Thanks...
the closest would be Dukar's Jhimar or Kupav order (not exclusively elven), then you take Weapon path: Fist
But, just because it isn't officially in 'canon' doesn't mean you can't make something up... it's your game, do whatever the hell you want with it.
I've actually made two elven monks, both female. One is a gold elf monk of the Sun Soul Order. The other is a drow monk of Eilistraee (and according to Ed Greenwood, Eilistraee does have monks, just not many of them).
The order of the Silent Moon :D
An Eilistraeen Monk order that uses cresent shaped weapons, and operates like a 'good' Ninja group.
I'm thinking each sub-race should get their own (Sun Soul is perfect for a Gold Elf!).
You'd have to check 3.x sources, but I can't think of any. Races Of The Wild says elves are too chaotic for the Monk, but that didn't stop a bunch of Drow from taking it up: the Blackened Fist of Undrek'thoz (Underdark)*, the Varde Elgg,
* I found no Ebon Hand. Was this what Khaelieth was referring to?
The picture for the Monk Of The Long Death is an elf, but I don't think there's any particular interest there.
You could adapt the lore from the Sublime Way edition of the Class Chronicles series and the Tome Of Battle, and say that the Devoted Spirit Crusaders and Eternal Blades are staff-wielding monks instead. Linking them to Labelas Enoreth, quarterstaff-wielding god of time and longevity, would suit quite well.
But there's a clear gap here to invent your own.
Mmm, Monks Of Eilistraee... They won't need to wear armour, or clothes...
Do keep in mind that by default, religion and monks in any elven society does not work well, as all deities are Chaotic. You'd have to bend the (unreasonable) one-step rule again to tie the monks into or close to an elven religious order.
In any case, the point is that 3E (and 4E too) defines the monk as an unarmed and unarmored fighter rather than a cleric. For monks in AD&D were the latter rather than the former. If you want a unarmed and unarmored fighter, there is no problem whatsoever in any race of intelligent beings. In a fantasy setting like the Realms, that shaolin style fighting is nice, the codex behind it with all it's Easternly touch not needed. So I for one see no reason of not having unarmored and unarmed fighters, i.e. "monks", in Elven society. I would simply leave much of the 3E core class description out of the equation. On the other hand, elves are IMHO, by default, not exactly build for this kind of combat. But that's just me.
BTW, drow would be better off if they pursue the rogue class instead, but taking the improved unarmed strike - feat. For thus the rogue - e.g. after getting into another house's service (servant et al) - could use the sneak attack "unarmed" too, which would go down well in the ever suspicious drow society
The Wizards re-invented the AD&D monks in Unearthed Arcana, calling them Cloistered Clerics.
Regarding the Blackened Fist, there's a story about them and the Shevarash chaps in Realms of the Elves. A very good and revealing one, BTW.
I found no mention of elven monastic orders in Faiths & Avatars, but of course, either Monks didn't exist in older editions, or elves couldn't take them.
You'd have to check 3.x sources, but I can't think of any. Races Of The Wild says elves are too chaotic for the Monk, but that didn't stop a bunch of Drow from taking it up: the Blackened Fist of Undrek'thoz (Underdark)*, the Varde Elgg,
* I found no Ebon Hand. Was this what Khaelieth was referring to?
Meant Blackened Fist, sorry=)
-That said, if in your game you need an Elven Monestary, go right ahead and make one up.
there's a Chaos Monk variant in Dragon 335
-Oh, G-d. Is that like the Chaotic Paladin?
Rinon - you may have just inspired me to create my first Realmslore in months!
Glad to hear that!
The order of the Silent Moon :D
An Eilistraeen Monk order that uses cresent shaped weapons, and operates like a 'good' Ninja group.
That could work!
I'm thinking each sub-race should get their own (Sun Soul is perfect for a Gold Elf!).
I thought the same thing.
Do keep in mind that by default, religion and monks in any elven society does not work well, as all deities are Chaotic. You'd have to bend the (unreasonable) one-step rule again to tie the monks into or close to an elven religious order.
I would like to point out, though, that the Sun Soul Order involves two CG religions (Sune and Selune) in addition to a NG religion (Lathander).
-Oh, G-d. Is that like the Chaotic Paladin?
A "Chaos Monk" concept kind of makes me roll my eyes, too.
A "Chaos Monk" concept kind of makes me roll my eyes, too.
-Then we shall roll them in unison, and the effect will be that much greater!
I would like to point out, though, that the Sun Soul Order involves two CG religions (Sune and Selune) in addition to a NG religion (Lathander).
