such as Ki (or Chi or Qi depending on how you want to say it). The lack of armor and special weapons are typically tied to this, and in D&D/PF/D&D Adjacent games magic and armor except when divine are often diametrically opposed, and even this exception can get weird. For example, wizards and sorcerers are not proficient in any armor and arcane spells have a chance to be wasted if the caster is wearing armor and the spell has somatic components. In Pathfinder, the ecclesitheurge archetype cannot cast spells if he is wearing armor. If a monk is an unconventional form of gish where his every movement is powered by magic, armor and non monk weapons could be highly hindering to him.

[Scalenex]

The monk typically has mystic elements tied to it such as Ki (or Chi or Qi depending on how you want to say it). The lack of armor and special weapons are typically tied to this, and in D&D/PF/D&D Adjacent games magic and armor except when divine are often diametrically opposed, and even this exception can get weird. For example, wizards and sorcerers are not proficient in any armor and arcane spells have a chance to be wasted if the caster is wearing armor and the spell has somatic components. In Pathfinder, the ecclesitheurge archetype cannot cast spells if he is wearing armor. If a monk is an unconventional form of gish where his every movement is powered by magic, armor and non monk weapons could be highly hindering to him.

Okay, I enjoy a good explanation of metaphysics but my main question is "Would monks and nuns living a cloistered lifestyle still have a social function in a feudal society that is afflicted with monster attacks and the like?"

[VoxRationis]

D&D-style wizards are actually a great fit for Western-style monks, as both are known as indoorsy sorts who spend a lot of time copying books by hand. The sale of manuscripts, spell scrolls, and potions/cocktail ingredients could easily support the monastery. A cloister of wizards would also presumably be a very useful force to be able to call on in the case of monster attack, even without a specific culture of martial readiness.

[Anonymouswizard]

Assuming the society doesn't have another established intellectual cast (e.g. wizarding universities), monastic orders still make sense. They'll focus less on religious knowledge than many examples, and spend more time cataloguing and copying monster lore, they'll still have a purpose.

How separate they are from the priesthood is another consideration. It's entirely possible that the difference between a monk and a priest I whether they're currently trending a temple or copying books in the monastery, and that any monk is presumed to fulfill either role if required (of course in practice they probably don't have to).

The end result is that monks end up looking more like D&D Clerics, Wizards, or in 3.5 Archivists than they do D&D monks. Actually the Archivist is probably the best class to use in this case, they're divine casters who do the entire wizard scholarly thing, and IIRC can get combat bonuses from knowing monster lore.

[brian 333]

I was going to go with loremaster type institutions, but that has already been covered.

A big reason to build and support monasteries in a D&D world is for a purpose everyone thinks castles serve, but never did in real life: to protect the peasants when marauders come.

They are located in difficult to reach places and staffed by a handful of old folks, with a handful of younger students. These folks have less material wealth than typical peasants. The weapons and armor they have are mostly modified farm tools.

Peasants store surplus of anything in the mnnastery for the wise elders to redistribute in time of need.

Elderly and orphans have a place to go when there is no one to care for them, and they are put to use in ways that are within their ability.

Monks keep records and acquire knowledge over generations which might be forgotten. They then become the teachers of the local young.

They train youth not in swords that they will never hold, but in the use of hoes, rakes, and shovels as weapons of last resort, and develop fighting styles that make the most of their limited advantages.

I would have one monastery serve half a dozen villages, and require the 10, 11, and 12 year old children of those villages spend the winter after the harvest until the spring before planting at the monastery working to repair and expand the structure and taking classes in agriculture, defense, and health. Like summer camp but cold. It would also allow the children to meet potential mates outside of their village at an age before they become fixated on their cousins in their own villages.

[LudicSavant]

I don't think fighting monks or nuns makes any senses, even in a fantasy world

That’s strange, given that militant monks are a thing that actually existed in many places throughout world history, as surely as knights and so forth.

[Sapphire Guard]

Monasteries survived despite plenty of risks from Viking raids and the like. Fortified monasteries are not that uncommon. There are plenty of reasons monasteries can be useful from education, recordkeeping, farming, safe walls to hide behind (strong enough walls might persuade raiders to go elsewhere), legal sanctuary, medical assistance and so on.

[Yakk]

Okay, I enjoy a good explanation of metaphysics but my main question is "Would monks and nuns living a cloistered lifestyle still have a social function in a feudal society that is afflicted with monster attacks and the like?"

Monks and Nuns living in a somewhat cloistered lifestyle existed in England while Viking "monsters" attacked.

More seriously, they can provide sinks for excess population that is less brutal than "kill them". Younger kids of nobles, peasants, etc. Put them in marginal land and have them support themselves (they usually did). The cloistered system helps keep the inhabitants in line. Excess resources are turned into reinforcing the cloistered system, instead of having more children.

