| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
General contemplative question; I'm not opposed to rules here, but I'm looking more for opinions on how to questions of alignment.
Does the fact that you can make a lawful good hungry ghost monk imply that ki leeching isn't actually an evil act?
If ki leeching is an evil act, would it be the responsibility of the DM to enforce alignment change on a LG character who continued to use it? If not, are there any actual consequences involved?
I'm curious primarily because ki leeching is one of very few ways to acquire large stores of ki (the other is being a drunkard), and yet the flavor text splattered over the Hungry Ghost Monk implies evilness, even though there is no alignment restriction on the archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some Monks might think you evil, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
One complicating issue here is that there is also a spell called ki leech (which seems mostly like one of those things for multiclassers and for Qinggongs to use, which is actually rather convenient since it costs 0 ki and lasts for minutes/level, meaning it can be spammed without actually taking the archetype)
It has pretty much the same mechanics in its earlier level forms....and it has the evil descriptor.
Not entirely sure how that affects the hungry ghost though, since as you said, the class implied controversy, but doesn't outright say you are doing evil. I mean, the descriptor could simply be there so clerics of good gods can't use the spell (since I doubt sarenrae would appreciate it, which brings in divine politics).
I can see no reason why ki leeching would be evil. You're not doing any lasting harm or inflicting pain on anybody, right? It's certainly less crippling than, say, strength damage or negative levels.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ki leech ing is evil damn it, now excuse me i have to place a quest spell on enemy to require them to have vampiric touch cast on them at least once a day for a year. That'll show em' for being evil.
I can see no reason why ki leeching would be evil. You're not doing any lasting harm or inflicting pain on anybody, right? It's certainly less crippling than, say, strength damage or negative levels.
The problem might be that Paizo has made cannibalism as something palpably evil. It is viewed as the cause of ghouls, vampires, the supposed instant transformation of a soul to demon lord status, as well as the more verifiable transformation into the CR 17 wendigo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself this simple question, "Is Stealing ever a Good action?". I don't care about extenuating circumstances or BS excuses like "It was for the Greater Good". At the heart of it, by most civil standards, is stealing ever anything else but a form of evil?
You're forcible taking and robbing someone of their Ki Energy. Ki can be used fuel all kinds of crazy stuff. Now ask yourself this, "Does that seem like something they're not going miss?"
If your character and your GM is ok with sugar coating it with Murder Hobo Logic then sure, Ki Leeching is a perfectly a good action.
Ask yourself this simple question, "Is Stealing ever a Good action?". I don't care about extenuating circumstances or BS excuses like "It was for the Greater Good". At the heart of it, by most civil standards, is stealing ever anything else but a form of evil?
You're forcible taking and robbing someone of their Ki Energy. Ki can be used fuel all kinds of crazy stuff. Now ask yourself this, "Does that seem like something they're not going miss?"
If your character and your GM is ok with sugar coating it with Murder Hobo Logic then sure, Ki Leeching is a perfectly a good action.
By that logic it is always an evil act to kill someone despite the game advocating certain forms of killing as good acts.
The logic in Golarian is not the same as our realities. In the real world we guess whether we have a god and what that god considers good. In Golarian the Gods are known to exist and explicitly spell out their tenets of faith and how to get to their plane in death.
Okay, let's use the Murder Hobo Logic. I challenge you to name one good god of Golarian who would sanctify the theft of another's ki energy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh the the whole good/evil thing depends heavily on the cultural bias of the Paizo writers and I see things like the evil descriptions on most spells, abilities and classes as suggestions. Take the Witch's Cook People hex:
Using this hex or knowingly eating its food is an evil act.
Yet the idea that eating another person is an objectively evil act is a matter of cultural bias. For the Amazonian Wari' eating deceased in-laws (affines) was an act of compassionate cannibalism, the practice of which continued until somewhere between 1956 and 1969. This endocanibalism (eating a member of you own group)was done out of compassion for the deceased and their family. The spirit of the dead would be pleased and the family consoled; the though of burying the body in the cold ground was considered tragic and a cause for upset. Eating the dead was not done out gratification as the act eating could be very unpleasant for the participants, nor was it for the Wari' an act of inhuman savagery - for them it was the ultimate act of compassion. Thus if Pathfinder was written from their perspective burial of the dead could well be an evil act.
