Monks.

[Bones V2.0]

I know RP reasons are listed as to why monks can't be neutral, but what are the game play issues behind this?

As the cabal selections are generally narrowed, with monks being removed from the Knights, and in disfavor with the Legion (last I heard), having such polarized choices is making less sense.

Contemplative, meditation, and... evil? Or good? It truly does seem like monks belong in the neutral category, and perhaps should be restricted to it alone.


In conclusion:

---EDIT---
Also get rid of slith monks.

[Avendin]

Equipment choice, for one. Also, defense from protection. Both would contribute to making neutral monks a lot harder hitting. It's a good point you make, though.

[Asyndic]

Neutral Monks would pwn peeps...

[Bones V2.0]

[ssgtortho]

You have the Shaman/Healer Paladin/Dark-Knight, and the Dual monks. Neutral classes are missing out on a lot, period!

[Brains]

Protection reduces the amount of damage recieved by about 33%. While not as effective as Sanctuary, when a person fights against someone of the opposite alignment, that extra 33% helps a lot.

Neutrals are not affected by Protection in any way. They cannot have the spell cast on them and their dealt damage is not reduced by the spell.

[E-ant]

Except for shield of words which is a protection from all for all.

<--- The office guy dances better than kalists spidey

[sweet_canadian_buzzcut]

*twitch*

[Vertas]

[Amdorin]

Was it the "Sweet_Canadian" part that gave you that hint Vertas? Or the buzzcut/mullet similarity?

*complete sarcasm*

[Sebryn]

"Buzzcut" was my suggestion... thanks for taking it, mullet...

[Flying Hampster of Doom]

When I think of monks I see a religious person, meditative true, thoughtful also true, yet they have a specific religous purpose that they hold true too. I think people put evils in a specific class that is neither meditative nor thoughtful, yet by definition of religion an evil doesnt necessarily have to be a murder incapable of intelligent discourse. Evil can be seen as a religious beleif in a specific god being more capable or powerful then another. Hence monks should remain in the good and evil catagory so that these fighting clerics can remain true to their religious cause.

[Gygh]

Umm, yeah I know some people get pissed when Ar and D&D are mentioned in the same sentance, but they are similar. Monks in D&D are usually neutral, for they deicate the majority of thier time to mediation and are (like palidans) not supposed to be greedy. Also a monk (in D&D) cannot go against thier alignment or else they will essentually be outcasted and can no longer gain ranks in that class... Basically I think monks should be neutral, atleast Seebo would be safer that way.

[Shughurd]

neutral monk will be stronger than good or evil monk... becz thx to equipment. and aye it hits harder to others.

[a ponderer]

i have played a monk up firly high, and i'm afraid that i don't see the need for a neutral monk.if i remember corectly, they can be evil/good and neutral/lawful that makes perfsct sense for what a monk is to me. i don't see how a monk can be neutral, that would no longer be a monk, it would be like... YOGAist or some such crappy thing.

[Phostan]

Numbnut, it makes enough sense that a monk could be neutral. They believe in (keyword)'balance'(as in neutral), and harmony, and all things in moderation. They have religious believes, but dont believe in forcing it or demonstrating it upon others(which goods and evils are prone to do)
Monks are like Jedi. I mean, okay, technically Jedi are a force for good, but they're pretty pacifistic until the Sith start coming after them. And in all groups of people who take the time to learn the neat monk kung-fu-pow action, some claim to want to know it only for self-defense, but instead want it for power. Kinda like the Sith. Blah blah blah, yadda yadda. And I don't know about neutral monks getting sweet eq. I think a lot of the light weight eq that monks can wear is either good only or evil only, or usable by all three races. There isnt a lot of neutral only stuff. Rod of neutrality? 3 dr, like, well, the blackened crystal rose, except no +1 con. But, what people said about no one being able to use protection against them, is true, people would very likely get owned by a neutral monk. It just makes the game a lot more interesting to have them evil and good. If every monk was neutral, they wouldn't get to go on as big of rampages as the goods and evils, and they'd be boring, and dull, like bards are, far as I'm concerned, thats good enough reason to keep them good or evil only. Oh, and there has been the one or two exceptions to monks in D&D who've been chaotic evil instead of lawful or neutral and what not..but that's about as big of an exception as Drizzt.

[Seryie]

Heres a little tip for some of you : don't bring back up dead ass threads that haven't been in discussion for a long ass time.. Check the posting date!!

[DropThat]

Obviously this post is still relevant, otherwise it wouldnt have been brought back up. Would you rather they create another post about this ? because as far as I know, you people dont like two topics that deal with the same thing.

Seryie, if theres people who keep bringing it up, it isnt dead. people will probably bring this up again later, whether or not this topic is still around so why not just shut up and let them voice their opinion here.

[Seryie]

If something is that long dead, I don't think it's needed to have any more thoughts placed into it.

[Phostan]

I dunno Seryie, I think Dropthat kinda shut you down there, by producing a good point. Some people feel the need to tell others off like you did for the sake of ego boosting(I know I do) But really, unless you do it in a cruel, witty way, no one else is going to appreciate it. If old threads werent meant to be brought back up, I'm sure an Immortal could take the time to lock the thread. But it looks open to me.