Have I mentioned that the whole one-step-rule stuff is IMHO rather restrictive, not exactly feasible, simplistic, and a simple copy & paste of the clergy alignments of the F&A books could have dealt with it all far better?
Of course, 4E is said to change this again, after the stuff above or that of Unearthed Arcana tries to wiggle about and bend the hardline ruling of the Core material.
-Then we shall roll them in unison, and the effect will be that much greater!
I'm suddenly reminded of that theme from Voltron. Anyway, I don't consider the monk alignment thing very relevant - imo their training is more about self-discipline, not adherence to a communitarian view, and elves can have self-discipline in abundance when there is need for it. IIRC their mages don't have a problem dedicatind centuries to their craft, so elven martial artists certainly sound quite feasible.
Mechanically, the chaos monk isn't bad, and I have a much more favorable opinion of it than the standard one - mostly due to its superior "flurry" and the ease of tacking 1-2 barbarian levels for a quick pounce. BTW, a preview of it should appear in the the Crystalkeep class compendium. Devotees of Eilistraee, or any other elven deity, should certainly take a look at it and the Battle Dancer from the Dragon compendium.
As for Zanan's idea of drow monks being rogues with Improved US - and I suppose superior US - it is certainly viable. 2-4 levels of fighter for the bonus feats and the DotU substitution level don't hurt either, unless your DM is a stickler for XP penalties and you don't use a prestige class.
there's a Chaos Monk variant in Dragon 335
*shivers*
I mean how that work out...
"Focus on the chaos my student, let your disapline fall to pieces and have no self control, then do all theses crazy acts of pure disapline!"
While I'm inclinded to let someone play say a TN monk with lawfull leanings, I think the idea of a monk that focuses on chaos is a bit well.. dumb
Have I mentioned that the whole one-step-rule stuff is IMHO rather restrictive, not exactly feasible, simplistic, and a simple copy & paste of the clergy alignments of the F&A books could have dealt with it all far better?
You have, I just wanted to point out what I did. I wasn't trying to argue with you.
-Then we shall roll them in unison, and the effect will be that much greater!
Indeed.:P
My drow monk of Eilistraee was LG. What I liked about her was that I played her as a redeemed villain--she wasn't always good, she was a full-blown evil drow of the Underdark who did things no decent person would want to think about.
*shivers*
I mean how that work out...
"Focus on the chaos my student, let your disapline fall to pieces and have no self control, then do all theses crazy acts of pure disapline!"
While I'm inclinded to let someone play say a TN monk with lawfull leanings, I think the idea of a monk that focuses on chaos is a bit well.. dumb
-Indeed. That IS discipline, learning and training how to access the Chaos within their spirits, or where ever it comes from. Like, that one particular martial arts style, Drunken Monkey, or whatever it is called. Sure, it looks very chaotic, but there is a systematic approach to it. It looks Chaotic on the outside, but it's Lawful underneath it all.
Indeed.:P
My drow monk of Eilistraee was LG. What I liked about her was that I played her as a redeemed villain--she wasn't always good, she was a full-blown evil drow of the Underdark who did things no decent person would want to think about.
-Then, as I am a decent person, I will not ask, nor will I think about it.
-Then, as I am a decent person, I will not ask, nor will I think about it.
Good idea. I created the character, and even I don't want to know all the details of her past.
-Then we shall roll them in unison, and the effect will be that much greater!
*shivers*
I mean how that work out...
"Focus on the chaos my student, let your disapline fall to pieces and have no self control, then do all theses crazy acts of pure disapline!"
While I'm inclinded to let someone play say a TN monk with lawfull leanings, I think the idea of a monk that focuses on chaos is a bit well.. dumb
well, it's a matter of personal perspective and belief, some say that even Xaositecs are lawful, and there's also the Theory of Chaos and stuff
this is the description (could've been explained much better, mechanically I agree, not bad):
Chaos Monks practice an art that supplicates chance and anarchy. Their core philosophy preaches that ki is an unbridled energy more potent when untamed. To most, the concept of chaotic monks seems a contradiction, yet those who have witnessed the effects firsthand are loath to deny its power
this is the description (could've been explained much better, mechanically I agree, not bad):
-Feh, the decription contradicts itself. And, though it seems to want to say to naysayers, "This isn't a contradiction", it fails short, and instead says, "But they're sure powerful."
-The concept of a 'Chaos Monk' is silly, but the concept of a Monk who adheres to tenets that espouse chance and unpredictability ("Chaos") is not.
-Feh, the decription contradicts itself. And, though it seems to want to say to naysayers, "This isn't a contradiction", it fails short, and instead says, "But they're sure powerful."