Is it evil to eat animals for sustenance?
Ki leeching is just using what something else has for your advantage, ensuring that others are nourishing and empowering you; many will consider any sort of taking or manipulation as evil.
I consider it an example of mystical strategy, and a curious example of moving around ki for your own benefit.
"At 5th level, a hungry ghost monk can steal ki from other creatures, though this ability is controversial in some circles of monks, who see it as nothing less than a form of vampirism."
So it doesn't say it is evil there, only controversial. Like a faux pas.
"As with steal ki, some monks believe that life funnel is an unsavory act."
An unsavory act, like using the wrong sauce.
"As with steal ki, some monks believe that life funnel is an unsavory act."
An unsavory act, like using the wrong sauce.
Wee bit out of context, the full sentence was, "As with steal ki, some monks believe that life funnel is an unsavory act, no better than what the undead do to the living."
That's more extreme than just slapping some BBQ sauce on a fine cut of meat.
Again though, this is all flavor text. There is no defined ruling on the morality of this archetype. If your home group views pulling a Shang Tsung as Kosher, then it's Kosher.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not pulling a shang tsung, its eating a steak in front of a group of vegans.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adventuring heavily involves killing people and taking their stuff. Lawful Good characters can be adventurers. That guy didn't need his Ki points anymore anyways.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
some monks
Some monks may also believe beating someone to death with your fists is an evil act. Some monks may say the same about dealing any lethal damage.
I challenge you to name one good god of Golarian who would sanctify the theft of another's ki energy.
"Sanctify" as in, "declare as holy"? That's a bit of a silly argument. If no good god calls stealing ki "holy", that may be evidence that it's not an act of goodness, but it certainly doesn't make it an act of evil. There's no good god that "santifies" killing; it doesn't make killing an inherently evil act in the Pathfinder world.
Now ask yourself this, "Does that seem like something they're not going miss?"
This is also a somewhat strange question, since you could ask the same thing about their hit points when you stab them with a sword.
I don't contest that just going around stealing innocent people's ki would be evil. Or going around finding orcs to kill just because you want their ki. Or even keeping a bag of frogs to crush the life out of; all of these things seem evil to me.
What I doubt is that stealing the ki of creatures that you would be killing anyway for non-evil reasons is evil. It seems remarkably neutral in that circumstance.
My view is that the "some monks" flavor text comes about because the ability to steal ki might cause individuals to go out of their way to find creatures to steal ki from; *that* would be evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Edit:This is still my personal opinion on the subject*
The tools with which we wage war often times matter as much as the reason for the war. Simply because the target is "evil" and is going to die anyway does not justify using every available means of destroying it. A real world parallel would be that it's considered morally reprehensible to drop a nuke on someone or to use chemical/biological armaments. Yes, Real World Logic doesn't always translate into fantasy Murder Hobo Logic. However it's still something to be considered.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, per the people at Paizo, it's not all cannibalism that's inherently Evil (though murdering people is)...but only magic that gives power via cannibalism. I mean Lizardfolk are cannibals, and listed as Neutral.
Still makes the Hungry Ghost thing a bit of a grey area, but I thought I'd clarify the cannibalism thing. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
*Edit:This is still my personal opinion on the subject*
The tools with which we wage war often times matter as much as the reason for the war. Simply because the target is "evil" and is going to die anyway does not justify using every available means of destroying it. A real world parallel would be that it's considered morally reprehensible to drop a nuke on someone or to use chemical/biological armaments. Yes, Real World Logic doesn't always translate into fantasy Murder Hobo Logic. However it's still something to be considered.
I agree with the general theme of your argument, but I have yet to see a reason to think that taking their ki is any more evil of a tool than taking their hit points via stabbing.
