|
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
So what happens when a paladin does a LoH on a subject with Negative Energy Affinity? LoH never says it is positive energy, just that it is an (apparently untyped) healing power. Seems crystal clear that RAW a LoH will heal the target.. whether it is alive, undead, or subject to negative energy affinity, or some mix of the three.
But I can see a RAI argument that LoH is 'supposed' to be positive energy, despite that omission from the LoH rules.
So where does that leave, for example, a Dhampir Paladin? Can she use LoH on herself w/o causing damage? I'd assume she can.. but curious to see what opinions are.
It is divine healing and it powers his channel energy. It is positive energy.
The Dhampir paladin is out of luck honestly.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
So what happens when a paladin does a LoH on a subject with Negative Energy Affinity? LoH never says it is positive energy, just that it is an (apparently untyped) healing power. Seems crystal clear that RAW a LoH will heal the target.. whether it is alive, undead, or subject to negative energy affinity, or some mix of the three.
But I can see a RAI argument that LoH is 'supposed' to be positive energy, despite that omission from the LoH rules.
So where does that leave, for example, a Dhampir Paladin? Can she use LoH on herself w/o causing damage? I'd assume she can.. but curious to see what opinions are.
If they try to use it on undead,
Alternatively, a paladin can use this
healing power to deal damage to undead
creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for
every two levels the paladin possesses. Using
lay on hands in this way requires a successful
melee touch attack and doesn’t provoke an attack
of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw
against this damage.
It's not positive energy damage then, either, but it does harm undead.
It is divine healing and it powers hisyour opinion, or have a source? Not to be argumentative, just saying. RAW, it looks like a LG-aligned undead can even get away with being a paladin and LoH-ing itself.
It6s holy healing. Find one, just one in the rules that is not positive. The channel ( which is powered by his LOH) is positive. It is indeed positive energy. Unless stated otherwise ( such as a few arcane spells) healing is always positive energy. Healing will harm him and inflict will heal him, the anit-paladins touch would heal him, but he could not use his LOH without harming himself.
They make poor paladins.
|
|
It's not positive energy damage then, either, but it does harm undead.
Right, it CAN clearly be used to harm undead. But but this clause: "Alternatively, a paladin can use this
healing power to deal damage to undeadcreatures.."
Can also be read to imply that you can chose to heal OR damage an undead target. I'd say a LG mummy paladin could chose to damage OR heal himself with a LoH (not much of a choice, but technically a choice)
|
|
It6s holy healing. Find one, just one in the rules that is not positive. The channel ( which is powered by his LOH) is positive. It is indeed positive energy. Unless stated otherwise ( such as a few arcane spells) healing is always positive energy.
This is the part I question. I could certainly have missed it.. that's why I posted this question.
Does it actually say anywhere that divine (or healing) energy must be polarized either positive or negative? I don't believe so, but if such a rule exists, I want to know of it.
If that is the stance you are taking, good luck and good luck to your GM.
\This is the part I question. I could certainly have missed it.. that's why I posted this question.
Does it actually say anywhere that divine (or healing) energy must be polarized either positive or negative? I don't believe so, but if such a rule exists, I want to know of it.
Does it actually say anywhere that once i'm dead i can't continue to attack the guy that killed me? I don't believe so but if such a rule exists, I want to know of it.
|
|
Peace, man. Didn't mean to twist any tails. It's a matter of the letter of the rule, not whether any opinions are right or wrong.
Thanks anyway for your thoughts.
Anyway.. I suppose I can boil down my question.
Since LoH never says it is positive energy, is there any rule elswhere that says it is? Or is it healing that is neither positive nor negative?
Yes. the cure spell and heal spell all say positive energy. The inflict spells and harm all say negative energy.
Divine healing is positive. And again the thing you keep ignoring LOH powers the paladins channel.
I know i came off a bit rude but somethings aren't spelled out in exact terms common sense should rule the day.
|
|
Yes. the cure spell and heal spell all say positive energy. The inflict spells and harm all say negative energy.
No disagreement here. Other than, of course, that this has anything to do with Lay on Hands ;) It's not even a spell.
Divine healing is positive.
