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?
the same way that if somone was defending themseves, and in doing killed that person, but decided to take thier wallet or grope them, we would charge that person with a robbery or the touching, because it defending yourselves as nothing to do with the other.
your argument only works if one assumes that killing is always evil, which i dont think most people with a few exceptions would agree with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the same way that if somone was defending themseves, and in doing killed that person, but decided to take thier wallet or grope them, we would charge that person with a robbery or the touching, because it defending yourselves as nothing to do with the other.
So, tell me why taking the loot of an orc you kill in pathfinder is not evil, but taking their ki is?
I feel ki leech and hungry ghost monk's abilities being 'evil' is like, kind of a subjective cultural part of Golarion's setting for monks.
Like, ki leech is not actually evil in terms of real world philosophy good/evil, but it's evil in the weaboo anime "This is the forbidden art of vilefully absorbing and stealing your foe's very life energies! Be warned, young apprentice, others who have abused the dark art of ki leech have fallen in a depraved gluttony of vampiric life-sucking! Do not commit the taboo!" kind of evil.
This is pretty much my feel for it, too.
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.
Int 3 is not 'human-like intelligence'. You couldn't buy that as a human being, it'd take 4 point of Int drain to reduce you to that state if you started as the village dullard in the first place. Such a person wouldn't be able to hold an intelligible conversation with anyone, perform elementary mathematics, or grasp the basics of abstract concepts like free will, virtue, or infinity. Not easily, anyways, and not without a lot of help. Even after all this training, some people simply don't get it and don't learn to properly read. Are we saying these unfortunate individuals are below Int 3? As human beings, we tend to train our young for years so they're able to retain and use large amounts of knowledge pertaining to language alone. In other words, we have the potential, but are not automatically born with the capability. Animals shouldn't automatically be discounted as having the potential simply because we don't train for one particular measurement of what we consider to be typical of intelligence.
Yeah, hungry ghost monks are the drug addicts of the kung fu world. Always raring for the next fix of ki.
Yeah, adventurers are the drug addicts of the fantasy roleplaying world. Always raring for the next fix of loot.
Hyperbolic argument.
The very mechanics of loot encourage you to kill creatures, rather than let them go. We don't say taking loot is evil.
EDIT: I think we can agree, though, that a character who centers their life around loot, or stealing ki, is probably on their way to evil, if not already there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Int 3 is not 'human-like intelligence'. You couldn't buy that as a human being, it'd take 4 point of Int drain to reduce you to that state if you started as the village dullard in the first place. Such a person wouldn't be able to hold an intelligible conversation with anyone, perform elementary mathematics, or grasp the basics of abstract concepts like free will, virtue, or infinity. Not easily, anyways, and not without a lot of help. Even after all this training, some people simply don't get it and don't learn to properly read. Are we saying these unfortunate individuals are below Int 3? As human beings, we tend to train our young for years so they're able to retain and use large amounts of knowledge pertaining to language alone. In other words, we have the potential, but are not automatically born with the capability. Animals shouldn't automatically be discounted as having the potential simply because we don't train for one particular measurement of what we consider to be typical of intelligence.
Uh...you're confusing the amounts of Int PCs buy with the human minimum. Human stats range between 3 and 18 pre-racial bonus. PCs are just assumed not to be at the very low end of that continuum. The Village Idiot has Int 4, actually.
Yeah, hungry ghost monks are the drug addicts of the kung fu world. Always raring for the next fix of ki.Yeah, adventurers are the drug addicts of the fantasy roleplaying world. Always raring for the next fix of loot.Hyperbolic argument.
The very mechanics of loot encourage you to kill creatures, rather than let them go. We don't say taking loot is evil.
EDIT: I think we can agree, though, that a character who centers their life around loot, or stealing ki, is probably on their way to evil, if not already there.
I did admit that the argument was not entirely fair. Still, the fact that you could likely take a baseball bat to the face and not care (due to the temporary hit points from later abilities) causes somewhat different connotations between the two. Ki stealing has uniques effects upon the body, and could possibly cause a kind of rush that one does not find in merely killing/stealing.
Plus, it depends on how you deal with prisoners and their possessions. There are fine differences between robberhobos and murderhobos. "You can leave with the clothes on your bac....wait, are those monk robes? Ok, you can leave with most of your limbs in tact at least. Just use your good arm to cover up and try to avoid going near schools/ orphanages/ nunneries until you can find a way to get more clothes."