So, over time, the monastery accumulates excess resources, reinvests it in improving the monastery and the lands that supply it. It continues to take in 2nd heirs of nobles (the alternative is to send them into battle to die, take land from the first heir, take land from someone else, marry them off, etc) in a humane way; and if the 1st heir dies, you can just go grab the backup.

Meanwhile they aren't off having kids and making a rival line of impoverished nobility for your throne.

The same is going to be true of peasants. You have enough farm land to provide for one family, but 5 heirs. You can marry 0-2 off, 1 inherits the land, and you have 1-4 excess kids to deal with. Some end up being recruited to fight and die against monsters, but often you'll have more; those you can send to the monastery to live a not completely horrible life (assuming you can afford the donation).

An alternative might be the cesspit that was the cities, which has negative population growth due to disease. Still, that is also a chance to survive without a plot of farmland. Maybe you can afford to apprentice the kid with a crafter.

[Quizatzhaderac]

I figure most monasteries in order to exist at all, would need the support of the local populace.
....
The commoners and ruling elite alike both sponsored both supported monasteries
.....
a bunch of naval gazers who are likely to be a liability in times of woe.

Are you aware that monks (as a rule) work a lot, often doing eminently practical things?

A typical monastery is self sufficient, or maybe even financially supports it's religious organization.

A typical, historical monk is functionally a farmer that prays more, is celibate, and has a different family structure.

1) People who have a strong need to protect themselves
2) People who legal or practical factors limiting weapons and armor available

Armor is absolutely something you should bring to any pre-modern fight, as well as a purpose built weapon.

But that's the wrong question for monks, because they'd never have foreknowledge that they'd be in a fight. You can see state armies coming, but there's nothing you can do unless you're also a state army. Barbarians and bandits attacked by raid. Person to person conflicts were either spur of the moment, sneak attacks, or duels with rules.

One might have time to grab a weapon, but armor comes in multiple pieces, many of them more time consuming to don than normal clothes.

Bestial monsters could be handled by society in basically any way your want, but I'd expect the monks to be at least as prepared and organized as the peasantry.

So the idea occurred to me that maybe these monasteries could produce monks and nuns who have awesome magical powers but cannot fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Maybe there's a magical line of civilization and wilderness that monks maintain, but absolutely can't expand easily. This line protects most people most of the time, but has gaps between towns, in mountains, et certa.

I don't think monasteries would last long in a typical fantasy world full of dangers.

Only if the world is so bad that society can't afford celibate people. But you're world might not have the historical 75% child mortality, so it can probably afford a few monks.

[Scalenex]

That’s strange, given that militant monks are a thing that actually existed in many places throughout world history, as surely as knights and so forth.

I guess I didn't phrase it very well. I do think holy orders would sponsor warriors to defend their interests but I don't think think they would forgo traditional arms and armor and train an insane amount in order to be almost as effective unarmed as a fighter is armed.

[brian 333]

I guess I didn't phrase it very well. I do think holy orders would sponsor warriors to defend their interests but I don't think think they would forgo traditional arms and armor and train an insane amount in order to be almost as effective unarmed as a fighter is armed.

And yet there are many reasons to do exactly that:

1. To learn and develop new and better fighting styles in the same way wizards research new and better spells, and for the same reasons.

2. To develop fighting styles most effective against specific enemies and monsters.

3. To better train new fighters and the teachers who go out to open schools for fighters.

4. To have the means at hand to train and lead otherwise untrained peasants in a time of emergency, and to have them be more than cannon fodder even though none of them can afford even basic martial arms and armor.

5. To have a living library of martial knowledge which survives extended periods of peace.

6. To have the means to defend the monastery and potentially the civilians who support it without threatening the power of the ruling class. (This was why many Eastern monasteries developed unarmed combat, as many rulers forbade posession of martial gear by peasants.)

More reasons can be given, but perhaps the examples from real life mostly show that multiple factors played into the development of militant monastic traditions. Indeed, in many cases the militant sects were neighbors with passive sects which were no doubt influenced by the same external factors but arrived at the opposite answer.

[Scalenex]

So part of the reason I wanted to do this, is the way I'm developing my fictional religions. I do not like the idea of giving every race, culture, or nation their own separate gods. The entire world has the same nine gods/goddesses. They just have different ideas on what the "correct" way to worship these nine deities.

D&D-style wizards are actually a great fit for Western-style monks, as both are known as indoorsy sorts who spend a lot of time copying books by hand. The sale of manuscripts, spell scrolls, and potions/cocktail ingredients could easily support the monastery. A cloister of wizards would also presumably be a very useful force to be able to call on in the case of monster attack, even without a specific culture of martial readiness.