I think this is the part we're disagreeing on. I can certainly agree that it's possible that's what is RAI. Or that there is indeed a rule somewhere that says any and all healing effects with a divine magic source are positive energy unless specified otherwise. I wasn't being snarky when I said that if it's out there, I wanna know of it.
But barring this critical 'fu-rule', LoH never says it is positive energy, so it cannot be.
And again the thing you keep ignoring LOH powers the paladins channel.
I'm not ignoring it, we're just disagreeing on the importance of the connection. Again, it supports a RAI interpretation that LoH is positive energy, but RAW it's still just not there. Indeed, for a paladin of 2nd or 3rd level, there is no connection to positive channeling whatsoever.
Ok simple fix if it is not positive it can't be used to channel( as you stated they are not connected even if the book says they are) or heal. Man its holy healing. That is positive energy.
As I said good luck to you and your Poor Gm as it seems you are trying to loophole past something that is clear.
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
|
|
As I said good luck to you and your Poor Gm as it seems you are trying to loophole past something that is clear.
Well since you keep bringing it up, I'll answer the implied question. No, I'm not trying to find a way to brow beat some poor GM. Sure, I have a similar thread in the advice column about a hypothetical dhampir paladin.. but having thought about this question since that thread, I'm more curious about the implications for a hypothetical NPC, especially for when I am on the GM side of the screen.
An undead Paladin is stuck with positive energy channel (assuming at least 4 levels of paladin) and not having cause wounds spells on the spell list. But like anyone else, a paladin can choose to exclude herself from the channel, so an undead paladin needn't harm herself with it. It makes consistent sense, ruleswise, if she can LoH herself, as well.
The cure/cause spells are an excellent example that supports what I'm saying. They all specify that they are positive/negative energy. So why doesn't LoH, unless it is neither? The omission is either sloppy technical writing/editing, or purposefully deliberate. This thread is asking which is more likely to be correct?
(or, as mentioned several times now, is there a rule that answers this neatly that I don't know about?)
Well, most of us have changed our minds. Rather than feeling sorry for the GM, which you say you are going to be, we now feel sorry for your players.
So uh, congrats on changing minds.
Again, people like james jacobs have pointed out repeatedly (most recently in the sleeping rules threads) that some things simply arent included because they are common sense. This is one of em. Like not standing up when you're dead.
Here is a common sense line
Clerics who are good can only channel positive energy without a feat.
Paladins are always good.
Paladins channel energy through lay on hands.
Paladins lay on hands must be positive energy healing.
|
|
Paladins channel energy through lay on hands.
Actually, they don't. They expend uses of LoH to channel positive energy. It certainly implies a relationship, but that just goes back to RAI vs RAW.
Saying that LoH, being the 'fuel' to create a burst of positive energy, is itself also positive energy.. well that's akin to insisting that coal and electricity are the same thing. Yes, coal is used up to create electricity, but one could also apply the common sense argument to say that they're two different things.
Paladins channel energy through lay on hands.
Actually, they don't. They expend uses of LoH to channel positive energy. It certainly implies a relationship, but that just goes back to RAI vs RAW.
Saying that LoH, being the 'fuel' to create a burst of positive energy, is itself also positive energy.. well that's akin to insisting that coal and electricity are the same thing. Yes, coal is used up to create electricity, but one could also apply the common sense argument to say that they're two different things.
Hey keep the real world arguements out of this please remember you said
You can't seriously draw a parallel between real world phenomenonae of dying and sleeping to the magical powers of healing (real world, AND demonstrable, for any offended faith healer folk)
|
You are trying to find a reply in the Paldin rules that
a) where written before the creation of Dhampirs
b) are generic rules for the class, not the undead or creatures with Negative energy affinity.
You should go the other way and stat wit the undead.
Undead
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
This specify the only ways available to cure an undead: fast healing or negative energy.
The creature alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
Differently from the true undead the creatures with Negative Energy Affinity can benefit from a larger range of curing effects.
So RAW:
1) Lay of Hand don't say anything. I concur with the other posters that is should be positive energy but the rules are silent.
2) Mummy paladin: no, he can't heal himself as the rules clearly states that he can be healed only by negative energy or fast healing.