Chemical weapons are, for example, often considered evil because of the prolonged suffering implicit in their use, as well as the fact that they can more easily affect innocent bystanders. There's no equivalent for ki leech, so it's a false analogy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is that Ki Leech doesn't actually steal ki. Otherwise, it couldn't be used on targets outside of another monk, a ninja, or a rogue with the ki pool talent. Even then, when used on those targets, they don't actually lose any of their ki. So nothing's really being 'leeched', so to speak. Instead, the act of knocking them out or striking them really, really hard just produces extra life energy in your body. Ironically, despite this all being a supposedly evil act, you can use Ki Leech with a critical strike that deal subdual damage. Because obviously, if you're aiming to take some brainwashed NPC hero alive so that you can talk them out of their servitude to the BBEG and maybe get them to help you save the world, and you just happen to gain a tiny bit of ki in the process, you're evil. There aren't many things about Pathfinder's alignment system I find stupid, but this is definitely one of them.
If anything, Ki Leech should drop the stupid [evil] descriptor and be renamed to Ki Production or something. Give the poor monks a bone already Paizo, they already have to be lawful at all times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's use the Murder Hobo Logic. I challenge you to name one good god of Golarian who would sanctify the theft of another's ki energy.
All of them. Every single one.
Find any official Paizo-written text that indicates otherwise.
I can see no reason why ki leeching would be evil. You're not doing any lasting harm or inflicting pain on anybody, right? It's certainly less crippling than, say, strength damage or negative levels.The problem might be that Paizo has made cannibalism as something palpably evil. It is viewed as the cause of ghouls, vampires, the supposed instant transformation of a soul to demon lord status, as well as the more verifiable transformation into the CR 17 wendigo.
And since this isn't remotely cannibalism, since you're not eating anything ... so?
this is a good question.i think ki leeching without consent would have to be evil/wrong.
Is it evil to eat animals for sustenance?.
If they have an int score 3 or higher? Yes. Cannibalism is defined in game as eating intelligent creatures (since there are so many elves, and orcs, and animal people, and plant people)
Tbh the the whole good/evil thing depends heavily on the cultural bias of the Paizo writers and I see things like the evil descriptions on most spells, abilities and classes as suggestions. Take the Witch's Cook People hex:
Using this hex or knowingly eating its food is an evil act.Yet the idea that eating another person is an objectively evil act is a matter of cultural bias. For the Amazonian Wari' eating deceased in-laws (affines) was an act of compassionate cannibalism, the practice of which continued until somewhere between 1956 and 1969. This endocanibalism (eating a member of you own group)was done out of compassion for the deceased and their family. The spirit of the dead would be pleased and the family consoled; the though of burying the body in the cold ground was considered tragic and a cause for upset. Eating the dead was not done out gratification as the act eating could be very unpleasant for the participants, nor was it for the Wari' an act of inhuman savagery - for them it was the ultimate act of compassion. Thus if Pathfinder was written from their perspective burial of the dead could well be an evil act.
Well, one of the examples of 'cannibalism is evil' that I listed, the Wendigo (which is one of the more direct and impressive ones, plus the one with actual roots in the North Western Native American Tribes) actually plays with the culturally fluid nature of the idea.
Essentially, you are only affected if you are from a culture which feels shame about eating the dead. Compassionate cannibalism would just fly under the wendigo's radar here.
I also see the idea played with in another rather culturally aware bestiary example: Lizardfolk. Besides being a fairly postcolonial take on the race, the entry also acknowledges that they may eat the flesh of dead intelligent creatures, but their environment is a bit too harsh to 'let things go to waste'.
From this perspective, you could judge that the negative consequences cannibalistic aspect might be due purely to perspective (odd, when alignment is such a literal and matter of fact thing). Of course, going back the the hungry ghost monk.....it is a highly controversial practice that encourages you to hang out with vampires and wights and such....The negative perspective and shame is there.
And Zhayne, it is cannibalistic because it syphons lifeforce from other creatures. In a game with magic, souls, and dichotomy of soul and body and such, that might as well be drinking blood. You are taking a part of another creature's being away from it in order to put into your being. I will acknowledge that the actual wording does not steal ki (since it makes the rather fair assumption that most opponents do not have ki; that is why people laugh at Irorian Paladins since they trade detect evil for sensing ki).