I hadn't thought of wizard societies as being analogous to monks. I do have a few organizations in my world that fit this bill but I never made the connection to real world monks.

In order of military readiness: I have all purpose universities, magic schools, and feudal covens (a circle of wizards rules a parcel of land in place of a hereditary duke or count). They are just all secular.

Assuming the society doesn't have another established intellectual cast (e.g. wizarding universities), monastic orders still make sense. They'll focus less on religious knowledge than many examples, and spend more time cataloguing and copying monster lore, they'll still have a purpose.

How separate they are from the priesthood is another consideration. It's entirely possible that the difference between a monk and a priest I whether they're currently trending a temple or copying books in the monastery, and that any monk is presumed to fulfill either role if required (of course in practice they probably don't have to).

The end result is that monks end up looking more like D&D Clerics, Wizards, or in 3.5 Archivists than they do D&D monks. Actually the Archivist is probably the best class to use in this case, they're divine casters who do the entire wizard scholarly thing, and IIRC can get combat bonuses from knowing monster lore.

A monastery as a place of learning is good basis for developing a monastery. Especially since all of my Nine gods are associated with some aspect of mundane lore (music, agriculture, literacy, etc), and most but not all of them would be all for a religiously motivated religious institution to teach their lore.

As for the difference between a monk and priest. I am perhaps using an oversimplified definition of priest.

My religious orders have holy warriors, holy clerks, holy craftsmen, holy sages, and more all pledged to their order. Some of these people are spell-casters, which I've called theurgists, some are not.

My definition is a priest is someone who is sanctioned by their their religious order to preside over baptisms, marriages, and funerals. In the real world, it is joked in US armed forces that military chaplains specialize in "hatch, match, and dispatch".

Not all priests are theurgists. Not all theurgists are priests. A monk can be a priest, but a monk does not have to be a priest.

I guess, using an oversimplified definition. A monk (or a nun) is a person who serves in a holy order after taking vows that separate them in some manner from the general population.

Monasteries survived despite plenty of risks from Viking raids and the like. Fortified monasteries are not that uncommon. There are plenty of reasons monasteries can be useful from education, recordkeeping, farming, safe walls to hide behind (strong enough walls might persuade raiders to go elsewhere), legal sanctuary, medical assistance and so on.

Reasonable points.

Monks and Nuns living in a somewhat cloistered lifestyle existed in England while Viking "monsters" attacked.

More seriously, they can provide sinks for excess population that is less brutal than "kill them". Younger kids of nobles, peasants, etc. Put them in marginal land and have them support themselves (they usually did). The cloistered system helps keep the inhabitants in line. Excess resources are turned into reinforcing the cloistered system, instead of having more children.

Are you aware that monks (as a rule) work a lot, often doing eminently practical things?

A typical monastery is self sufficient, or maybe even financially supports it's religious organization.

A typical, historical monk is functionally a farmer that prays more, is celibate, and has a different family structure.
A typical, historical monk is functionally a farmer that prays more, is celibate, and has a different family structure.

I had the thought of a dumping ground for extra children myself, but even then. Someone has to pay to supply a monastery or someone has to bequeath them enough land to be self sufficient.

But it is something useful enough that nobles and commoners alike would be willing to donate some resources to.

Armor is absolutely something you should bring to any pre-modern fight, as well as a purpose built weapon.

But that's the wrong question for monks, because they'd never have foreknowledge that they'd be in a fight. You can see state armies coming, but there's nothing you can do unless you're also a state army. Barbarians and bandits attacked by raid. Person to person conflicts were either spur of the moment, sneak attacks, or duels with rules.

One might have time to grab a weapon, but armor comes in multiple pieces, many of them more time consuming to don than normal clothes.

Bestial monsters could be handled by society in basically any way your want, but I'd expect the monks to be at least as prepared and organized as the peasantry.Maybe there's a magical line of civilization and wilderness that monks maintain, but absolutely can't expand easily. This line protects most people most of the time, but has gaps between towns, in mountains, et certa.

Only if the world is so bad that society can't afford celibate people. But you're world might not have the historical 75% child mortality, so it can probably afford a few monks.

I'm not saying monks couldn't fight (unless they were pacifists I guess).

My issue with big "M" Monks as a character class in D&D is that I don't see why small "m" monks would fight like Monks. I don't see why the vast majority of monasteries that wish to defend themselves and their charges would not fight in a conventional matter, with swords and bows and the best armor they can afford as opposed to punching and kicking enemies while wearing a cloth gi.

And yet there are many reasons to do exactly that:

1. To learn and develop new and better fighting styles in the same way wizards research new and better spells, and for the same reasons.