As you are already bending the rules here (as the only non evil undead in Pathfinder is a ghost) it would be better to allow the mummy paladin to memorize inflict spell that changing other rules.
|
|
As I said good luck to you and your Poor Gm as it seems you are trying to loophole past something that is clear.Well since you keep bringing it up, I'll answer the implied question. No, I'm not trying to find a way to brow beat some poor GM. Sure, I have a similar thread in the advice column about a hypothetical dhampir paladin.. but having thought about this question since that thread, I'm more curious about the implications for a hypothetical NPC, especially for when I am on the GM side of the screen.
An undead Paladin is stuck with positive energy channel (assuming at least 4 levels of paladin) and not having cause wounds spells on the spell list. èb]But like anyone else, a paladin can choose to exclude herself from the channel,[/b] so an undead paladin needn't harm herself with it. It makes consistent sense, ruleswise, if she can LoH herself, as well.
The cure/cause spells are an excellent example that supports what I'm saying. They all specify that they are positive/negative energy. So why doesn't LoH, unless it is neither? The omission is either sloppy technical writing/editing, or purposefully deliberate. This thread is asking which is more likely to be correct?
(or, as mentioned several times now, is there a rule that answers this neatly that I don't know about?)
Where you see a rule saying that someone can remove himself or other guys from a channelling burst without the appropriate feat?
As I said good luck to you and your Poor Gm as it seems you are trying to loophole past something that is clear.Well since you keep bringing it up, I'll answer the implied question. No, I'm not trying to find a way to brow beat some poor GM. Sure, I have a similar thread in the advice column about a hypothetical dhampir paladin.. but having thought about this question since that thread, I'm more curious about the implications for a hypothetical NPC, especially for when I am on the GM side of the screen.
An undead Paladin is stuck with positive energy channel (assuming at least 4 levels of paladin) and not having cause wounds spells on the spell list. But like anyone else, a paladin can choose to exclude herself from the channel, so an undead paladin needn't harm herself with it. It makes consistent sense, ruleswise, if she can LoH herself, as well.
The cure/cause spells are an excellent example that supports what I'm saying. They all specify that they are positive/negative energy. So why doesn't LoH, unless it is neither? The omission is either sloppy technical writing/editing, or purposefully deliberate. This thread is asking which is more likely to be correct?
(or, as mentioned several times now, is there a rule that answers this neatly that I don't know about?)
Where you see a rule saying that someone can remove himself or other guys from a channelling burst without the appropriate feat?
You can always leave yourself out but not others without the feat.
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.
|
|
**a thoughtful, civil rebuttal**
First of all Diego thank you for being nice. Greatly appreciated.
You gave good food for thought, and I don't have my books with me right at the moment so I kinda think I should let your ideas percolate longer. But, I wanted to voice my appreciation.
But while I'm here, I will go out on a limb and say a couple things about what you said, though.
One conclusion I don't share with you is that the rules you cite prevent the possibility of undead being healed by something other than negative energy (or fast healing). Positive energy says it harms undead instead of healing it.. but what I see there is that if healing were to come in a form that is neither positive nor negative, it would work on undead as well as living since 'only' was not used in the undead template prior to mentioning negative energy/fast healing.
as an aside, I wasn't aware of a rule that said the alignments of monsters can't be changed on an individual basis.. that a Pathfinder thing?
|
|
An undead Paladin is stuck with positive energy channel (assuming at least 4 levels of paladin) and not having cause wounds spells on the spell list. But like anyone else, a paladin can choose to exclude herself from the channel, so an undead paladin needn't harm herself with it. It makes consistent sense, ruleswise, if she can LoH herself, as well.
You can always leave yourself out but not others without the feat.
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this...
While I had forgotten this rule, I was reading deusvult post as "you can always remove yourself from all channellings, even when done by other guys". My error.
Useful if you a) are undead and you are using your channelling to harm undead b) you are alive and you are using your channelling to harm living creatures.
|
|
**a thoughtful, civil rebuttal**
First of all Diego thank you for being nice. Greatly appreciated.
You gave good food for thought, and I don't have my books with me right at the moment so I kinda think I should let your ideas percolate longer. But, I wanted to voice my appreciation.
But while I'm here, I will go out on a limb and say a couple things about what you said, though.
