Chaotic Monks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Chaotic Monks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aramil_silverwind
09-05-04, 09:37 PM Ok, I have this crackpot idea - a chaotic Monk. It says in the PHB that Monks cannot be chaotic because of thier discipline.

Now my question is just this - is it possible to be dedicated and disciplined to a very specific thing and stay random in everything else? Isn't that unto itself very random and Chaotic?

Sry to ruin the great idea of uniqueness here, but I got this idea from an Anime (no comments plz, i'm not an idiot about it) called Rurouni Kenshin. The character, named Sanosuke, is a monk in all the way I can see. I fights unarmed like a crazy man, balance great, run really fast.... just about everything a monk can do by the D&D system. However he is VERY random about everything he does. he gambles, he goes into street fighting, he does whatever crackpot idea comes into his head, and dosn't stop to think about the consequences of anything he does. However if theres any once thing he's sure about, its his discipline and determination to improve his skills.

Its hard to explain, but i know that he's a monk and not an unarmed fighter. If anyone has seen Kenshin, or can at least see where I'm coming from, plz tell me if thsi is a feasable idea...
thinkhard
09-05-04, 09:44 PM not exactly. Animes are notorious for characters that make little to no sense. Their juxtoposition is what makes them a commodity in Japanese pop culture, which is basically in a rebellion phase against order.

Thus the existance of that kenshin guy.

You could possibly make a chaotic monk with proper reasoning...a back story of a religion or system of beliefs that is tied to his chaotic alignment..and slightly changing his class abilities (making Ki strike over Chaos instead of Law). It's sort of the same idea as the paladin of freedom in the Unearthed Arcana.
Vaalingrade Ashland
09-05-04, 09:44 PM Much like the Lawful Bard or Barbarian, there is no good reason not to have a Chaotic Monk.

In a few minutes, someone's going to say 'tradition', but my point stands.
thinkhard
09-05-04, 09:55 PM I admit you'd have to stretch it. It would definately be weak on some points.
But you could make up a totally abstract concept behind it, to the point where its a totally different class...with the same abilities as a monk.

Maybe the "chaotic monk" is a person who gave totally into random action and events. His randomization and comple dissassociation from reason causes him to preform in a trance like state where everything is simple action vs. response. Through this he catches on to ways to manipulate the world around him by thinking on almost a different plane than everybody else, resulting in the emulation of monk-like abilities.

Its kind of eastern in idea: he transcends reason, a weak creation of of lesser sentien beings, and acheives power through merely existing.

As flowery as that sounds though, it wouldn't stand up that well under the scrutinization of a strict DM
Vaalingrade Ashland
09-05-04, 10:08 PM Sanosuke would be Neutral in DnD terms anyway. While he is a strong individual, with a love of 'chaotic' activities, he is devoted to improving his combat prowess and honing his body.

Yet another reason the alignment system doesn't work.
thinkhard
09-05-04, 10:10 PM Most people don't play by the strict alignment rules anyway. I think its existance is kind of a carry over from the AD&D era where the game encouraged a lack of imagination and abuse toward PC's. But Alignment is helpful in character management, so i wouldn't throw it out the window.
BlaineTog
09-05-04, 10:31 PM Most people don't play by the strict alignment rules anyway. I think its existance is kind of a carry over from the AD&D era where the game encouraged a lack of imagination and abuse toward PC's. But Alignment is helpful in character management, so i wouldn't throw it out the window.Shh! Don't encourage him! ;)
obrysii
09-05-04, 11:01 PM Sounds like a Drunken Master to me.

But Sano just is good with unarmed strikes. I think he's a fighter with Improved Unarmed Combat and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Zanbato). He has high strength and consitution.
amethal
09-06-04, 05:20 AM The lawful alignment restriction serves to stopping multi-classing with barbarians and bards (ok, can play a lawful barbarian, but a barbarian who can't rage is kind of boring).

I don't know if that was intentional, as part of game balance, or if it just turned out that way.

As a DM, I wouldn't like a multi-classed barbarian / monk because they both get fast movement and I imagine combining rage with flurry of blows would be too powerful.

I've nothing against multi-classes monk / bards though.

