Monks are based on the Shaolin warrior monks of China...Also known as Shaolin warriors.
Due to various Confucian and Buddhist ideals, they learned to fight
with blunt weapons and fists instead of swords and pikes. Likewise,
armor and shields never caught on in a land with few pikes or swords.
But they were basically just fighters like any other warrior in any
other region. They just had a unique culture that emphasized the
blunt/bare weapon loophole. If you beat someone to death with a stick --
its OK because a stick clearly wasn't intended to kill them...yea it
was a pretty dumb argument-- but it was the middle ages when this got
Basically from a lore perspective -- unless we are going to add a dozen
specific Asian classes -- it would make more sense just to let warriors
be Asian and use Asian weapons. They do this in most games even EQ --
Katanas etc. Just add in bow staffs and katas or whatever.
Fists don't make sense evidenced by the monks getting their ass kicked
by real armies when they tried that (Mongols). It only worked
during assassination operations or against other unarmed/unarmored opponents. Which leads me to the fundamental
problem with Monks as a concept:
Their warrior/rogue hybrids. These two classes combined are hard to
balance. They tend to be overpowered tanky - rogues like classic EQ.
They may also be rogue clones that basically amounts to Asian-inspired
rogues. Perhaps they could be warrior-clones -- kind of like warriors
They don't really have a place from a game play perspective. Vanguards
idea of 4 different humans based on African, Asian, Northern and
Middle-Eastern -- was a good idea. That way if you really want to be
something like a monk lore wise -- just be an Asian rogue or warrior.
We don't need these kinds of ethnically-specific classes these days. I realize this post will get a lot of hate -- but i occasionally try to think outside the box.