What is Ki?

[Nexis]

The problem I have with the use of Ki is as you say it is a concept of the East. The monk and Ki should not have been lumped in with the rest as the game is Europen based. The monk and Ki should have been put in an Oriental supplement book. Then it would have been placed in a better context.

[msa]

The problem I have with the use of Ki is as you say it is a concept of the East.

Bear in mind that I've never cared much for psionics and I'm only passably interested in Ki. With that said, I'm with Nex mostly. I haven't been keen on the monk class in any edition of standard D&D and I think it belongs purely in eastern supplements.

I always saw ki as the ability to focus your mind through meditation to gain control over your body and sense (and to some degree control) the world around you.

Like psionics, the root of the power is in meditation and mental state. So, in that sense, the power source is internal and mental--its not based on physical muscle memory, mastery of arcane rituals, or connection with the divine. Its really all internal and about a state of mind.

Also the manifestion to me appears very similar. Psionics grants you powers over all manner of things that don't have minds. You can open doors, sense nonliving obstacles, start fires, walk on water, redirect energy, remote sense, or other things often associated with ki. Now, psionics lets you do a lot more, but to me it includes most of the 'ki' powers.

To me, the differences between the two are fairly minor. To someone who is really into one or the other, you can split a lot of hairs. I think of the discussion as to whether rocks have ki but not minds as one of them. Does it matter much as far as where the ability comes from or what it lets you do?

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.

[Karro]

So, my thought on the Ki/Psionic differentiation:

Given that rocks have Ki energy, but no brains, therefore possess ki power but not psychic power, the question that immediately pops in my mind is: can the rock, of it's own will, actually do anything with its ki energy?

Since it has no brain, and therefore no will of its own, the answer, I suspect, is no. This leads me to suspect the difference between an eastern interpretation of ki energy and a western interpretation of psionic energy is mostly academic. Only things that can think can actively use and manipulate ki energy. Only things that can think can actively use and manipulate psionic energy. The effects of the use of the two are frequently similar. What's different is the terminology and the flavoring: one is very eastern and one very western.

Considering that terminology and linguistic usage can often strongly color our perceptions of a thing, it's not surprising that it's not entirely clear whether the two are different or the same.

[Nomadic]

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.

Just because someone unaware of what ki and chi actually are thinks they are a very similar thing does not make them a very similar thing. Basing definitions of things on something someone who doesn't know the definition says sounds a bit silly.

Roughly speaking Ki is the connection everything has with everything else. It has nothing to do with whether something is natural or not. Everything has ki, nothing has it more than anything else. It is an energy of sorts but not what most think of when you say energy. It is more an energy of extension or awareness.

Chi is connected to the elements. Fire, Water, Wood, Earth, and Metal. It deals with the flow of energy within the body and between the body and everything else and how to use the flow of energy in regards to those elements.

The only thing that the two concepts have in common is that when you use them they allow for a meditative state of mind. Even that though is different. Ki meditation is more about awareness and acknowledgment of everything which makes it good for martial arts. Chi is about that flow of energy and is more effective at more traditional meditation, the calming of mind and body and release of stress.

The More You Know

Anyhow Chi is very spiritual and could make for an interesting background to a character. A cleric in the form of an eastern religious monk would be cool. Ki i good for the monk in the concept of a martial fighter. And yes I think the monk should have been an oriental supplement.

[msa]

Just because someone unaware of what ki and chi actually are thinks they are a very similar thing does not make them a very similar thing. Basing definitions of things on something someone who doesn't know the definition says sounds a bit silly.

Roughly speaking Ki is the connection everything has with everything else. It has nothing to do with whether something is natural or not. Everything has ki, nothing has it more than anything else. It is an energy of sorts but not what most think of when you say energy. It is more an energy of extension or awareness.

Chi is connected to the elements. Fire, Water, Wood, Earth, and Metal. It deals with the flow of energy within the body and between the body and everything else and how to use the flow of energy in regards to those elements.

Well, I have an academic understanding of both, as well as a lot of other details about various religions and philosophies. Its just, as a non believer, these differences seem minor at best.

Like... your descriptions? Very little difference between the two. Its like if you tried to explain to me how very different believing in the holy trinity is vs. believing in god. I just have to take your word for it... looks like apples and apples to me.