Without wishing to get too philosophical, I view the law / chaos axis as a way of judging how the character stands in terms of stability vs freedom. I don't see why chaotics are always viewed as having insufficient self discipline.

If perfecting his martial arts is important to a chaotic then a chaotic will achieve that.

Chaotic wizards aren't hit with penalties to spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) checks because they lack the discipline to properly apply themselves to their magic studies.

I agree that if you want to join an order of medieval monks, as portayed in history, then you'd better be lawful because they have loads and loads of rules which, taken in isolation, seem petty and pointless.

However, these are fantasy monks, so at the very least should be able to be neutral, if not chaotic.
robitusinz
09-06-04, 01:05 PM I'm DMing an Oriental Adventures campaign, and for research, I went ahead and bought a library of perhaps 10-15 old Kung Fu Theater movies (one of which is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, of course). In a game meant to parallel the "flavor" of these types of movies (or this piece of pop culture, however you'd like to consider it), you would soon realize that there are quite a few chaotic monks out there. Again, the point here lies with the particular style or flavor of the campaign being run...if you're going for a hyper-realistic, historically-accurate Asian setting, then chaotic monks would be silly, but if your campaign has the feel of something ripped off Channel 39 on Saturday mid-afternoons sometime in the 1980s, then chaotic monks would probably be very permissible.

Oh, BTW, a lot of the chaotic monks I've seen tend to be older...usually students of Kung Fu in early life, then drunkards and cheats when they get older, but they can still bring the Crane smackdown if necessary. So perhaps a chaotic monk would still work in DnD without bending any rules...once you leave the Monk life, you can't return to it, but you'd still keep your "powers".
thinkhard
09-06-04, 01:13 PM The lawful alignment restriction serves to stopping multi-classing with barbarians and bards (ok, can play a lawful barbarian, but a barbarian who can't rage is kind of boring).

I don't know if that was intentional, as part of game balance, or if it just turned out that way.

As a DM, I wouldn't like a multi-classed barbarian / monk because they both get fast movement and I imagine combining rage with flurry of blows would be too powerful.

I've nothing against multi-classes monk / bards though.

Without wishing to get too philosophical, I view the law / chaos axis as a way of judging how the character stands in terms of stability vs freedom. I don't see why chaotics are always viewed as having insufficient self discipline.

If perfecting his martial arts is important to a chaotic then a chaotic will achieve that.

Chaotic wizards aren't hit with penalties to spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) checks because they lack the discipline to properly apply themselves to their magic studies.

I agree that if you want to join an order of medieval monks, as portayed in history, then you'd better be lawful because they have loads and loads of rules which, taken in isolation, seem petty and pointless.

However, these are fantasy monks, so at the very least should be able to be neutral, if not chaotic.

I agree about the multiclassing restrictions. Makes a lot of sense. But if you got discreet permission from your DM and verified you wouldnt multiclass barbarian, i'd not see a problem with it.
Merlion
09-06-04, 03:10 PM Well, personally I find the whole Law/Chaos axis of alignment in DnD to be silly, but even that aside...the monk thing is just absurd.

There is nothing "Lawful" about the monk. Its a class that involves discipline. Big deal. Wizards require discipline, but they are not required to be lawful, nor barred from being chaotic.

Actually, all the classes require discipline...an argument could I guess be made against Sorcerer and Barbarian...but all the others.

Discipline is a single "Lawful" trait in DnD terms. If a class that requires discipline must be of lawful alignment, the same should certainly go for Wizards definitly.

and really, by the nebulous, personality-trait definitions of Law and Chaos in DnD, many traits of the Monk (being inward-directed, focused on the self etc) could be seen as Chaotic.
BlaineTog
09-06-04, 03:40 PM and really, by the nebulous, personality-trait definitions of Law and Chaos in DnD, many traits of the Monk (being inward-directed, focused on the self etc) could be seen as Chaotic.No, that would be Neutral on the Good/Evil axis.
Merlion
09-06-04, 03:45 PM I wasnt refering to being selfish, as in putting yourself over others. I meant concentrating on knowing, understanding, and perfecting yourself.

I see monks as being very individualistic, which in DnD is considered "Chaotic".