-The concept of a 'Chaos Monk' is silly, but the concept of a Monk who adheres to tenets that espouse chance and unpredictability ("Chaos") is not.
I once created a female Moon elf Monk/Drunken Master(inspired on a girl I met). She was the comedy relief/Sexygirl (think Ryoko from Tenchi Muyo) Ah, good times...
-Feh, the decription contradicts itself. And, though it seems to want to say to naysayers, "This isn't a contradiction", it fails short, and instead says, "But they're sure powerful."
LOL, that's how I read it too.
"It seems like a contradiction...and it...uhhhh, is. But it's REALLY powerful, in any case!"
I once created a female Moon elf Monk/Drunken Master(inspired on a girl I met). She was the comedy relief/Sexygirl (think Ryoko from Tenchi Muyo) Ah, good times...
-Ryoko was my favorite from Tenchi. Washu comes in a distant second.
LOL, that's how I read it too.
"It seems like a contradiction...and it...uhhhh, is. But it's REALLY powerful, in any case!"
Designer: "But, sir, what happens if someone asks why?"
Editor: "Are you in charge here!? No, I didn't think so! I said, 'No one is going to ask'! Now, finish that statblock and have it on my desk by noon...Or else..."
-Ryoko was my favorite from Tenchi. Washu comes in a distant second.
I liked KAGATO!
But that's neither here nor there.:P
I liked KAGATO!
But that's neither here nor there.:P
-But...Kagato is so evil!
-Ryo-Ohki is the penultimate best, though.
-Nagi is cool, too.
A "Chaos Monk" concept kind of makes me roll my eyes, too.
Actually, that rule is pretty silly, and is an ananchronism still hanging around from 1e.
The Monk in D&D is not really a Monk, except for perhaps in OA. HE or she is really just a fantasy martial-artist, and therefore does not neccessarily have to be from a religious order - I think that concept comes from the Chinese Shaolin (but don't beat me up f I'm mistaken).
The 'Drunken Master' is probably one of the most chaotic classes you can take, and yet it is a Monk-based PrC. Also, just like the Paladin, many of the class restrictions are overidden by the setting - in FR, both of those classes have many more options not normally available to them.
So, even though the RW martial artists of China were primarily religious orders, there is absolutely NO reason why the fantasy versions used in D&D should be that way. The Scarlet Brotherhood of GH had a very large Monk membership, and they were more like 'Nazi Spies' (racists) then anything Oriental (I also use them in MY FR).
Several cultures aside from Oriental ones had 'Martial-Arts traditions', including the MesoAmericans, the Celts, and the Vikings (can you think of anything more chaotic then a Viking Berserker? And yet... their fighting skills were a type of Martial Art). Why, if you include the fact that they can use weapons, even the Greek Gladiators could be called Martial Artists, and perhaps even the Roman Legionaires (although they wore a breastplate, they remained over the rest of their body mostly un-armored, to allow for better movement). Even PrCs like the Swashbuckler, Whirling Dervish, and Duelist lend themselves to this frame of mind - they are about AVOIDING being hit, and fighting skill, rather then tank-like armor doing all the 'dirty work' for them.
So, if you broaden your conception of what a Monk is (a Martial Artist), he is really little more ten a Fighter who has specialized in un-armed combat. I don't even think it should be a class in 4e - just a Path taken by fighters. For me, thats a huge swing in opinion, because the Monk is one of my favorute classes.
But it can easily be duplicated with 4e paths, or 3e Feats. Hopefuly, the 4e rules will be like the ones in the options book, and armore will only absorb some blows, not effect weather you actually get hit. The system there for Defense Bonuses based on class and level are excellent, so I'm hoping thats what we'll see in 4e. With those rules, classes like the Swashbuckler and Monk can really shine, and come into their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts
And they indeed can be found all around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts
(Markus is right, I just felt the need to clarify
)The Monk is a bit of a mongrel-class, a mixture of armed/unarmed & unarmoured combat styles and a few features incorrectly derived from Asian martial movies (Slow Fall should have been incredible jumping abilities) and others that are completely bizarre filler material (the Body abilities, SR, Tongues). It doesn't suit any unarmed martial artist archetype, unless you prestige out to a more suitable PrC.
It really didn't need to be Lawful either: Drunken Boxing and Monkey styles among others suit Chaotic Monk characters much better, while most unarmed martial arts from around the world have no religious/mystical temple connections at all. A French sailor using Savate in barroom brawls? Chaotic. A medieval European noble duelist fencer? Not necessarily Lawful. A ancient Greek pankratist going on a rampage? Probably Chaotic. Having the inclination to learn to beat someone up with your fists doesn't require any more dedication and training than a standard Fighter does with a sword.