2. To develop fighting styles most effective against specific enemies and monsters.

3. To better train new fighters and the teachers who go out to open schools for fighters.

4. To have the means at hand to train and lead otherwise untrained peasants in a time of emergency, and to have them be more than cannon fodder even though none of them can afford even basic martial arms and armor.

5. To have a living library of martial knowledge which survives extended periods of peace.

6. To have the means to defend the monastery and potentially the civilians who support it without threatening the power of the ruling class. (This was why many Eastern monasteries developed unarmed combat, as many rulers forbade posession of martial gear by peasants.)

More reasons can be given, but perhaps the examples from real life mostly show that multiple factors played into the development of militant monastic traditions. Indeed, in many cases the militant sects were neighbors with passive sects which were no doubt influenced by the same external factors but arrived at the opposite answer.

You bring up some decent points. I may reconsider whether or not I want create a dojo of freakishly good unarmed combatants somewhere but as long as none of my players are particularly interested in this, I will put it on the back burner.

One thought I had that is perhaps worthy of it's own discussion thread is that a world with healing magic might create very unarmed fighters.

I saw a video talking about mixed martial arts tournaments and it mentioned that you cannot really properly test the martial arts taught by various modern militaries at a sporting event like a MMA because Krav Maga and similar martial arts teach moves that cause permanent injuries. Breaking arms, gouging eyes, etc.

If you had magical healers and very patient combatants with a high pain tolerance, you could really test out of unarmed combat maneuvers in relative safety as long as know one dies. Unless your world has Raise Dead, than even that is not a huge deal, but in my fantasy world, magic can heal anything other than death.

Only if the world is so bad that society can't afford celibate people. But you're world might not have the historical 75% child mortality, so it can probably afford a few monks.

That's another good point. My world doesn't have enough healing magic to have someone ready to help with every birth and every child, but it does have far lower child mortality than real world medieval Europe, so there would likely be kids to spare.

Though I've also wondered if I wanted to create some kind of plant that could be reliable birth control, but that might drastically change a medieval era society more than the existence of magic. Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread, but I am concerned such a thread would become very controversial very fast.

[Mechalich]

My issue with big "M" Monks as a character class in D&D is that I don't see why small "m" monks would fight like Monks. I don't see why the vast majority of monasteries that wish to defend themselves and their charges would not fight in a conventional matter, with swords and bows and the best armor they can afford as opposed to punching and kicking enemies while wearing a cloth gi.

There is no reason why they would. The monk class exists because of fan demand for a 'martial artist' type character in D&D, not because it makes any sense for the monk class to exist in D&D settings. The Monk did not exist in 2e, after all, and most D&D settings were constructed without it and only crudely grafted such monks as they do have (generally very few) later. You can very easily eliminate the Monk class from a D&D style world and still have monasticism and 'monk' individuals. D&D has several class types for characters that fit the the tradition model of a monastic religious individual such as Archivist and Cloistered Cleric. And monasteries are free to hire/bless/recruit martial individuals who associate with them into their faiths and there are numerous prestige classes that cover exactly this kind of character (though it's questionable whether they would need any help, since clerics are a tier I class as it is and can recruit all the martial assistance they'll ever need using Planar ally anyway).

Note that historically monasticism has been strongest - in terms of political influence, control of land etc. - when it had something of a monopoly on the circulation and preservation of knowledge in a society and often also the primary educational institution, in many cultures young men become monks for only a period of time and most will leave upon reaching adulthood. The baseline assumptions of D&D violate these conditions so widespread monasticism is unlikely and is in fact probably going to be confined to a small number of specific faiths.

[Bohandas]

Just fill the monasteries with clerics

[LibraryOgre]

Okay, I enjoy a good explanation of metaphysics but my main question is "Would monks and nuns living a cloistered lifestyle still have a social function in a feudal society that is afflicted with monster attacks and the like?"

Absolutely. Bear in mind that "cloistered" doesn't mean "completely cut off from surrounding society", simply "living by a rule and, usually, together with others who live by that rule." That rule doesn't have to include abstinence or asceticism, though it certainly might. Cloistered monks spend time in work and contemplation, but their work might also be in society at large.

I wrote an order of "nuns" into a setting book for Hackmaster (coming soon!). They lived in a valley that was mostly traditional halfling, meaning parriarchal communities and a somewhat heavy expectation of marriage. So, there was an order of nuns (and a mention of similar orders) who worshiped the God of Healing... and many of them happened to be lesbians, because it was socially easier to be a lesbian there in a society with heavy expectations of marriage and children.

I also had a contemplative order dedicated to the God of Peace. They tended a shrine that enforced peace, and many elderly gnomes, halflings, and gnomelings would go there towards the end of their life for palliative care.