Course, I'm not a big believer in "neutral" on the good/evil access either but thats a whole other discussion.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aramil_silverwind 09-05-04, 09:37 PM	Ok, I have this crackpot idea - a chaotic Monk. It says in the PHB that Monks cannot be chaotic because of thier discipline. Now my question is just this - is it possible to be dedicated and disciplined to a very specific thing and stay random in everything else? Isn't that unto itself very random and Chaotic? Sry to ruin the great idea of uniqueness here, but I got this idea from an Anime (no comments plz, i'm not an idiot about it) called Rurouni Kenshin. The character, named Sanosuke, is a monk in all the way I can see. I fights unarmed like a crazy man, balance great, run really fast.... just about everything a monk can do by the D&D system. However he is VERY random about everything he does. he gambles, he goes into street fighting, he does whatever crackpot idea comes into his head, and dosn't stop to think about the consequences of anything he does. However if theres any once thing he's sure about, its his discipline and determination to improve his skills. Its hard to explain, but i know that he's a monk and not an unarmed fighter. If anyone has seen Kenshin, or can at least see where I'm coming from, plz tell me if thsi is a feasable idea...
thinkhard 09-05-04, 09:44 PM	not exactly. Animes are notorious for characters that make little to no sense. Their juxtoposition is what makes them a commodity in Japanese pop culture, which is basically in a rebellion phase against order. Thus the existance of that kenshin guy. You could possibly make a chaotic monk with proper reasoning...a back story of a religion or system of beliefs that is tied to his chaotic alignment..and slightly changing his class abilities (making Ki strike over Chaos instead of Law). It's sort of the same idea as the paladin of freedom in the Unearthed Arcana.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-05-04, 09:44 PM	Much like the Lawful Bard or Barbarian, there is no good reason not to have a Chaotic Monk. In a few minutes, someone's going to say 'tradition', but my point stands.
thinkhard 09-05-04, 09:55 PM	I admit you'd have to stretch it. It would definately be weak on some points. But you could make up a totally abstract concept behind it, to the point where its a totally different class...with the same abilities as a monk. Maybe the "chaotic monk" is a person who gave totally into random action and events. His randomization and comple dissassociation from reason causes him to preform in a trance like state where everything is simple action vs. response. Through this he catches on to ways to manipulate the world around him by thinking on almost a different plane than everybody else, resulting in the emulation of monk-like abilities. Its kind of eastern in idea: he transcends reason, a weak creation of of lesser sentien beings, and acheives power through merely existing. As flowery as that sounds though, it wouldn't stand up that well under the scrutinization of a strict DM
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-05-04, 10:08 PM	Sanosuke would be Neutral in DnD terms anyway. While he is a strong individual, with a love of 'chaotic' activities, he is devoted to improving his combat prowess and honing his body. Yet another reason the alignment system doesn't work.
thinkhard 09-05-04, 10:10 PM	Most people don't play by the strict alignment rules anyway. I think its existance is kind of a carry over from the AD&D era where the game encouraged a lack of imagination and abuse toward PC's. But Alignment is helpful in character management, so i wouldn't throw it out the window.
BlaineTog 09-05-04, 10:31 PM	Most people don't play by the strict alignment rules anyway. I think its existance is kind of a carry over from the AD&D era where the game encouraged a lack of imagination and abuse toward PC's. But Alignment is helpful in character management, so i wouldn't throw it out the window.Shh! Don't encourage him! ;)
obrysii 09-05-04, 11:01 PM	Sounds like a Drunken Master to me. But Sano just is good with unarmed strikes. I think he's a fighter with Improved Unarmed Combat and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Zanbato). He has high strength and consitution.