One conclusion I don't share with you is that the rules you cite prevent the possibility of undead being healed by something other than negative energy (or fast healing). Positive energy says it harms undead instead of healing it.. but what I see there is that if healing were to come in a form that is neither positive nor negative, it would work on undead as well as living since 'only' was not used in the undead template prior to mentioning negative energy/fast healing.
as an aside, I wasn't aware of a rule that said the alignments of monsters can't be changed on an individual basis.. that a Pathfinder thing?
The quoted rule is specific: to paraphrase it "all that is not on this list don't cure undead".
It is similar to the rule for constructs.Cannot heal damage on its own, but often can be repaired via exposure to a certain kind of effect (see the creature's description for details) or through the use of the Craft Construct feat. Constructs can also be healed through spells such as make whole. A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality.
It should follow the same logic: if it is not explicitly capable of curing a creature of that type (as listed under the creature type traits or in the feat/spell/power description) it don't work.
A Dhampir is a humanoid, so, barring the explicit rules of his race (like Negative energy affinity) he should follow the normal rules for a humanoid.
About the evil undead thing: a GM can always do what he want with his houserules. Being old school I have no problem with neutral or even good mummies (or some other undead). But we are speaking of RAW, and RAW in Pathfinder undead are always evil with the exception of the ghost.
Even skeleton and zombies (practically undead automatons) are evil [it was changed in the 3.x version of the game].
A non evil undead should be as rare as a non evil Demon or Devil.
About the books: the PRD on the left of the forum is a great resource.
|
|
The quoted rule is specific: to paraphrase it "all that is not on this list don't cure undead".
This is one we're gonna end up looking at the same words and reading them different ways, I think. I see:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
And I'd paraphrase it as:
if unintelligent, cannot heal itself except by fast healing. Regardless of intelligence, negative energy heals instead of harms.
To elaborate, I see no restrictions on heals whatsoever on undead that has an intelligence score. In fact, by the way I read it.. the undead rule by itself doesn't preclude positive energy heals.. it's the rules for positive energy that keeps undead from benefitting.
About the evil undead thing: a GM can always do what he want with his houserules. Being old school I have no problem with neutral or even good mummies (or some other undead). But we are speaking of RAW, and RAW in Pathfinder undead are always evil with the exception of the ghost.
I don't want to derail, but I think you're plainly in the wrong in this one case? (excepting the unintelligent undead or planar monstars)
|
|
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed.
That line is there to allow intelligent undead to heal through "rest".
That is what "healing on its own" mean in the game.It is not about healing through magic.
About the undead alignment: it is the stance of the game developers, so you can speak with them.
I will point out here, if some-one posts a rules question in the rules forum, it's generally expected that people should reply to answer the question with any asked for information quoted, and if they find that RAW are obviously clashing with how they believe RAI are meant to be they should flag for FAQ. Thus we can get it cleared up without, say, seeming a little huffy.
I often play with munchkins, and I occasionally have to munchkin some npc characters, and being able to come here and get a well written RAW arguement to stop me having to houserule and send half my players claiming right to remake is something I appreciate about these forums.
Never,never. The OP came in knowing the line " This is positive energy" was not in the book. Yet refused to accept any and all rules or data showing that Holy healing is positive energy.
He came in deciding he would only except a line he knew was not in the book as "Proof". He was not here for rules, he was hear to see if anyone could tear a hole he had missed and could not defend in his loophole. He is the GM he can do what he wants but it seems he is just trying to solidify his arguments, not looking for constructive advice on any rule.
It does not matter LOH has that line or not, it harms undead, he counts as undead for divine healing (all of which is positive)
Never,never. The OP came in knowing the line " This is positive energy" was not in the book. Yet refused to accept any and all rules or data showing that Holy healing is positive energy.
He came in deciding he would only except a line he knew was not in the book as "Proof". He was not here for rules, he was hear to see if anyone could tear a hole he had missed and could not defend in his loophole. He is the GM he can do what he wants but it seems he is just trying to solidify his arguments, not looking for constructive advice on any rule.
It does not matter LOH has that line or not, it harms undead, he counts as undead for divine healing (all of which is positive)
Frankly, I read the whole thread, then checked up on all advice pointed out.