[Nomadic]

Well, I have an academic understanding of both, as well as a lot of other details about various religions and philosophies. Its just, as a non believer, these differences seem minor at best.

Like... your descriptions? Very little difference between the two. Its like if you tried to explain to me how very different believing in the holy trinity is vs. believing in god. I just have to take your word for it... looks like apples and apples to me.

If you think that it is similar to the difference between Christianity and Catholicism then there is nothing I can say except that ignorance of the difference doesn't mean there isn't a quite large one. As an aside I am not a "believer" in Ki. Ki isn't religious, so being a follower of it would be like being a follower of physics. It isn't a faith but something that does exist. It's just a matter of putting it to use. You can see it as a state of mind existing anytime you watch an Aikido master throw someone. Without that state of mind what they did would be impossible. There seems to be a blending in western culture between chi and ki when they are quite different. To put it as simple as possible, ki is practical extension, chi is spiritual meditation.

[msa]

If you think that it is similar to the difference between Christianity and Catholicism then there is nothing I can say except that ignorance of the difference doesn't mean there isn't a quite large one. As an aside I am not a "believer" in Ki. Ki isn't religious, so being a follower of it would be like being a follower of physics. It isn't a faith but something that does exist. It's just a matter of putting it to use. You can see it as a state of mind existing anytime you watch an Aikido master throw someone. Without that state of mind what they did would be impossible. There seems to be a blending in western culture between chi and ki when they are quite different. To put it as simple as possible, ki is practical extension, chi is spiritual meditation.

Be careful suggesting I am ignorant. I suspect I have thought about these issues a good bit more than you seem to realize.

[Karro]

If you think that it is similar to the difference between Christianity and Catholicism then there is nothing I can say except that ignorance of the difference doesn't mean there isn't a quite large one. As an aside I am not a "believer" in Ki. Ki isn't religious, so being a follower of it would be like being a follower of physics. It isn't a faith but something that does exist. It's just a matter of putting it to use. You can see it as a state of mind existing anytime you watch an Aikido master throw someone. Without that state of mind what they did would be impossible. There seems to be a blending in western culture between chi and ki when they are quite different. To put it as simple as possible, ki is practical extension, chi is spiritual meditation.

I'm rather with MSA on this one. To the unitiated there certainly appears to be little difference, when viewed from the outside.

The assertion that one cannot be a "believer" or "disbeliever" in Ki or chi or anything of that sort, for that matter, also appears falacious to me. While I am not a "universal non-believer" like MSA (i.e. I follow a specific religious faith), I have an understanding of the fact that if something cannot be seen, felt, touched, tasted or heard in the normal senses, whether the thing really exists or not, is real or not, to the individual the existence of the thing remains a matter of faith. "Faith" or belief in Physics, for example, seems absurd because we can demonstrably prove the things physics tells us through scientific experimentation. "Faith" or belief in god is not absurd, because without faith we cannot demonstrably prove god's existence. "Faith" or belief in heaven or hell is not absurd because we cannot demonstrably prove they exist (and one does not "follow" heaven or hell, they simply exist: one either goes to one or the other after death based on certain universal and natural laws; I don't say this as an assertion of my personal faith, per se, but as a point of comparison to your assertion on ki). Now maybe I'm just uneducated, but to me it appears ki/chi/etc. are the same as god, heaven, hell, etc. in that regard, as I am unaware of any means to scientifically and unequivocably prove the existence of ki. You can say that it exists, and I respect that, but whether or not it truly does exist, saying so doesn't make it so (in other words, I'm not saying ki doesn't exist, but I have no evidence for its existence besides your word). To me, that makes it a matter of faith.

To get back on topic then, I think where the major difference of opinion lies is in applying real-world ideas, beliefs, faiths, and assertions to a fantastic world. In the real world our perception of our beliefs and ideas tends to be more nuanced and particular. But I don't think it appropriate to bring many of these real-world faiths into the game world. My thoughts and ideas about the nature of god, for instance, are nothing like the way gods are portrayed in fantasy worlds. But I don't get hung up on the differing interpretations of gods and divinities between my personal, real-world beliefs and how they are portrayed in game-worlds. You can say in the game that all gods are flying spaghetti monsters, and it wouldn't bother me too much since that portrayal simply doesn't impact my real-world beliefs.

[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

[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.