| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faraer |
Posted - 14 Dec 2003 : 18:29:06
Rather than an off-topic X vs Y debate, let's look at how the D&D character classes correspond to the Realms.
Even before it was D&Dized in 1975, the Realms had warriors, mages, priests and thieves inspired by many works of swords and sorcery. The (A)D&D classes are a good fit; the Realms even already used Vanceian magic. Paladins, rangers, and druids fit quite seamlessly, though their cultural assumptions vary from standard D&D; Ed shifted druids' organizational emphasis from hierarchy to circles, for instance. Neither illusionists nor the specialist wizards extrapolated along the same lines are prominent in the Realms, but they fit. While there are some people in the Realms like D&D barbarians, it's awkward in that most members of the barbarian cultures aren't berserkers like the class. The Realms features bards and the fiction-within-fiction device (see current "Realmslore" articles) prominently.
Ed's Realms always had very rare untrained 'wild talent' mages, and I like to use the sorcerer class for this rather than to make the retcon that there are fair numbers of this kind of spellcaster -- the setting shouldn't be bent to fit the rules of each new edition of D&D, and I don't like the sorcerer class (it's a sop to those who don't like Vanceian magic and the strategy of choosing mage spells). Monks are the other big 3E retcon: I don't think Faerūnian fighting-monks are impossible, but I don't believe they exist in numbers, either. |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 07:02:41
I'm afraid I'll have to inform you that you must be joking. Unarmed combat in the Greek and Roman styles? Frankly, absurd. There were two ways that those people faught unarmed: words, and wrestling. The first was in politics, the second for recreation. In serious do-harm-to-the-infidel, weapons were always used. There was never an "unarmed style." In war or not.
As for the monk class, it is most obviously Eastern in origin. It not only takes its philosophy and abilities from Southeast Asia, it also takes its unique weapons. The term might be missleading, but that was undoubtably due to confusion on the parts of European explorers, seeing these martial artists dressed like monks as they were used to them. Perhaps they should have kept a local name for them, whatever that might have been, but then Europeans haven't been always clear on local names. (Hey, Sage, Lina, want to tell them how the kangaroo got its name?  ) |
| Upuaut |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 05:45:43
Interesting topic. I disagree with the majority as usual. Ah well.
The way I look at it (granted I'm a young player in the realms) is that the world is different than ours in so many ways. To look for anything other than sociological trends from our own history to explain the advance of a learned skill in Faerun is just silly. Perhaps instead of monk they should have bothered to call the class something different, but I'm sure they were going for quick association on the part of players. A monk in Faerun however doesn't have to have any similarities to anything in our world. The note about Korean's developing the practice is true as far as I've heard, but why? Couldn't similar circumstances in Faerun lead to another culture developing hand to hand fighting? Hmm.. happened in Greece then Rome as well. Some African tribes also had a particular form of martial arts. So did the American Natives. The fact is, hand to hand fighting styles can and do develope in a variety of locations and for a variety of reasons. So.. I just think it's a little silly to say that martial arts should be confined to the east of Faerun just because in our world that's the most famous location of martial arts. That's just being narrow minded on the matter.
As for sorcerers vs wizards, I can see the important distinctions between the two, and both seem like very valid player classes. A sorcerer uses innate spell casting, allowing the channeling of a lot of power, but limiting the expansive selection of what can be done. The wizard has a lot of different spells and skills, while using a more controled form of magic. This premise has been used time and time again in science fiction. I think that both classes are well thought out. In addition, I feel that wizards have always been too party oriented a character for realism. A real wizard would find a nice quiet tower to hang out in for years on end while they learn their trade, they wouldn't go out adventuring unless they had a goal to accomplish. Wizards to me are not condusive to team play, or at least, not as condusive as a sorcerer.
Not sure if I'm just trying to be difficult.. I guess I really just enjoy playing both of these character classes. I have yet to make a single wizard, opting for the socerer in almost any case where I'm going for a spell caster, and if I'm going Cleric like, I tend towards the monk, or paladin characters. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2003 : 16:30:44
What in all the planes is an "fg multiplayer side"? |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2003 : 06:17:12
And that labyrinth actually existed. I've never seen pictures, but I keep running across the bull's head motiff and the palace at Knossos having a maze in the outer wall. Or something. Like I said, I've never seen the layout. I really ought to look it up -- I'm sure there's a map-reconstruction somewhere.