If they have an int score 3 or higher? Yes. Cannibalism is defined in game as eating intelligent creatures (since there are so many elves, and orcs, and animal people, and plant people)
An octopus is undoubtably Int 3 or higher. Seriously, look them up, they are VERY smart for cephalopods. So for that matter are pigs, whales, or even cats and dogs. And yet, we don't consider cultures which might eat or have eaten these animals evil, do we? If some of these critters had proper vocal cords, they could very well be able to talk to us with proper training. Just because they're not human, doesn't mean they're dumb as stumps. Paizo simply marks all animals down to Int 2 for some reason, even apes.
And Zhayne, it is cannibalistic because it syphons lifeforce from other creatures. In a game with magic, souls, and dichotomy of soul and body and such, that might as well be drinking blood. You are taking a part of another creature's being away from it in order to put into your being. I will acknowledge that the actual wording does not steal ki (since it makes the rather fair assumption that most opponents do not have ki; that is why people laugh at Irorian Paladins since they trade detect evil for sensing ki).
Vampiric Touch isn't an evil spell and it siphons actual life force, aka hit points. This spell can kill a target far more easily than ki leech could, so why is it given a free pass? You want another weird example? Blood of the Martyr can be used offensively and it's primary purpose is the exsanguinate the target whilst simultaneously enhancing their blood so that anyone drinking it is actually healed. That's right, it's an offensive "time for you to be a vampire food and first aid station" spell...also, not evil! I could go on, but I think you get the point.
If they have an int score 3 or higher? Yes. Cannibalism is defined in game as eating intelligent creatures (since there are so many elves, and orcs, and animal people, and plant people)An octopus is undoubtably Int 3 or higher.
Given that Int 3 is defined as the threshold for being able to take the Linguistics skill, I'll believe this when you teach an octopus to read.
If some of these critters had proper vocal cords, they could very well be able to talk to us with proper training.
There's no evidence for this. Bear in mind that the linguistic abilities of great apes is tremendously limited, even when we're using sign language or some sort of push-the-button artificial language like Yerkish.
Just because they're not human, doesn't mean they're dumb as stumps.
Just because they're not dumb as stumps doesn't mean they have human-like intelligence. Or even intelligence on the same scale as humans. Sure, that planarian might be a genius among other flatworms, but it's still not going to be speaking, or composing music, or casting spells.
Paizo simply marks all animals down to Int 2 for some reason, even apes.
"For some reason" being, in this case, because they're not smart enough for Int 3.
Int 2 is the smarter end of the animal kingdom. More primitive animals like lizards are Int 1, and insects and such are Int 0.
Int 2 is the smarter end of the animal kingdom. More primitive animals like lizards are Int 1, and insects and such are Int 0.
This. And, yes, you could argue that great apes and cetaceans should be something like 2.8, while eagles and other birds should be more like 2.3,.... but the attribute scale simply doesn't make fine distinctions like that.
Okay, let's use the Murder Hobo Logic. I challenge you to name one good god of Golarian who would sanctify the theft of another's ki energy.All of them, as it's a form of self-sacrifice. You do something you (really) don't like in order to gain more power to defeat evil.
And in less rose colored terms, Torag always seemed like the most 'goblin-baby-murdery' of the lawful good gods (seriously, just the bits I've read about the quest for the sky and how they basically drove the orcs to become a disenfranchised race left without their lands and original leadership always seemed rather sketchy to me)
And it is hardly self sacrifice when it comes from someone else getting punched so hard in the kidneys that their life force leaks out.
this is a good question.i think ki leeching without consent would have to be evil/wrong.
Why?
The target of the leeching takes no damage. They don't even lose points of Ki if the have a Ki pool. There's no indication that it's even painful in and of itself (though, obviously, getting the crit/knockout will, but that's separate).There is exactly zero evil in this spell. The name isn't even accurate, because you don't leech anything ... the target doesn't lose anything, you just gain a Ki point.
this is a good question.i think ki leeching without consent would have to be evil/wrong.
Why?
The target of the leeching takes no damage. They don't even lose points of Ki if the have a Ki pool. There's no indication that it's even painful in and of itself (though, obviously, getting the crit/knockout will, but that's separate).There is exactly zero evil in this spell. The name isn't even accurate, because you don't leech anything ... the target doesn't lose anything, you just gain a Ki point.
because it's not your to take. whether its sex, an ipod, or ki, the fact that your taking does not cause physical harm, or the person may not even know it was taken, does not make it any sense wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But nothing was taken.
