What is Ki?

[Gamerprinter]

At NK primarily, one way I had brought the "East" into a standard western Europe styled campaign setting, was to have a large city with a China Town located within it as immigrants from the East settled into this large urban sprawl.

It was great way to bring ninja, monks, samurai and other eastern flavored classes into a "normal" D&D world, without forcing the party to travel East to see it. I know in some senses this reflects a more modern setting, however, think of Baghdad of pre-medieval period with many other cultures having followed the trade routes including: Chinese, Jews, Africans, Russians, Mongols.

Its really not that hard to imagine Eastern classes in a standard D&D world, if you look at that example.

GP

[Nomadic]

MSA lighten up, I wasn't insulting you. Based on your replies I simply am deducing that you don't have the viewpoint of the two forms that I do. Ignorance of a subject isn't stupidity, just lack of insight into that subject. For example I am ignorant of tailoring but that doesn't mean I am an idiot.

Karro, reread what I said. You can't be a believer in ki in the same sense that you can be a believer in god. Ki isn't religious. Anyhow, don't run down the everything is faith path because I know that one well

[EldritchNumen]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and don't have anything to directly add to the conversations in play.

I do think, however, that it is worth noticing an interesting parallel. Like the word "spirit" (from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath"), the word chi (ki, etc., also meaning "breath" is an variety of Oriental languages, stemming from the Chinese) has a pretty wide range of meanings. Ask any native English speaker what spirit is, and you're likely to get an extremely wide range of answers. Certain traditions (scientific, religious, philosophical, philological, and so forth) will have different answers, of course. But many people will have a vague idea that it exists, but not be able to effectively articulate exactly what it is, when pressed.

Chi, even in an Oriental context, is like this. Various groups and even individuals define it differently, and agreement comes only in wide strokes. So, a certain martial tradition might make a distinction between chi and ki like some have suggested, while others might maintain that they are the same thing. (As an aside, the two are simply different Romanizations of the same root word from various Oriental languages; semantically, they are virtually indistinguishable.)

What is the point of this? This: the power source "ki" refers to a very general sort of power (others have made this point).

Pretend, for example, that there was a power source called "spirit." Some might (convincingly and rightly) argue that spirit is essentially mental, and thus overlaps with psionic power, which is also essentially mental; on the other hand, one might (also convincingly and rightly) argue that spirit is essentially rooted in a precognitive and intuitive relationship with the world, and thus deserves its own separate category; one might even (convincingly and rightly) argue that spirit is synonymous with natural, or divine, or even martial power sources, depending upon one's conception of what spirit itself is.

So, I agree with the suggestions regarding semantic usage: take ki and make it mean whatever you want it too in your game. I suspect that none of us would, when pressed, agree as to what divine, arcane, or even martial power sources are! (Does martial power come from disciplined training, as for the fighter? An uncanny physical grace, as for rogues? A thorough grasp of tactics and unyielding determination, as for a warlord [and doesn't that sound more mental than physical]? Even our assumption that martial power arises from physical prowess is challenged by the core books).

We know that ki is oriental, mysterious, and a source of energy that can transform the world. It is accessed through some combination of mental and physical cultivation or training. That's enough; take it and make it something that adds to your story and to your world. (If we look closely enough, this is what we do every day with our own lives anyway).

[msa]

@Karro: Nicely said.

@EN: That was a very important and well-made point

@Nomad: Sorry I got grumpy. I'm trying not to troll. But you assumed wrong, and it was offensive.

A decade ago, when I was your age, I had studied aikido for three years, I was lucky to have taken the mat with 2 of the Oosensei's students, I had 6 years of japanese language (my high school offered it o.O), and I was 3 years out of a heavy Taoism + meditation phase. That said, I wasn't drinking the koolaid nearly as deeply as you, but its unlikely that you have much more experience with eastern culture and mysticism than I had. Then. A decade ago.