In the Forgotten Realms, you have the semi-secular library of Candlekeep and the explicitly religious Edificant Library/Spirit Soaring, dedicated to the preservation of knowledge. You might have cloistered orders of gods of magic dedicated to pure research. Or cloistered monks of an agricultural deity whose worship was growth and harvest.

You might have orders dedicated to Darkness... either as a physical or metaphysical concept. Consider, for the example, the Moth Priests of Elder Scrolls, especially the ones in Oblivion who live blind lives in catacombs, defending an artifact. They're not martial artists, but their blindness is a mark of their dedication. On the evil side, you might have people who contemplate darkness, or an order of monks who train assassins. Or, again from the Elder Scrolls, you have the Greybeards, who study The Voice.

Socially, they'd serve a few purposes. They'd create a repository and possibly a fortress of the faith. They could be a haven for sages, or a comfortable prison for inconvenient heirs you can't just kill. They'd be a political lever in society, advocating for what their religion or philosophy favors. Likewise, they'd be a social lever, and would serve their local community in ways in line with their religion. Some might have exercises that stand for martial arts. Some might have physical training that involves running in armor and full contact sparring. And some might just be a group of guys in brown robes who brew beer and copy recipes for brewers across the region.

[Yakk]

I had the thought of a dumping ground for extra children myself, but even then. Someone has to pay to supply a monastery or someone has to bequeath them enough land to be self sufficient.

But it is something useful enough that nobles and commoners alike would be willing to donate some resources to.

So do you have kids?

Do you want them to starve? If you have enough land to provide for 2 of your kids, but 4 survived into adulthood, how much would it be worth it to you to have 1 or 2 of the others end up in a monastery?

The same is true of nobles and of peasants. Sending a kid to a monastery is a better plan than either having them cut land off of your main heir's (any family who does that ends up, 2-4 generations down the line, without enough land for their descendants). Kids sent to monasteries don't produce more kids, so they don't need a constantly expanding amount of land.

Some noble gives the church some land, some of it improved (and worth something) some of it not. The church recruits non-heir kids to work it as nuns or monks and improve it. As it improves, they can recruit more. The land, after being improved and worked, continues to exist. The surplus from this monastery land enriches the church, including feeding the clergy.

After this is established, the church will have a constant appetite for new "non-heirs" to replace the other ones that die. They can charge a modest amount -- a "donation" -- for such services; using those donations, they can expand the land they have under management (or improve the facilities). This donation will be proportional to the social standing of the family sending the non-heir to them. Those that donate a lot end up with a kid with more status in the monastery, those who donate little end up with less status. Higher status occupations include managing other members, lower status is menial labour. Higher status might involve more and continued education, which is useful if your heir dies and you need to access the "backup" in the monastery. Lower status doesn't.

Spend a few 100 years doing this, and you can easily have the monastery being pretty built up, with a fair amount of land. Its surpluses would fund the local church (bishop etc) efforts.

The intial seed just requires enough unimproved land and resources to start up the farming efforts. If the church has any use or power, it isn't hard to imagine how this starts out. Even imagine a priest who is a part time farmer. Or some farmer who dies without heir, and gives their land to the church. Once this happens, a monastery provides a supply of labour to work that land without the eventual back-end "need land for the kids". So long as kids are in surplus, they have a cheap input (kids) that someone else paid to raise and will pay to take off their hands.

[Bohandas]

Absolutely. Bear in mind that "cloistered" doesn't mean "completely cut off from surrounding society", simply "living by a rule and, usually, together with others who live by that rule." That rule doesn't have to include abstinence or asceticism, though it certainly might.

How about an order of monks dedicated to the god of bards and/or rogues who take a vow to rock-and-roll all night and party every day

[Quizatzhaderac]

I'm not saying monks couldn't fight (unless they were pacifists I guess).

My issue with big "M" Monks as a character class in D&D is that I don't see why small "m" monks would fight like Monks. I don't see why the vast majority of monasteries that wish to defend themselves and their charges would not fight in a conventional matter, with swords and bows and the best armor they can afford as opposed to punching and kicking enemies while wearing a cloth gi.

My previous post (that you were responding to) was trying to exactly explain why they would fight like little m monks. I wasn't saying they didn't fight, I was saying the didn't get to pick the terms of the fight.

So let me try a different tack. I'll D&D-ize some actual scenarios little m monks were preparing for.

1) The party gets attacked by golblins. However, these goblins are smart and attack in the middle of the knight. After the surprise round, the PCs decide if they're going to don their armor of fight without it. Looking at the rules, I'd say only a shield is even worth considering. I'd actually say the rules are unrealistically generous: there's no way you could equip a shield without occupying both arms (and leaving you defenseless).

