User talk:ProphetPX/Xal'Anim (3.5e Campaign Setting)/Organizations

Organizations by Class
Is a dangerous thing. Sure, one expects to see monks in a monastery and druids chanting in a druid circle deep in the woods, but that's partly because, in real life, the definition of monk is "someone who lives in a monastery" and the definition of druid is "someone who worships pagan gods by wearing a hood and dancing around in a circle deep in the woods". In D&D, the definition of monk is "someone who walks quickly and has hard fists" and the definition of druid is "someone who turns into a beast and controls nature". Monks may learn monkery from a monastery, but people are likely to choose their class by the abilities they wish they had, not just by the silly rituals they want to perform.

I like how all of your monk organizations sound so poncy, especially when read together. --Foxwarrior 03:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * well I am sure that sounds all well and good for you (your definitions of them classes by how you think D&D defines them) but I am far more inclined to give them a cultural backdrop more akin to the way they were originally defined. thanks for your input. --ProphetPX 22:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to explain to you how organizations can't simply rely on a single class for all of the roles involved in them, but then the pesky Sorcerers, Bards, and Rogues showed up. That said, the Barbarian is not a Sorcerer, Rogue, or Bard, and so is pretty sad when confronted with any one of numerous problems. I sure hope they're helped along by a variety of medicine men and shamans, or multiply like rabbits (I guess in this campaign, they could actually be (pseudo-)rabbits) to counteract their crippling uselessness. --Foxwarrior 00:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)