I would suggest that you open yourself up to the possibility that my attitude is a result of wisdom and experience and not ignorance. The difference between ki and chi, if there is one (EN's point is very good and you should read it carefully), is marginal at best. And... it is a belief. It is not any more measurable and verifiable than, say, the power of prayer. This is not meant disparaging, btw... they are both lovely things if you can believe in them, and faith is a noble thing. But you've got to call a spade a spade.

[RPMiller]

As a practitioner of Tai Chi Chuan (note the word Chi in the name) I am as intimate with Chi as Nomadic is with Ki. I can tell you a good amount about Chi. As someone whose best friend practiced Aikido I can also tell you about Ki. Before I do, I have two items to address:

1. Some of the above comments are getting a little heated. I suggest that those of you that are taking things personally should step away from this thread and cool off a little. If the posts continue to get heated I will lock this thread and talk to the offenders. (Note the D&D thread to understand the seriousness.) More on this later.

2. Nomadic, where are you getting your information on Chi? I am assuming that it is coming from your Aikido teacher, is that assumption correct? I am curious to get the answer before I move on.

[Karro]

Karro, reread what I said. You can't be a believer in ki in the same sense that you can be a believer in god. Ki isn't religious. Anyhow, don't run down the everything is faith path because I know that one well

I don't think I "ran down the everything is faith path", as I specifically tried to set up a dichotomy of that which is provable or understandable through non-faith-based measures versus that which can only be understood through faith-based measures. This might be something of a continuum between the two, but largely I find things either to be in the one category or the other. But to put the point in a way that takes "god" out of the equation, let's compare "ki" to a human "spirit". Let's assume no one worships this "spirit" in a divine sense (probably not exactly true, but for the sake of argument, let's simplify this and ignore that circumstance). Now, can you touch or taste or otherwise prove the existence of the spirit? No; but you can be a believer in spirit. You can believe it exists, or you can believe it does not exist. What evidence supports this belief? Faith is one primary support for this belief. Based on this presupposed faith and understanding of it, you are then open to the possibility of experiencing it in a more physical way, but without this faith-based understanding you will not be able to do so. Now, can you touch or taste or otherwise prove the existence of ki? No; but you can be a believer in ki. You can believe it exists, or you can believe it does not exist. Some of us who are not adherents to an eastern philosophical system do not believe in the existence of ki. Why? Either because (a) it has not been proven to exist or (b) we do not have a faith in it or a cultural perception that presupposes the existence of it. Of course, this is not proof either of the non-existence nor of the existence of it. For those who do believe in ki, I would suspect that as with the spirit, they are open to and able to experience something that attests to them of its existence. For those of us who have no such understanding, we cannot. That, I think, is the essence of faith.

So, I'm trying not to be offensive in anyone's belief systems. As I said, I have my own belief system to which I adhere, and I believe strongly that the tenets of that system are true and real. But I also recognize that most of those tenets are not verifiable in a scientific or physical way, and only understandable through an alternate means of experience. I recognize that other people are equally as convinced that their belief systems are true, and like I said, I respect that. I don't adhere to their belief systems, but I respect that they believe in them, and I don't mean to suggest that their belief systems are not true or real. I'm just trying to demonstrate a parallel in the means by which we come to understand and believe in our various belief systems, regardless of the differences between those systems, and how that belief informs our ability to experience and test our beliefs. As an aside to this, though, now that I think of it, one possible hang-up is the fact that "faith" or "belief" as I've outlined it is probably mostly a western concept. To a practioner or adherent of eastern-based philosophies, it might seem inappropriate to apply a western concept. Which goes back to the "semantic debate" point: that we're understanding these things based on different cultural and linguistic mindframes that do not have a complete overlap.

I've been reading this thread with interest, and don't have anything to directly add to the conversations in play.

We know that ki is oriental, mysterious, and a source of energy that can transform the world. It is accessed through some combination of mental and physical cultivation or training. That's enough; take it and make it something that adds to your story and to your world. (If we look closely enough, this is what we do every day with our own lives anyway).