But anyway, it just goes to prove what I've always maintained: all myths are based in some small kernel of truth. |
| The Cardinal |
Posted - 18 Dec 2003 : 19:22:29
Actually, If you follow some of the Greek mythology, there was another tale involving a Bull and the Queen of Crete. I would guess most of you can assume what happened since it all happened because the King of Crete wouldn't sacrifice the White Bull to Posiedon as he promised. If you give your word to a Deity or extraplanar creature, This is a lesson that you should keep it. Of course we hear of the Queen's son down the road, a Mythical Half-man Half-Bull that lived in a underground Labyrinth  |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 18 Dec 2003 : 14:54:57
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Thanks for the historical facts. Unless it's more folklore in nature, I'm overly fuzzy on Eastern history.
And . . . you know what? That's an excellent point there. One that, in fact, I've never really considered for some reason. Don't know why -- it seems so obvious. I guess I was just locked into associating martial arts with Eastern philosophy.
Actually, the garbs of the two different types were similar. The major, nigh-universal difference was in the color and texture. Silk worms weren't imported into Europe for some time, and cotton was even more expensive. Also, a (European) monk would typically take vows of poverty, so fine robes were out. (Not that a lot of people obeyed that.) Same with the typical color of the robes: brown. The natural color of the cloth itself. Why bother?
The Eastern idea for this was more in the nature of simplicity, rather than actual poverty. I think that's why they'd use dyes the way they did. They found great beauty in art, in craftmanship, and in discipline. I don't find it hard to believe that though they'd be living simple lives, they'd still try for the most asthetically pleasing simple life they could.
Back to the idea of Catholic martial-monks. I think this sort of thing would easily develop. Now, in real history, the martial arts didn't travel well. But the earliest form (I'm assuming it's karate, but correct me if it's not) was from Korean farmers, who learned to defend themselves against armed and armored invaders. This shows that it didn't really have to have sprung up in that sort of culture.
In the West, the members of the clergy (not the same as priests -- monks aren't all priests) were supposed to be forbiddon from learning swordplay. (Remember certain D&D restrictions regarding edged weapons? ) I think it had to do with the "live by the sword" line Jesus gave Simon Peter. That's why the mace was the weapon of the clergy -- no blood spilling. (Not on purpose, at least.) So why not learn to use the ultimate blunt weapon -- the weapons that God gave you?
Additionally, it would give the same benefits martial arts still give today: a calm, focused mind, a healthy body, strong reflexes, an ability to defend others or yourself at a moment's need. It seems to make sense to me.
Most eastren religions own its own martial art. An art of this type is seen as a way to perfect the body mind and soul. Not just bash the hell out of people. An European monks normally never fought so it makes the point of playing a monk with their fists as weapons useless if your going for realism. Catholic monks would be much the same yes? So wouldnt that mean that Clerics would do the fighting for those two (along with paladins) and the Monks would just be mundane healers.
Eastren monks fighters with hands-Yes.
European ones WOULD be as book listed. The templars, Knights of St. John AKA Hospiliters (sp?) and the Teutonic Knights. Oddly enough Your lucky I know anything about these groups at all. White Wholf bases all its games and such off from real life events. And it just so happens that a hand made game posted on the net deals with these said groups and the personw ho made it actually uses all real life things fro it. Till you get to the powers of faith. Then its all fiction ( or is it?). Past that the Dark Ages inqisition (SP?) A mundane hunter game for World of Darkness also deals with one or two of these said groups. And again uses life events and information. However the best game fixed on these groups is indeed the hand made game called Church Knights: The canite crusade ( canites meaning vampire). Anyway I know I got off the subject with that but at the same time I stayed on it. Funny how that works huh? |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 18 Dec 2003 : 14:50:26
quote:
Originally posted by Ezindir the dark
You are probably right about the monks, but I think sorcerer are pretty cool, you now being a spawn of an animal or somthing else. I mean pretty cool to be a spawn of an dragon , but on the other hand what if you are a spawn from an pig or a cow.