I think, lemeres, that your interpretation of ki leeching as a drug/addiction scenario is plausible from a roleplaying perspective, but not a necessary interpretation. That is, you could run it that way as a GM or character, but there's no reason to think that it has to be something addictive, any more than Magus characters who use a lot of Vampiric Touch spells are addicts (that spell, I would argue, being much more easy to call evil, since it actually hurts the target, and yet lacking the [evil] descriptor.).
And even if you do treat it like a drug, you say yourself, it's not the drug itself that's evil, but rather the scenarios that it could lead to.
Int 3 is not 'human-like intelligence'.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.
Yes, it is.
You couldn't buy that as a human being, it'd take 4 point of Int drain to reduce you to that state if you started as the village dullard in the first place.
That's because PCs are exceptional. The Village idiot NPC has already been mentioned.
Are we saying these unfortunate individuals are below Int 3?
Well, you appear to be saying that, but you also appear to be laboring under a substantial misconception.
A character with intelligence 3 is still sapient and still gets the minimum of one skill point per level (2 if human) that applies irrespective of intelligence. This means that this person can learn whatever s/he needs to, including whatever Knowledge skills are appropriate -- of course, the person would be operating at a substantial (-4) penalty, so there's a good chance that things that he wouldn't know things that were common knowledge (DC 10 or below, which a normal Int 10 commoner would know simply by "taking 10.")
But this person would still be able to speak his/her native language, read and write as per normal (albeit badly), and handle common day-to-day tasks at DC 6 or below.
As I said, I'll believe that octopi have intelligence 3 when you teach one to read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some monksSome 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.
My monk does a whole lot worse than steal some ki with all his bleed damage.
Lawful good.
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.
Actually false....
This you simply poorly informed people confusing EVIL with CHAOTIC (or NOT LAWFUL). Stealing is not necessarily evil vs good. It falls more in line with the Chaotic vs lawful. For instance, may saw Robin Hood as "good" (I am speaking of the more "friendly" Robin hood if you will) despite the fact that what he technically did was steal. Stealing is mearly "evil" by most people's eyes because people tend to equate law with good.
As for the whole Ki stealing being an evil thing or not...
I would like to point out the Jiang-Shi Vampire. That type of vampire actually feeds on Ki, not blood as normal...
First of all i think that (in most cases) a spell with an evil descriptor doesn't mean that the spell effect is necessary evil but instead you are using the forces of evil to achieve the spell effect.
The same way that you use the forces of evil when you create a magic circle against good trap, in preparation for binding an angel.
(i can't dig up the relevant book quotes and/or dev quotes for that now)
For the monk archetype in question:
I think that the troubling issues come from several different factors, 1st there are legacy issues (vampiric touch not being evil where nearly every other similar effect is evil), 2nd there is the issue that different autors write different books, 3rd there is the issue that the pathfinder rpg line is mostly setting neutral, 4th the ki leach spell was written at a later date than the hungry ghost archetype.
Now when i take into considiration (my hypothesis) that the ki leach spell was written mostly for the benefit of the qinggong arhcetype, i want to think that the hungry ghost archetype should have the non good alignment requirement* in addition to the lawful requirement that all monks have.
So to answer the OP, i think that (especially in Golarion) the ki leeching of the hungry ghost archetype is (or rather should be) evil and that there shouldn't be LG hungry ghost monks.
*and the "non good" alignment requirement isn't "evil" in the same way that the blackfire adepts have the "non good" instead of "evil" requirement
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it makes you feel better, just fluff it off the same way Sin Eater Inquisitors do. You're purging them of their wicked sins, not stealing their souls.
I agree with this. In one campaign I'm currently playing a LN Sin-Eater Inquisitor of Yaezhing that's partnered with a LG Hungry Ghost Monk/Evangelist of of Iomedae. It's lead to some fun times and interesting RP moments.
|
|
I tend to view the lawful good hungry ghost monk as a person who has the powers naturally, and who follows the monk's path of discipline out of determination to use his abilities for good not evil.
To echo what others have said, how is stealing ki worse than killing an enemy in the first place? Golarion is a world where many intelligent beings are inherently, irredeemably evil. The game is based largely on a simplistic struggle between clear-cut good and evil.
I'm going to leave this here for the animal Int thing.
Meanwhile, yeah, hungry ghost monks probably aren't evil. They aren't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone any more than any other hero is.