Everything said is basically "Yes, but RAI it's obviously meant to be positive"
Which I agree with. But since no RAW backs it up, perhaps instead of getting upset about it you should just faq it.
EDIT:- I've made my point, and have no interest in continuing this thread.
The answer is no, nothing says that lay on hand is explicitly positive energy healing, however it probably should be. I advise people who don't agree with this to houserule it, which probably wont be necessary 99% of the time, since it's hardly worth bringing to the attention of the devs.
Why should you you FAq what is clear and obvious just became some one, who knows it is clear wants to bend a rule or loophole around it?
You could add 5000 more words to the book and people would still do this. If someone wants to find a loophole they will. You don't need to rack up even more word count when the intent is clear. People wanting to loophole always will.
Personally I'm in agreement with the OP and have stated as much before in the other threads about the same subject.
If it was meant to be positive energy it would state as much -- not all divine healing is positive energy -- after all a cleric that heals undead by divine energy is using negative energy, but it is still healing.
And there are spells that specific they simply heal people without regard to what energy type they would normally be healed by.
As such it is not as clear cut as 'you're being a munchkin stop it.'
|
|
Nothing in the books say that LOH is positive energy. Doesn't even say it is Holy energy. It is just a type of healing that can also be used to damage Undead. There are many examples of healing in the game that are not Holy and related to class abiliites and/or feats.
Also, LOH doesn't reference Channeling at all. In fact a Paladin doesn't get Channeling for a couple of levels.
As for the Undead not being able to heal themselves, that isn't totally true:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
I'm assuming that an Undead PC and/or NPC in this situation would have an INT score.
Finally, as a GM I would only allows this in a very specific example [sorta like a Paladin Mummy], but I wouldn't slam some player for trying to be creative.
RAI I believe LoH was intended to be positive energy. RAW is undefined, since it's not defined.
Not all healing is divine (Bards and Witches heal with arcane energy, which theoretically does not call on a god to do so, and may or may not be positive energy). If bards/witches are healing with positive energy, then there's no reason a wizard/sorcerer shouldn't be able to conjure positive energy and shove it into a body to heal it. So, I think RAI is that bard and witch healing is non-divine, or else bards/witches cross a line that merges arcane and divine. Witches at least have a patron, so channeling divine energy for them at least can be done. Bards have no such deity replacement. So things get funny.
Ultimately, it's up to the GM. RAI was that paladin LoH be divine positive energy healing. RAW is that it's a non-typed healing.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would be surprised if paladins were tapping the same source of healing as, say, Infernal Healing, but it's not ridiculous to say that they might be tapping into an analogous angel-based source of rapid healing.
In any case, it's not necessarily Positive energy, although it emulates many of the particulars. (Other things in the game emulate aspects Positive energy as well. Holy Water isn't Positive energy, but it harms undead.)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a FAQ at some point, asserting that Laying of Hands is a form of Positive energy. Until that time, though, I think deusvult is in the clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As such it is not as clear cut as 'you're being a munchkin stop it.'
This is exactly why I weighed in. While I personally believe that paladins probably are meant to be using positive energy with LOH, I took offence at the various implications that asking a question, then backing up his points some-how equated to him being a munchkin bending the rules to his advantage to get what he wanted, when a lot of the arguments where simply "It's meant to be positive, nothing says specifically that but I know it's meant to be so stop disagreeing with me"
I would be surprised if paladins were tapping the same source of healing as, say, Infernal Healing, but it's not ridiculous to say that they might be tapping into an analogous angel-based source of rapid healing.
In any case, it's not necessarily Positive energy, although it emulates many of the particulars. (Other things in the game emulate aspects Positive energy as well. Holy Water isn't Positive energy, but it harms undead.)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a FAQ at some point, asserting that Laying of Hands is a form of Positive energy. Until that time, though, I think deusvult is in the clear.
I'm not seeing a lot of tings that emulate positive energy. In fact, holy water does utilize positive energy. The description for holy water says it is made using the bless water spell and bless water reads: "This transmutation imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with positive energy, turning it into holy water." If anything, holy water is another point in favor of LOH being positive energy.
Ultimately, I think it is clear that there is no super duper strict RAW that says LOH is positive energy. But the case for RAI is pretty much too strong for me to ignore.