2) The party is a in a crowded city; visible arms and armor are not acceptable for the general populace. The DM asks a player for a sense motive check; the player doesn't get a good number; the DM rolls damage. The player protests: why didn't I get to use perception? wouldn't I have seen the enemy get next to me? The DM says you absolutely saw this person come right up to you, just as you've seen 50 other people today do; it's just the this one decided to stab you.

3) The DM gives you 100 days of downtime between adventures. Anything you try to do is less productive if you're wearing armor. The DM rolls a D100 and you get attacked on that day. If you're not wearing armor, it's at the inn. Do you wear armor that whole time? What if the odds are different, what if you don't know for sure that you're character will ever see combat in their lifetime? Maybe rather than buy a nice set of armor you buy tomb of stat increasing, which may help with your peaceful activities, if not actively hurt them.

4) You don't get along with brother Jerkface. One day the situation may become violent. Yes, ideally you both should be above this, but you're both young men who kicked out of their original communities.

1 - 3 are obviously not winning scenarios. Violence is typically very unfair, usually anyone that thinks they can profit thinks there is a small risk. Reputationally, monks depend on the perception that they are never completely helpless, even if at a disadvantage.

[Scalenex]

How about an order of monks dedicated to the god of bards and/or rogues who take a vow to rock-and-roll all night and party every day

That is how you get Slurms McKenzie no doubt regretted his hastily given vow.



I would argue that those who would take a vow to party constantly would probably not have a fixed location like a monastery.

There is a reason why the followers of my Chaotic Neutral goddess of partying and the weather are called Rovers on the Wind. Because they travel a lot.

Though they might have a few monasteries centered around growing hops and barley and wine grapes. Nobly taking on weighty responsibilities so that others may party.

[Bohandas]

Though I've also wondered if I wanted to create some kind of plant that could be reliable birth control, but that might drastically change a medieval era society more than the existence of magic.

Not without magic to go along with it. The family farms of those days were organized along the lines of a pyramid/ponzi scheme and depended on a constant influx of new family members to remain solvent. Plus, most of them were going to die anyway, if there weren't a lot of them there wouldn't be any by the end

[Mechalich]

Not without magic to go along with it. The family farms of those days were organized along the lines of a pyramid/ponzi scheme and depended on a constant influx of new family members to remain solvent. Plus, most of them were going to die anyway, if there weren't a lot of them there wouldn't be any by the end

Reliable birth control would still have dramatic impacts even with the number of children per woman necessary to sustain a society significantly higher than the modern number. For example, it could be freely used by the upper classes - who often took drastic measures to cull extra heirs in a desperate attempt to prevent power struggles and were usually polygynous anyway - or by prostitutes. Even among the lower classes reliable birth control would have valuable benefits for older and/or infirm women for whom childbirth was extremely high risk. It's worth noting that birth control has been highly sought after by many societies historically, with evidence for methods in documents dating back to antiquity, often using methods that were extremely dangerous, such as heavy metals. If provided with a birth control method that worked reliably and safely, a human society would have embraced it.

Additionally in a fantasy setting in which common spells can prevent death by childbirth - in many cases the 0-level Cure Minor Wounds is enough - pandemics can be prevented by cracking open the emergency Remove Disease supply, food contamination is largely unknown due to Purify Food and Drink, and so on, you're actually going to need birth control to prevent the sort of population explosion modern medicine empowered. The 20th century saw many areas that were desperately poor where the population still mainly lived a pre-industrial lifestyle drastically increase in number solely due to medical interventions.

[brian 333]

A military carreer was also a way to deal with excess heirs, and in a D&D setting, a very necessary and very short one.

The thing is, if your players do not desire monk characters, you don't need an explanation for their absence. You can discribe structures in out of the way places and never worry about who lives there if you want monasteries without martial monks, or you can ignore them entirely unless and until you need them for whatever reason.

An issue I see repeated is worldbuilders obsessing over explanations for things that will never matter in game.

I am reminded of the summer I spent creating the far Eastern society in my campaign world. To date, not a single adventure has happened there, and not a single PC has come from there. Don't waste time and effort on something that does not matter to the game you want to play.

Worst case: you explain why there are none, then a player wants to play such a character.

My advice is, this is a non-issue. Spend your mental energy on something that matters to your players.

[Bohandas]

Honestly, I think having martial monks requires more explanation than not having them. Similar to if you decided to use a non-vancian magic system.

As an aside, even in the source material for fighting monks, not all monks are necessarily fighting monks. In Journey to the West, for instance, even the main party of monks aren't all fighting monks, and the three that are are only monks because they were forced to take monastic vows as a punishment

[Quizatzhaderac]

Not without magic to go along with it. The family farms of those days were organized along the lines of a pyramid/ponzi scheme and depended on a constant influx of new family members to remain solvent. Plus, most of them were going to die anyway, if there weren't a lot of them there wouldn't be any by the end

The problem with that analogy is that pyramid/ponzi schemes require exponential net growth. The median pre-modern family was not growing and would be just fine with just enough surviving heirs for replacement.

