I want to emphasize that so I don't get weird personal messages or the like from someone feeling called out. The things that annoy me, or annoy you, may not be bad for every tabletop group or campaign story, and may even be fun for some groups or there may be exceptions that make them bearable and so on and so on. :zizek-ok:
With that disclaimer aside, I'll list some of my pet peeves, both when I'm running a campaign and when I'm playing in one.
The exile that doesn't actually experience any stigma or negative social consequences for being exiled, but the player insists that the character is exiled somehow because it sounded cool and badass. This gets extra annoying if the exile thing nearly becomes a plot point but that plot point is thwarted because the person playing the exile starts to complain about it.
"The last" whatever they are. Some wonderful stories are about someone being the last of their kind, but when it's used as a cheap and lazy gimmick to try to make a character seem special in a paradoxically basic and commonly-used way, it annoys me.
The walking talking powergaming template. Yes, I can tell that the player knows the rulebook and supplemental materials well, but when asked who the character is, this is the person that talks about the template's superiority and often can't come up with even basic character motivations besides "win and dominate in a game that is supposed to be about cooperation and interactive storytelling."
Direct lifts from any existing well known IP. They aren't just uncreative; I have yet to see a player play such a character convincingly or even design the character well enough to match the intended material. I might actually be impressed if someone pulled it off for a one-off or casual campaign.
Characters that are just the player in real life, but transplanted into the setting with better stats and cool powers. I think it's nearly impossible (and probably not worth the effort) to try to play a character that has absolutely nothing in common with the player's personality, interests, quirks, or the like, but with that said, a direct player-is-the-character player is almost always going to be trouble. In my experience, setbacks, injuries, and especially death can and often will make such players take it very personally, get vindictive, and sometimes have an Epic G*mer moment that can get profane, even violent. Not fun.
Monks have always been my favorite class, though they're usually pretty weak in DnD. You're not wrong that they can be kind of orientalist, but I'm just drawn to the idea of someone focusing on inward perfection, and has no reliance on items. Mechanically, I tend to like jack-of-all-trades characters, which Monks kind of fit into, having decent defense (with usually amazing saves) good martial, and more utility and movement that your barbarian or fighter.
But I do agree that, story wise, they kind of work best reflavored for the generic 'raised in a temple training all day' vibe. Most recent 5e character is an ancient city guard warforged, with monk just representing his built-in warforged capabilities and pre-programed martial routines.
deleted by creator
The type of character to make me rethink my stance on no PvP
deleted by creator
I'm glad you enjoy it! I haven't actually tried playing a monk in 5E, but when I've tried in previous editions, I've found the motivation of inward perfection is challenging to roleplay in a way that engages with the setting and the other players - kinda like the problem of the mysterious rogue with complex backstory and motivations, who keeps their cards close to their chest, and ends up being really boring because the rest of the table just sees them not really engaging. For me, it's more fun to play characters that are expressive and impulsive, perhaps bc I'm more withdrawn irl.
There's also the issue that the monk's abilities tend to be pretty combat focused, which means it's hard to play that inward perfection in a more general way as opposed to just being about martial prowess. Together with the default flavor, it can easily result in, "I'm a traveller from a far-off land with no connections here, who doesn't talk much, and my motivation is to seek out new challenges to test myself in combat and become stronger," and in practice I find that means I'm basically just a murderhobo who's only motivation is to kill shit to get XP and level up. It'd be neat if they had something akin to a wizard's spell book, which might give them more of a motivation of seeking out teachers to learn new manuevers, or something like that. Or if they just had less of a combat focus and more abilities to de-escalate and avoid conflicts to better support the theme.
But yeah I like some of the ideas of the class and I can see it being fun mechanically, and I have seen them played well, I just personally find them not very fun. Like, if I wanted to be responsible and improve myself, I'd just do that irl lol.
I've played it more in 3.5 and Pathfinder to be fair, where they have from extra stuff. Especially been liking them in Pathfinder 2e, where they're focused on stances (modifying their base attack in more interesting ways than just +damage), and ki spells, which give them a lot of potential utility compared to fighters. And I feel like I draw a lot of Exalted, which is kind of an epic myth/wuxia rpg, that has a lot of boisterous 'reach heaven through violence' types, while still being kind of monk themed.
tho even in 5e, their wall run/water walk/extra jump are nice, even if I wish they went farther with it, and provided modular spell to more subclasses than just the few like shadow or 4 elements.