RAI I believe LoH was intended to be positive energy. RAW is undefined, since it's not defined.
Not all healing is divine (Bards and Witches heal with arcane energy, which theoretically does not call on a god to do so, and may or may not be positive energy).
In the case of Cure light wounds the spell does indeed say positive energy. The one and only "healing" spell that does not use positive healing is Infernal Healing( that i can find anyhow)
People keep claiming channel has nothing to do with LOH but this is simply untrue. LOH seems to work just freaking like Positive energy but seems not to be just because they left a line out?
If it looks like a duck...
RAI I believe LoH was intended to be positive energy. RAW is undefined, since it's not defined.
Not all healing is divine (Bards and Witches heal with arcane energy, which theoretically does not call on a god to do so, and may or may not be positive energy).
In the case of Cure light wounds the spell does indeed say positive energy. The one and only "healing" spell that does not use positive healing is Infernal Healing( that i can find anyhow)
People keep claiming channel has nothing to do with LOH but this is simply untrue. LOH seems to work just freaking like Positive energy but seems not to be just because they left a line out?
If it looks like a duck...
My quote above was addressing the idea that divine healing must be positive energy healing. The point is, a Bard and Witch can cast Cure spells, but don't have a divine bond with any divine source (save possibly the patron). Thus the argument that because it's divine healing it must be positive energy is not a valid argument. Bards heal with positive energy without invoking divine powers. If a bard can conjure positive energy without a god being involved, then there's no reason why someone else can't heal without a god being involved, or even without positive energy being involved.
And, as I said, repeatedly. RAI = Positive Energy. RAW = Untyped Healing. You can argue with that until you are blue in the face, but the rules are simply not what you want and believe them to be. I treat it as positive energy in my own campaigns, and expect others to as well. But strict RAW, it's untyped.
By strict RAW I can take actions while dead, and do not all prone when knocked out of killed. RAW has no meaning with out intent in cases such as this.
By strict RAW I can take actions while dead, and do not all prone when knocked out of killed. RAW has no meaning with out intent in cases such as this.
Strawman argument. I expect better of you.
Death is a state, and it's defined in the same way 'Weapon' or 'Food' or 'Day' or 'Night' is. You don't need rules for dead, you're dead. Just like you don't need rules for 'day is when the sun is out' and 'night is when the sun is not out'.
Whether Lay-On-Hands, which is a wholly made up game construct, uses positive energy or fairy dust or the paladin's own blood, is something that needs to be defined. Unlike death, there is no real world counterpart for lay on hands, so we can't use the dictionary definition of it.
I agree with you, however by strict RAw without intent or basic knowledge but strict only what is written counts. Well Dead can still take actions and do not fall prone as by strict RAW it never says you can and they fall. Yes thats an over the top example but it is the same logic being used here.
Every time someone says " Well by strict RAW" that almost always means " Well if I ignore intent and every other instance of something like this in the game I can use it how I want"
You can't just say "Strict RAW" as we all use some type of base assumptions or intent. Strict RAW without using intent and basic assumptions simply have no meaning.
RAI I believe LoH was intended to be positive energy. RAW is undefined, since it's not defined.
Not all healing is divine (Bards and Witches heal with arcane energy, which theoretically does not call on a god to do so, and may or may not be positive energy).
In the case of Cure light wounds the spell does indeed say positive energy. The one and only "healing" spell that does not use positive healing is Infernal Healing( that i can find anyhow)
People keep claiming channel has nothing to do with LOH but this is simply untrue. LOH seems to work just freaking like Positive energy but seems not to be just because they left a line out?
If it looks like a duck...
Positive energy infuses and cleanses your body. This spell cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25) and ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting you: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, poisoned, and sickened.In addition, cleanse functions as break enchantment upon a single additional effect of your choice that is affecting you and that can be legally affected by this effect.
If used by undead or other creatures healed by negative energy, the spell cleanses with negative energy rather than positive.
Also still ignoring the fact that negative energy heals undead -- so positive energy is not the only healing force available.
No, that just makes a stronger case for healing of living being positive. WE know undead are "Healed" by negative energy.
Find me one example of negative energy healing a normal living being. Then you may have a point. All you have shown is yet another example of healing using positive energy.