As long as your half cow half god then whats so bad about that? There is an old myth of a beautiful girl that was turned into a cow by Zeus. Just so he could be with her now and then (that man whore). He came tp her cowness and mated her as a bull many times. Yay .... wooo .... big deal. Anyway the cows that cam from her needles to say were born sterile and such ( because Zeus proclaimed it so) But if the god didnt do that then hmm, Makes you wonder what all type of things those half cows could have done heh. |
| The Cardinal |
Posted - 18 Dec 2003 : 10:22:42
Excellent points to both Hymn and Bookwyrm, I never thought of any real connections,
(Although the robes did strike me somewhere in my madness fogged mind, I wrote if off as simply... ignorance, and insanity on my part). Had they figured out a fighting style of their own then it is lost, perhaps the monk class is just as needed in the D&D realm as anyelse... And perhaps those who had the class added seen things that some of us did not. An intresting arguement, well played! Congrats to both of you! |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 18 Dec 2003 : 08:35:36
Thanks for the historical facts. Unless it's more folklore in nature, I'm overly fuzzy on Eastern history.
And . . . you know what? That's an excellent point there. One that, in fact, I've never really considered for some reason. Don't know why -- it seems so obvious. I guess I was just locked into associating martial arts with Eastern philosophy.
Actually, the garbs of the two different types were similar. The major, nigh-universal difference was in the color and texture. Silk worms weren't imported into Europe for some time, and cotton was even more expensive. Also, a (European) monk would typically take vows of poverty, so fine robes were out. (Not that a lot of people obeyed that.) Same with the typical color of the robes: brown. The natural color of the cloth itself. Why bother?
The Eastern idea for this was more in the nature of simplicity, rather than actual poverty. I think that's why they'd use dyes the way they did. They found great beauty in art, in craftmanship, and in discipline. I don't find it hard to believe that though they'd be living simple lives, they'd still try for the most asthetically pleasing simple life they could.
Back to the idea of Catholic martial-monks. I think this sort of thing would easily develop. Now, in real history, the martial arts didn't travel well. But the earliest form (I'm assuming it's karate, but correct me if it's not) was from Korean farmers, who learned to defend themselves against armed and armored invaders. This shows that it didn't really have to have sprung up in that sort of culture.
In the West, the members of the clergy (not the same as priests -- monks aren't all priests) were supposed to be forbiddon from learning swordplay. (Remember certain D&D restrictions regarding edged weapons? ) I think it had to do with the "live by the sword" line Jesus gave Simon Peter. That's why the mace was the weapon of the clergy -- no blood spilling. (Not on purpose, at least.) So why not learn to use the ultimate blunt weapon -- the weapons that God gave you?
Additionally, it would give the same benefits martial arts still give today: a calm, focused mind, a healthy body, strong reflexes, an ability to defend others or yourself at a moment's need. It seems to make sense to me. |
| Hymn |
Posted - 17 Dec 2003 : 22:54:05
The monks of the east (asia, generaly shaolin monks,) fight more with weapons then with hands, at least in the old days , ming dynasti and such. The style is called wushu. The "hand styles" was used as a cleaning process (all in the name of ki :-)], like Tai Chi, here as styles like Tai Chi Quan etc they where then transformed into more deadly arts.
Remeber though that the eastern monks also where peasful and scholary as the European once was. A change of circumstance just lead them into a more protective form, where as the monks of the wst, the church, was in no need to protect themselves as much. I would just see it that other circumstances have turned the monks of faerun, with the dresscode of European monks and the form of the eastern. It is a fantasy world after all. |
| Ezindir the dark |
Posted - 17 Dec 2003 : 21:04:57
I think that it was a exelent idea! |
| The Cardinal |
Posted - 17 Dec 2003 : 20:05:27
I tend to agree with Bookwyrm on this. The Idea of a bare-handed fighter, is eastern. The western version of a Monk is a person who is much like a priest but more to the extreme. Shutting themselves away in their Monastary. I bring to the attention the man dressing in heavy robes, chanting, and always wearing a hood (for example 'In the Name of the Rose'with Sean Connery, that is the right movie right? Those were European Monks).
However... I support the Sorcerer class. Not because of the lack of skill or stratagy needed to create one (which, I will not lie, is very cheap, yet useful ). It is the Idea behind it. I am always unable to recieve the special abilities that would line up with a characters history ( If they are the spawn of a Devil, then they should know fire or ice spells). Of course, unlike most, I do tend to pick the useless spells too, if they happen to fit my idea of the character's brithright in their veins. The Spell list of the sorcerer, should be remade to fit the character's greatest point, their questionable ancestory, if they be of Dragonic, Celestial, Baatezu, or even Tanar'ri they should choose from a respectable list of each. Perhaps becoming no more a being of Arcane power but of special abilities (spell like abilities?) as they discover their heritage. It's the blood the gamer chooses that should dictate their spells/abilities, not a power mad gamer. Many may feel this wrong (it be only my insane opinion), but it may cheapen the class I like a little less, and perhaps move it away from the shadow of simple mage to a class in it's own right. Before Thieves and Bard were the same way; the Thief and the wanna be, they still are to a limited extent but I feel that the Bard has since come into it's own more, and is now accepted as it's own class (if not an ignored class). well just my two cents. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 17 Dec 2003 : 16:30:32
There are a few like that, yes, but mostly the only officially (as part of their purpose) war-like orders in Europe were the Knights of the Temple (the Templars), the Knights Hospitalier, and the Teutonic Knights. They were all formed to protect pilgrims on the way and at Jerusalem. None of them faught bare-handed, or not as a rule.