The Monk is a wonky class, and if a Chaos Monk goes someway towards adapting it to suit more character concepts with some altered flavour, then all the better.
It really didn't need to be Lawful either: Drunken Boxing and Monkey styles among others suit Chaotic Monk characters much better, while most unarmed martial arts from around the world have no religious/mystical temple connections at all.
-Both are martial arts styles that, while they seem chaotic, aren't chaotic. There is a great deal of law underneath the facade of chaos.
I'd disagree with that in some respects... much of it depends on the outlook of the practicioner as to how much 'law' interjects itself into any martial art. The order is only there if its acknowledged as such philosophically, otherwise, its just a series of actions to achieve a desired effect that has no bearing on ethical outlook. Concepts like self-discipline and a "still mind" are not mutually exclusive to a chaotic alignment if they are seen as things that are internalized and highly personal.
Exactly. Hence my utter dislike for the rather simplistic one-step rule for clergies. I for one have no problem to envisage a LE/LG priestess or blackguard/paladin of Lolth or Corellon, who devotes himself to a codex or dogma and keeps to that faithfully. The philosophy-argument regarding monks need, IMHO not carry over into alignments whatsoever.
BTW, 3E monks are, IMHO, just a different form of fighter (like the swashbuckler).
BTW II, Unearthed Arcana offers a wide variety of optional classes and class features, fighting styles et al.
I'd disagree with that in some respects...
-Everything has a law, and internal mechanisms governing their behavior. One could say that there are laws governing chaos itself.
-But...Kagato is so evil!
I know, I loved it.
The Monk in D&D is not really a Monk, except for perhaps in OA. HE or she is really just a fantasy martial-artist, and therefore does not neccessarily have to be from a religious order - I think that concept comes from the Chinese Shaolin (but don't beat me up f I'm mistaken).
I'm aware that monks don't have to be religious (even the Old Order in the FR, a very religion-based setting, had no apparent patron deity), but the concept behind the 3E D&D monk class did call for adherence to a set of tenets, if not any particular deity.
The idea that they are lawful stems from their discipline (waking at dog-awful hours in the morning to practice, eat, practice, meditate, practice, eat, practice, practice, dinner, practice, sleep). But there are also philosophical or religious beliefs put in training, after all, one main idea is having your body under controll as a means to achieve illumination, I think he said.
So, about elves. If you could have a paradoxic monk, it'd work. They follow some laws that have to do with chaos: change must always happen, you must never take the same solution to problems, chaos must never have a clear pattern, etc... by using absolute words to describe change (never, always, etc), you're giving law to chaos. So it'd work for elves, who are chaotic, no?
Besides, they're elves, so they might give into song or dance every now and then, but a monk isn't "Durrr, law, fight, durrr" monk unless you want to take all the flavor out of a character.
-Everything has a law, and internal mechanisms governing their behavior. One could say that there are laws governing chaos itself.
The "laws" that define reality are a very different case. In most cases, you don't have to look them up or even be aware of them for them to affect you, hence they are a natural state of things, and are more neutral. Gravity doesn't concentrate on functioning, it just is. One could say that there are laws governing anything, but ask yourself seriously how much of that is because we perceive it that way, or if some law is actually there dictating everything. Ultimately, laws of nature and the universe are an artificial construct that are put there to help us comprehend the world around us. The universe is under no obligation to meet our expectations however.
...but ask yourself seriously how much of that is because we perceive it that way, or if some law is actually there dictating everything.
-Things function because there is a law governing what they do. Not in the literal sense, of course, where gravity has a rulebook that it cannot deviate from, but in the metaphysical sense.
Ultimately, laws of nature and the universe are an artificial construct that are put there to help us comprehend the world around us. The universe is under no obligation to meet our expectations however.
-However, without us existing, these forces would continue behaving as they do. Gravity existed as Newtons' Laws of Gravity say is does long before Humans evolved, and will continue existing until the day whatever cataclysm claim the life of the planet. Again, gravity doesn't have a rulebook, but it behaves in certain ways, and does not deviate from those set rules.