The time when "most of them were going to die" when they were too young to contribute economically.

[brian 333]

This thread inspired a new idea: The Order of the Broken Sword.

Fighting with swords is not as pretty as in the movies where a single stab to the heart ends the duel and the hero and the long-suffering maiden call for the royal locksmith.

Mostly it is a brutal, ugly affair with horrors that leave a soldier permanently maimed in body and spirit. The Brothers of the Broken Sword take in such unfortunates and try to give them back their lives, or what can be salvaged of it.

Through service to these people the brothers make peace with their own losses, and though the order does not recruit, those maimed in war and cared for by the order often volunteer to take holy vows of service.

Note that the order does not care what sex the victims may be. They only care that a person maimed in war needs help. Sisters live, work, and serve alongside brothers and have the same opportunities for advancement.

Special units of Hospitaliers form when war comes. Specialized surgeons and clerics lead orderlies and strecher-bearers to the battlefields where they work even as battle rages to rescue those rendered incapable of fighting without regard to which side they were on.

[Yanagi]

I'm not a big fan of the monk class and neither is anyone in my gaming group. I don't think fighting monks or nuns makes any senses, even in a fantasy world.


A character with the abilities of a 3.5 or 5th edition fighting monk would need three things according to my friend.

1) People who have a strong need to protect themselves
2) People who legal or practical factors limiting weapons and armor available
3) People who have lots of time on their hands to practice.

I figure most monasteries in order to exist at all, would need the support of the local populace. With the support of the local populace, the monks and nuns would probably be allowed to own weapons and armor if they wish, they could train fighters or paladins indoctrinated in their faith instead of half-naked fighting monks.

My friend actually adapted the 3.5 monk to an enslaved group of humans and half-orcs. "Monks" were actually "Freedom Fighters" who secretly learned advanced fighting techniques in secret from their master. The only difference was "must be Lawful" was changed to "must not be Lawful."

As cool as the concept was, no one in my group wanted to play a freedom fighter, but our group was sympathetic them and allied with some NPCs that were in this group.



But in any event, in the real world, without getting into specifics both Western and Eastern religions had remarkable similar monasteries despite all the religious differences.

The commoners and ruling elite alike both sponsored both supported monasteries because they seemed to take comfort in having a class of people whose job it was to contemplate deep things and strive to live exemplary lives of purity. A lot of monks and nuns provided services to the needy, but they didn't always do this and if the goal was simply charity, there are easier ways to set up charitable organizations.

My friends and I were discussing this. The argument was made that in a fantasy world with skulking goblins, rampaging orcs, marauding dragons and all the other monsters and baddies you usually see in a high fantasy world, very few people would want to donate land, money, and resources to a bunch of naval gazers who are likely to be a liability in times of woe.

In game mechanics, my system uses a points buy system rather than classes and levels. So the idea occurred to me that maybe these monasteries could produce monks and nuns who have awesome magical powers but cannot fight their way out of a wet paper bag. In this case they might be useful enough to society for the local unwashed masses to work to protect them and supply them, but without giving them awesome powers, I don't think monasteries would last long in a typical fantasy world full of dangers.

What do you all think?

Monasteries are an intentional community in which the self is abnegated to work towards a larger cause that is viewed as sanctified. Common features include:

- a general surrender of autonomy, both to the rules as laid out in core texts, but also to the hierarchical structure of who is entitled to interpret the rule...up to and including the larger religious body of non-monks that sanction monasteries. In theory, life becomes a kind of sacred labyrinth--all things, even the most mundane, point towards the single mystery that informs the life of the body and the spirit. This could be interpreted more materialistically as voluntary indenture--the institution is incentivized because they get lots of free labor, but also branch office which funnels the profit of that free labor--plus the capital accumulated through donation, penance, indulgence, etc--back to the institutional center; the individual is granted a high degree of structure and certainty plus spiritual clout.

- monasticism is ascetic but often characterized as distinct from and a superior alternative to from both ecstatic personal mysticism and more extreme asceticism: it is, in effect the walled garden in which seekers may dwell but remain safely orthodox. Monasticism is not solitary--it is not hesychasm--nor is it communal but self-determinate within the community--like, say cenobites or a devotional cult--nor does it view the supernature as biddable through theurgy. An order is a spiritual franchise, a standardized modality of expressing the life of the spirit that is generally pro-social rather than antinomian. (heterodoxy--mysticism, occultism, mortification--find their ways back in just as worldly concerns do)

- however...while monks are separated from society, monasteries are not. Their labor and their capital is often part of both regional commerce and the larger asset-flow that allows religious institutions to accumulate power. Looking at it purely in economic terms...being a monk is a kind of indenture: your labor is not your own to direct or to profit from, and part of the abnegation of the self is the acceptance that your labor...whatever you are assigned...exists to serve the larger cause of the monastery and/or the religious institution. Monasteries are also kind of a complicated interface point between secular and sacred priorities, as many of their good works make them effectively a social service for their region but also brand ambassadors for their ideology, and their more specialized skills--advanced literacy and numeracy, book construction, etc--also bring them into the influence economy of political elites and the diplomacy of state-versus-church.