I think you added very well to the conversation. That was really my point at first, but I think you put it in a way that was quite eloquent! Particularly if we remove ourselves from our real-world outlook on these things, it becomes even easier to decide what outlook we would find most interesting within the context of a fictional world. I figured that was the point of the thread in the first place, was in comparing ki and psionic powers in a fictional context. So at the end of the day, I think we should divorce the concept of "ki" and "psionic powers" in a fictional sense from our preconceived notions of what those are in a real-world sense.

RP: my apologies if I acted overheated, myself. I hope my thoughts aren't offensive to you, as a practioner of Tai Chi, as it is certainly not my intent to be offensive. Out of curiosity, what is your understaning of chi versus ki, if that's not too far off the topic of this thread?

[msa]

As to whether ki and chi are different? Thats sort of like a discussion about whether protestants and catholics are different. If you are really into either of them, you probably think they are completely different. If you aren't, you probably see the differences as minor at best.

This was an effort to bow out of any discussion that belongs with believers, and not non-believers like me. And, to be honest, if I hadn't been called ignorant (which I'm afraid is very pejorative), I would have. And I am going to try to bow out for good after this last thought.

The Chinese ideogram (at least... one of three acceptable alternate ideograms) for "chi", or in modern pingyin "qi", is identical to the Japanese ideogram for "ki". It also has a Korean analog "ji". This character is used to refer to the primal energy in aikido, taoism, quigong, and a host of other eastern philosophies and religions. While each philosophy, I'm sure, has a different interpretation of it, its the same character and the same word pretty much universally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi

Oddly, it is not the same "chi" in "tai chi". "Tai chi" is properly short for "tai chi chuan", which means supreme ultimate fist. "Chi" in this context means "ultimate". While "chi" by itself has little meaning, the term "tai chi" is a term used in taoism and confucisonism to represent the unification of yin and yang. However, many practices of tai chi also refer to and focus on manipulation of "qi", using the same ideogram and meaning above.

All right... Good luck to all of you.

[Gamerprinter]

For me only, I'm not religious at all. Not to say I'm an athiest, because I'm not, however, I don't treat religion as all that important to me.

When I started this discussion, I hadn't intended it to go down the religious road. At the same time the treatment whether a religion or system of beliefs in game should be taken serious by the characters, or players in a roleplaying sense - not that players should actually belief in this or that. However if the characters don't take these beliefs serious, to me at least, the suspension of disbelief fails and the game is lessened somehow.

One skewed idea of mine is that psionics is science fiction, though I enjoy reading science fiction and have played sci-fi RP games (traveller, space opera) in the past. I don't do so today, and my fellow gamers in our group would never play those games. We like fantasy, because we already live in modern and future is just too close to modern for our tastes.

Perhaps because I separate sci-fi from fantasy as a distinct hardline, I don't want psionics to intrude in my fantasy game - which is probably at the heart of my dislike at "how much Ki is like Psionics and how it doesn't really matter." And why the decision to drop Ki in 4e and put psionics in its place, is so hard for me to deal with.

For me it does matter. Keep the force of Star Wars away from my elves and samurai. I don't play Star Wars RPG and don't want to bring its baggage into my fantasy game.

As a DM, I've never allowed psionics to even come in play. When a player asks for a psionics character, I say "no, I don't allow it. There is no such thing as psionics in my worlds." (My mind flayers are mind flayers and not Illithidae.)

I'm sorry that the discussion has become so serious and heated.

GP

[Steel General]

[temporay discussion suspension]

Nothing wrong with a serious discussion, as long as it doesn't get 'heated', spiteful, etc.

msa apologized for his reaction to being termed 'ignorant' and I think that's as far as that needs to be taken.

[resume discussion]

[msa]

msa apologized for his reaction to being termed 'ignorant' and I think that's as far as that needs to be taken.

Was I bad? I thought I behaved myself. Oh bother...