The target loses NOTHING. Not stat points, not ki points, not hit points, nothing.
The target is in exactly the same stat pre-spell as post-spell.
You don't take anything, you just generate more ki inside yourself.
because it's not your to take. whether its sex, an ipod, or ki, the fact that your taking does not cause physical harm, or the person may not even know it was taken, does not make it any sense wrong.this is a good question.i think ki leeching without consent would have to be evil/wrong.
Why?
The target of the leeching takes no damage. They don't even lose points of Ki if the have a Ki pool. There's no indication that it's even painful in and of itself (though, obviously, getting the crit/knockout will, but that's separate).There is exactly zero evil in this spell. The name isn't even accurate, because you don't leech anything ... the target doesn't lose anything, you just gain a Ki point.
Woah! Tone it down. We're talking about a fantasy game and punching people to death, not sexual assault.
because it's not your to take. whether its sex, an ipod, or ki
In the first two case, the target is either damaged in some way, or loses something. In the third case they do not. False analogy.
But nothing was taken.
The target loses NOTHING. Not stat points, not ki points, not hit points, nothing.
The target is in exactly the same stat pre-spell as post-spell.
You don't take anything, you just generate more ki inside yourself.
I already commented on the conflation of 'generating ki' and 'the system isn't built around everyone having ki; just make the spell do what it is intended for'. It is taking us on a tangent that clouds the ethical issues involved.
But the main issue with these abilities is the 'murderhobo problem'- Do you just happen to get loot from killing enemies, or do you kill enemies in hope of getting loot?
Ki leech and the hungry ghost monk encourages you to deal finishing blows on enemies (since it is far more predictable than crits). Are you going to strike down an opponent that might have surrendered/fled? Even if it would have tried to keep on fighting, there is the reasonable justification that 'He tried to kill me even though he was obviously outmatched. He was the one that made this into a deathmatch'. Removing the choice to give up or take the fight to an inevitable conclusion robs enemies of the chance of going down a different (and possibly more peaceful) path.
There is a difference between "It was what I had to do" and "What? I cast Cold Ice Strike twice in that fight. I needed to recharge."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lemeres, all your argument shows is that if you kill someone or deal a finishing blow *because* you want their ki, than it is evil act, rather than the ki leeching itself.
You might similarly argue that killing an opponent *because* you want their loot/scales is an evil act. That does not make taking the loot of the killed opponent inherently evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a deeper problem with your analogy, though, I think. Remember that all of this ki leeching is going on while you are already killing your enemy. We're not talking about walking up to a helpless person and stealing their ki. At least, I'm not.
If we start with the assumption that the killing itself is not an evil act, how can the ki leeching be so?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general it is considered bad form to bring up sex, especially sexual assault, as an analogy in a discussion about topics that aren't sex. All it does is make certain people uncomfortable and usually distract from the point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In every Chinese fantasy I've seen where the topic comes up, stealing or draining chi from people is considered quite wicked. So thematically I think it fits. On the other hand, the game is sort of arbitrary as to which spell effects are [evil] or not, and the argument that the spell doesn't mechanically harm the target in any way is reasonably compelling. I think the game is a lot smoother if it's intent, rather than specific action, that determines whether something is evil or not, but there's also a lot of literary precedent for certain types of magic being corrupting and always evil, so it's hard to come down on one side of the fence here.
Lemeres, all your argument shows is that if you kill someone or deal a finishing blow *because* you want their ki, than it is evil act, rather than the ki leeching itself.
You might similarly argue that killing an opponent *because* you want their loot/scales is an evil act. That does not make taking the loot of the killed opponent inherently evil.
It is still a rather troubling trend, one that the entire hungry ghost monk is built around. It encourages a certain degree of ruthlessness.
At the very least, it is enough that I could see the justification that good aligned gods would not want their worshippers to use ki leech. Although, admittedly, that spell can only be used by like....one oracle archetype that can use it without multiclassing, if I remember right.
Seriously, who was that spell for again? Was it just put there so they could have qinggong monks use it?