Monks make sense within a cultural milieu where everyone accepts the framing premise that they're doing sacred labor and their privations are virtuous. The central religious authority literally grants them a checklist of how to look and what to spend time on to be understood as "actual monks," but then can also give custom orders obtain better outcomes getting people to trust the church and give it money and authority to maintain their legitimacy as sacred-dudes. The politicians like what's done with their labor--especially the specialized labor that would otherwise be expensive--but also like the legitimation that their rule (and control of land and money and people) is sacred. The laity may just like monks because they're part of the community in the proximate sense, and individuals become monks but are still acknowledged as kin and affines...but they also accept the veracity of the dominant religion and therefore monks are merchants of the spirit, such that alms and donations are virtuous acts, education is instruction in getting right with the inherent moral order of the world, their labor is a kind of weak intercession...and to question this is a shortcoming with one knowable, negative spiritual consequence.

(And, as history demonstrates, monks absolutely take that clout and apply it to power games that grub up power and capital for their order, but also use it interpersonally to punch down on the laity. Exclusive status emanating from the source of all existence and morality is a helluva drug: monks also abuse power the same way regardless of their faith of origin.)

Miniscule-m "monk" is a social position: for that position to exist, there has to be a larger culture that understands that position and allows the liminal status to exist. This means a religion that doesn't just accept this liminal status's existence, but has rules and enforcers to maintain orthodoxy and thus create orders. For monasticism to spread, the underlying religious institution has to be able to protect them, but also provide the material basis for their lifestyle...monks might labor hard, but there's a lump sum payment that has to happen for there to be land and building and tools at the start. Rulers have to accept that these liminal figures will have status and roles within society and...at minimum...tolerate the manner in which monks can divert deference and obedience and capital to sacred ends rather than secular ones.

[Scalenex]

I certainly have a lot of material to work with.

I have one monastery established so far but now I have many more ideas.

It is an island in a lake that a nature loving druidic order that uses the monastery as a training facility for new recruits. To pay back the local lords who gave them the land and autonomy they send their druids out periodically to use some judicious plant magic to make their lord's crops slightly healthier.

[SpoonR]

I am confused. Is your issue the “religious unarmed warriors” MONKS or the “closed community of faithful” MONASTERY? Or Something else?

MONKS: I can’t help you justify these. My understanding is unarmed martial artists came from regions with weapon control laws. In high fantasy, i think that would require a tyrant with enough high-level firepower that villages don’t need to defend from monster attacks. Monastic knightly orders would be more my thing.

MONASTERIES: in high fantasy, take everything real world monasteries did. Now add “hotline to divine power”. Especially a mechanic that prayer produces divine power. More monks = more prayers. And monks have more training, might have more faith or will, so your monks are better “prayer power generators” than normal folk. A monastery becomes divine protection for the whole region. They don’t need unarmed attackers, they either sling divine mojo directly or enhance selected warriors. Basically, use monasteries for ritual magic, or for buffing the fighters. If there’s a crafting god, they become your magical item factory.

Real world monasteries: go look up “Wolves of God” rpg, or read some history. Monasteries accumulate wealth because no dividing inheritance among heirs. And political powerhouses because they accumulate land - anything donated to a monastery belongs to them “forever”. They employ specialists of all sorts, which could include weaponsmiths and armorers. They frequently research better ways to do things - profit is godly, and writing and communication mean breakthroughs are remembered. There are different classes of people in a monastery - peasants could be employed by the monastery, or farm workers could be a class of monks. Ditto warriors.

[Riftwolf]

Okay, I enjoy a good explanation of metaphysics but my main question is "Would monks and nuns living a cloistered lifestyle still have a social function in a feudal society that is afflicted with monster attacks and the like?"

I wrote a short story about a monastic order whose role was to heal the land after the army rolled over it. They were based loosely on European monastic orders or farming communes. In d+d terms they probably had a similar role as NPC druids or cloistered clerics.
Ultimately their job wasn't to deal with monster attacks, that was the army or the guard's role. In the setting, the army were outright exterminating all monstrous races, so the monasteries rarely set up somewhere an ogre or troll lived nearby. Their role was to keep the army fed, maintain the land and keep its workers safe and healthy.