-I can agree with the essence of what you are saying- that these things are 'lawful' only because we ascribe the qualities of law to them, based on the fact that they behave in a manner that we define as 'lawful'- but wouldn't that which we call a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
And the rose analogy, while giving you points for the Shakespeare reference, isn't quite working in your favor. The point of that is we can stick all the labels we want on something, call it something other than it is, but it doesn't change the base nature of what we're talking about. Call the consistency of nature 'lawful' all you want, but that doesn't make it so, just like calling a rose a pinto doesn't make it horse or a bean. ;)
-Everything has a law, and internal mechanisms governing their behavior. One could say that there are laws governing chaos itself.
A so-called 'chaotic system,' such as a storm, could be said to be *more* lawful than a government or a code of conduct or a legal system, which is cobbled together from human assumptions, gut reactions, emotional concerns, etc. and not necessarily following any sort of actual laws of nature or physics or anything that can be measured, like a hurricane.
As for martial arts, some of the more famous practitioners, such as Bruce Lee, go out of their way to learn many different styles, each rigid and inflexible, and then completely unlearn the static kata, adapting them fluidly to mix and match into a 'whatever works in this particular moment, which may never come again' collage of reactions. In breaking the 'rules' and 'laws' of established martial arts forms, some create a more effective combat style.
I am reminded of Monte Cook's 'Rage Mage,' which he said he wrote up after reading that a Raging character couldn't cast spells. He said that this sort of blanket close-minded forbiddance nagged at him, and so he designed a spellcaster who Raged, just to say, 'nyah-NYAH!'
I feel the same way about allowing chaotic Monks, or lawful characters that can Rage (a very focused combat frenzy, less wild tooth-gnashing and more cold focused hatred). Alignment restrictions on classes or class features are flavor text, IMO, and may not suit all campaigns, just as the multiclassing restrictions on Paladins and Monks didn't suit the Forgotten Realms setting and were given extensive exceptions, appropriate to the setting.
Like I said, its a throwback, and although the originaal concept was based upon a highly ordered religous group, the newer Monk Class is nothing at all like that - it is a Martial Artist, plain and simple. Even Ninjas are considered 'Monks' in the D&D rules (before the Ninja core class came out, which is rather redundant).
So, can you have a chaotic Monk? Thats open for debate...
Can you have a chaotic martial artist? Of course you can! And thats why I don't think the D&D Monk should have the lawful restriction (unless you are playing in a OA setting, like Kara-Tur or Rokugon, and even then, it could be open to what group you are a member of).
So, if in your game Monks are Oriental-style fighting Monks, then keep them lawful, but if thats just a generic term you are applying to all Martial Artists, then no.
Sure, its a hallmark of law, but its not antithetical to chaos by the same token.
-That would defy the laws of logic, then. Something cannot be something and it's opposite at the same time.
Sounds like how I tend to define chaotic types Khaelieth... but you're wrong anyway because you're you, while I'm correct because I'm me. :P
You said i was a bit of alright when you were whispering sweet nothings last night!
And Khaelith, that was part of the whole using you thing. Never believe what I say to you at moments like that. I lie. :P
Does chaos exist objectively? Yeah, it could, but I tend to doubt it.
-There you go, then. Everything has an ultimate objective truth. That we understand it, or are even aware of it does not negate this fact, however.
Its a path of least resistance thing that nature tends to follow for as much efficiency as possible under a given set of circumstances... just because we don't understand those circumstances and factors doesn't mean they aren't there.
-Than you ultimatley agree with my original statement? This is, more or less, what I said.
And no, I don't really agree with it, simply on the basis that I don't see law as much different. I don't really think it exists any more than chaos does. Its a convenient way of describing the universe to make it more comprehendable, and not a force in and of itself. Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, Bob, Whatever, I see them as philosophies that blind us to objective reality to be honest, but unfortunately necessary to allow communication so that we can move beyond them through discussion. You on the otherhand seem to be a proponent that reality is ultimately lawful when everything is broken down. A minor point of contention really, but given how much we just love our nuanced semantics around here, I thought I'd bring it up.
I don't really think it exists any more than chaos does. Its a convenient way of describing the universe to make it more comprehendable, and not a force in and of itself.
-An objectivity would say that everything has an objective principle/truth: Law, Chaos, Me, You, Bob. In D&D, objectivism is closely related to True Names, I would think.
-Concerning Elven Monks (and same thing with Paladins)...Elves are much too free-spirited and everything to really mesh very well with the tenets of being a Monk. As such, there are going to be very few Monk monestaries comprised only of Elves. The most likely thing is that you'll see Elven Monks in already existing orders.
-That said, if in your game you need an Elven Monestary, go right ahead and make one up.
If I recall, Labelas Enoreth has a few Monks. I could be wrong, but at most, I would see some of his faithful doing so. Never understood why he was Chaotic though... Would have thought him Neutral Good.