You have to remember that the 'monk' of D&D is an eastern version. The words 'monk' and 'monastery' mean different things in east and west. Even Schnoebelen recognized that, though he seemed to think each one was equally bad. (Well, he's messed up anyway.)
Basically the class takes the legends of martial artists and converts them to D&D. Everything the monk does (except for the D&D-only stuff) is something that is supposed to be possible if your own ki (pronounced 'key' and meaning soul, spirit, life-force, chi, katra, whatever) is strong/pure enough. |
| Hymn |
Posted - 14 Dec 2003 : 21:02:31
Then again, you have the monks of the dark moon. They are a monk order sprung a Faerunian base, Purskul if I remember correctly. You also have monks of the long death, founded in Calimshan. I remember seeing this program about Islamic scholars, that went into skilled killers to protect their knowledge from the rest of the world. I also remember reading about European monks that trained for battle, or I might have read that in some fiction, it is only a vague memory any way. |
| Edain Shadowstar |
Posted - 14 Dec 2003 : 20:35:28
Wow...I am getting old and starting to forget things, or rather confuse them. I'll have to fix things...*snatches his edit marker*...now let's see here... |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 14 Dec 2003 : 20:26:30
Might you have mistaken Rashemen for Aglarond? Aglarond is more a country of half-elves and shore-hugging communities of humans.
Rashemen is the land of the barbarian berserker lodges and the feared or respected (depending on one's point of view) witches.
As for sorcerers and monks in the realms... It's up to the creativity of the roleplayer to give a definite realms feel to these classes. In case of the monk, it is easy to go along the eastern lines, but it is more challenging to find something not so stereo typical. And there are monasteries which are dedicated to more martial tasks...
Torm, Tyr, Helm come to mind... Ilmater has even more cloisters, monasteries and secular orders; it is not unlikely (rather likely) that there are monks which have developped a martial arts form.
With the sorcerer class... all those wizards mentioned in pre-game texts and in Ed's notes... none of this said these were the stereotypical wizards from D&D. Even a sorcerer can apear as the old, bearded fellow in a pointy hat, whose nose is more in the books of his spell-library than on the high road of adventure.
It's just in the mind's eye, or the eye of the beholder or some such saying...
|
| Edain Shadowstar |
Posted - 14 Dec 2003 : 19:52:55
I agree with your comments about monks also. In fact my opinion was that monks in general should be confined to the Far East of the Realms...as in Kara Tur, and maybe a few orders in the Eastern reaches of the Faerunian continent, like on the edge of the Hordelands. Other wise, the monk doesn't really mesh well with the Middle Ages-style, quasi-European cultures that pervade Faerun. In Europe a monk was a holy man and a scholar, not warriors. Granted, the Realms are not Europe, but it still meshes poorly.
Sorcerers, generally, should have some specific reason why they are a sorcerer, like they have the blood of a dragon or celestial. Even then, I do not love them. They essentially come accross like a cop out for those who do not like the be constrained by emmorizing spells, it shows a inability to think ahead to me, which is why I never play chess with sorcerers, no foresight. I would have no opposition to useing sorcerer class levels on an NPC however, since it can be appropriate there (like dragons).
As for barbarians, you haven't been to Aglarond Rashemen much, have you Faraer? Over there berserkers are big. Very big. I guess if you leader is a nut, so should you warriors in combat...or something like that.
You know you like her.
Shut up. |
| Ezindir the dark |
Posted - 14 Dec 2003 : 18:46:35
You are probably right about the monks, but I think sorcerer are pretty cool, you now being a spawn of an animal or somthing else. I mean pretty cool to be a spawn of an dragon, but on the other hand what if you are a spawn from an pig or a cow. |
|
|
