BeegeeNothing in the original riddle stated that the monks had a death-wish or the devoutness to willingly sacrifice themselves.
That's the difference between a story and a (serious) riddle: they don't take place in our universe, they're bound by the rules given. They have their own universe. A monk is not a human being anymore, it's a mere object that lives by the rules of the riddle. Since nobody wants to read a 100-page description of a universe, before even being presented with the problem itself, the universe of a riddle is usually given in only a few lines. Hence, you can "assume" certain basic consequences, given the basic rules. If it is said the monks with a dot have to jump, you have to assume they
will jump. You can't assume they would doubt or stall, because then there's no point in giving rules anymore. The result is pure luck (or "guessing"), and a (serious) riddle never has luck or guessing as an answer. Again, that's the point of a riddle, it's purely theoritical, it doesn't have to be credible in the universe as we know it. It's not a story.
I know dozens of riddles that could be "solved" by assuming the "objects" have doubts, use their mobile phone to call for a helicopter, just think by themselves "up yours" or suddenly get super-powers. But what's the point of presenting a problem in a different universe if that's how you're gonna solve it?
You're possibly not convinced by that little speach <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> but let's just wrap it up like this: if you're figuring out an answer to a riddle, and your answer involves luck or guessing, you can be pretty sure you're wrong. That's the way riddles work. But it doesn't mean you have to like it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
*** Visit 