amethal 09-06-04, 05:20 AM	The lawful alignment restriction serves to stopping multi-classing with barbarians and bards (ok, can play a lawful barbarian, but a barbarian who can't rage is kind of boring). I don't know if that was intentional, as part of game balance, or if it just turned out that way. As a DM, I wouldn't like a multi-classed barbarian / monk because they both get fast movement and I imagine combining rage with flurry of blows would be too powerful. I've nothing against multi-classes monk / bards though. Without wishing to get too philosophical, I view the law / chaos axis as a way of judging how the character stands in terms of stability vs freedom. I don't see why chaotics are always viewed as having insufficient self discipline. If perfecting his martial arts is important to a chaotic then a chaotic will achieve that. Chaotic wizards aren't hit with penalties to spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) checks because they lack the discipline to properly apply themselves to their magic studies. I agree that if you want to join an order of medieval monks, as portayed in history, then you'd better be lawful because they have loads and loads of rules which, taken in isolation, seem petty and pointless. However, these are fantasy monks, so at the very least should be able to be neutral, if not chaotic.
robitusinz 09-06-04, 01:05 PM	I'm DMing an Oriental Adventures campaign, and for research, I went ahead and bought a library of perhaps 10-15 old Kung Fu Theater movies (one of which is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, of course). In a game meant to parallel the "flavor" of these types of movies (or this piece of pop culture, however you'd like to consider it), you would soon realize that there are quite a few chaotic monks out there. Again, the point here lies with the particular style or flavor of the campaign being run...if you're going for a hyper-realistic, historically-accurate Asian setting, then chaotic monks would be silly, but if your campaign has the feel of something ripped off Channel 39 on Saturday mid-afternoons sometime in the 1980s, then chaotic monks would probably be very permissible. Oh, BTW, a lot of the chaotic monks I've seen tend to be older...usually students of Kung Fu in early life, then drunkards and cheats when they get older, but they can still bring the Crane smackdown if necessary. So perhaps a chaotic monk would still work in DnD without bending any rules...once you leave the Monk life, you can't return to it, but you'd still keep your "powers".
thinkhard 09-06-04, 01:13 PM	The lawful alignment restriction serves to stopping multi-classing with barbarians and bards (ok, can play a lawful barbarian, but a barbarian who can't rage is kind of boring). I don't know if that was intentional, as part of game balance, or if it just turned out that way. As a DM, I wouldn't like a multi-classed barbarian / monk because they both get fast movement and I imagine combining rage with flurry of blows would be too powerful. I've nothing against multi-classes monk / bards though. Without wishing to get too philosophical, I view the law / chaos axis as a way of judging how the character stands in terms of stability vs freedom. I don't see why chaotics are always viewed as having insufficient self discipline. If perfecting his martial arts is important to a chaotic then a chaotic will achieve that. Chaotic wizards aren't hit with penalties to spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) checks because they lack the discipline to properly apply themselves to their magic studies. I agree that if you want to join an order of medieval monks, as portayed in history, then you'd better be lawful because they have loads and loads of rules which, taken in isolation, seem petty and pointless. However, these are fantasy monks, so at the very least should be able to be neutral, if not chaotic. I agree about the multiclassing restrictions. Makes a lot of sense. But if you got discreet permission from your DM and verified you wouldnt multiclass barbarian, i'd not see a problem with it.
Merlion 09-06-04, 03:10 PM	Well, personally I find the whole Law/Chaos axis of alignment in DnD to be silly, but even that aside...the monk thing is just absurd. There is nothing "Lawful" about the monk. Its a class that involves discipline. Big deal. Wizards require discipline, but they are not required to be lawful, nor barred from being chaotic. Actually, all the classes require discipline...an argument could I guess be made against Sorcerer and Barbarian...but all the others. Discipline is a single "Lawful" trait in DnD terms. If a class that requires discipline must be of lawful alignment, the same should certainly go for Wizards definitly. and really, by the nebulous, personality-trait definitions of Law and Chaos in DnD, many traits of the Monk (being inward-directed, focused on the self etc) could be seen as Chaotic.
BlaineTog 09-06-04, 03:40 PM	and really, by the nebulous, personality-trait definitions of Law and Chaos in DnD, many traits of the Monk (being inward-directed, focused on the self etc) could be seen as Chaotic.No, that would be Neutral on the Good/Evil axis.
Merlion 09-06-04, 03:45 PM	I wasnt refering to being selfish, as in putting yourself over others. I meant concentrating on knowing, understanding, and perfecting yourself. I see monks as being very individualistic, which in DnD is considered "Chaotic". Course, I'm not a big believer in "neutral" on the good/evil access either but thats a whole other discussion.