Ok, just wondering. Dexios is Silver Crusade. He carries a wand of stabalize to keep foes from bleeding out. He believes that a show of mercy is the first step to letting people change their ways. So when the BBLG is found unconscious 'off screen' if he recovers he has to deal with the fact that he was left alive rather than killed.

Now scenario-wise it doesn't matter* since most NPCs only exist for the scenario. Just wondering if anyone else does this.

*

I actually do this (or something along the same lines), a lot. I will actuallly go out of my way to Channel healing energy after a fight attempting to at least get downed enemies to not die, (even if we don't plan on trying to interogate or otherwise use them). I've even gone out of my way to bury a lot of the dead NPC in a scenario when I can.

I also make it a point to offer surrender as much as I can, though it is rarely taken.

I usually let the DM know my intent, but don't really tell the other players unless they ask, as OOC they tend to be more interested in downing the enemy rather than "killing" them. I'm personally not that into the whole adventures = murderers idea, and I do believe that only the worst encounters should leave someone dead, (true monsters or nearly epic showdowns), not just random thugs in a street (unless they are drow or tieflings ha ha).

I personally don't care for Stabilize. A heal check (after the fight) and any actual healing do the same thing, or better. They can still die from Stabilize, and I personally just hate the spell. (Give us back Cure Minor!!!!)

As a cleric of Iomedae, I prepare stabilize every day. It's mostly to keep my allies from dying without healing them up to the point that they become a threat again and get killed that way, but I do sometimes use it to take prisoners.

Ironically, however, the few times an enemy has tried to surrender, I've had to execute them. Go figure, eh?

No offense Thomas. :)

I find that one of the leading causes of PC death is trying to heal someone who's not currently a threat to the enemies (and therefore not a target), bringing them just a couple of HP into consciousness, so that the enemy then decides this time he'd better make sure he STAYS down, and... SPLAT.

Since it's my job to keep my companions alive instead of essentially screaming "FINISH HIM!" to the enemy, I prepare stabilize.

;)

What I mean was after the party had already suceeded and the fight is over. I really only heal in combat if it is a dire threat.

Last game we played 2 or 3 days ago, our Monk went down and was literally 2 points away from death (-13 HP or something), and I still waited to heal until I knew he wouldn't just stand up and get killed. But, out Monk is kind of a problem on their own. Ha ha. It's not to be a jerk, but to conserve resorces until the best time I can. I've been in too many games where I am completely depleted on all healing halfway through, an it's not even bad tactics that really caused it.

Yeah, I don't heal in combat either unless it's an emergency. But if someone goes down hard and might bleed out before we're done, I'll happily toss a cantrip their way.

Ive just added the Merciful quality to my Gunslinger's pistols. He has enough blood on his hands and is starting to question his early ways.

What the hell is up with all the people who think that Pathfinder agents are good?

Waiting to heal until people go down hard DOES invite deaths. That's why quick channels with exclusion to keep people out of crit-and-dead range are important.

Hell, I think I'm falling down on the job if PCs are going unconscious (sorry about that, Mok!)

Whoa guys, killing people and stuff is like bad for your life energy and stuff. I mean relics and stuff are cool and exploring things is groovy. I mean like life is dangerous and we're all gonna die eventually but that doesn't mean we should kill our own souls by killing things.

*blinks*

What the hell is up with all the people who think that Pathfinder agents are good?

Oh there are plenty of bad apples (that write Neutral on the character sheet). Thing is, the society is at best, a tertiary aliance, and moraly neutral characters are not deep or shades of grey, or whatever. They are boring. :) There is a reason that there is a trend towards making a lot more good and heroic options.

Waiting to heal until people go down hard DOES invite deaths. That's why quick channels with exclusion to keep people out of crit-and-dead range are important.

I've actually been keeping a count. The times I would have used Selective Channeling (if I had it) vs not and had a good result, the later far outweighs the former. I've literally saved the party more than once by NOT having Selective Channeling, so I'm going to really disagree here. In my experience, most in combat healings waste the resorce we will really need later on.

Hell, I think I'm falling down on the job if PCs are going unconscious (sorry about that, Monk!)

This was one of those odd corner cases where he literally went from like 18 HP to -15ish in one round. If he would have been healed, not only would I (the only sorce of healing) have been put in an extremely bad position, his only option would be to stay down or very likely die from attempting to stand up his next turn.

It depends on which of my PCs I am running, and the circumstances.

My high level archer uses blunt arrows, so he can take a penalty and try to take 'em alive, if necessary.

My mid high level Polearm Master usually uses non-damaging attacks, although he doesn't object to allies taking lethal advantage of the downed foe, and he will attack for lethal damage as appropriate.

My soon-to-be-mid level Lore Warden, it is truly up in the air, since he uses a whip with the Whip Mastery feats, so he can do lethal and non-lethal as he feels it is appropriate to the situation.

Most of my other PCs, if they do damage at all, tend toward lethal rather than prisoners.

Oh there are plenty of bad apples (that write Neutral on the character sheet). Thing is, the society is at best, a tertiary aliance, and moraly neutral characters are not deep or shades of grey, or whatever. They are boring. :) There is a reason that there is a trend towards making a lot more good and heroic options.

The shades of grey characters are generally the most interesting and memorable of those I've met; I'd never describe them as boring.

In all the groups I play with we have a very broad selection of alignments, so there's certainly no trend towards good here. I think it just feels like that from all the alignment debates on the boards. Some of the views are so absurd (casting an evil spell won't change your alignment, but if the spell is cast successfully then your alignment changes) that some of us have just given up arguing about it, leaving those that agree with each other to talk amongst themselves.

Apologies, I was refering to the products starting to come out over the last few years, but really starting to get popular recently) in the trends comment and what Paizo has said on the subject, (essentually there is a rather large request for more good player content, heroic adventures (rather than things like Skull and Shackles). Not number of players having alignments of arguements from he boards, (kind of a different thing altogether).

The morally neutral (alignment) characters tend to try to force the shades of grey as an excuse (in my experience), while good characters with shades of grey are where the really interesting, fun (for everyone) and really memorable ones come from. That's what I mean.

As the Dawnflower teaches us redemption, I usually choose to strike foes in such a way that they can be redeemed at a later point (Dealing non-lethal damage with a trait that allows me to do so with no negative to attack rolls and actually gives +1 damage). However make no mistake in thinking that my scimitar is not sharp, those who are not redeemable shall meet my blade and they shall not rise again. I tend to believe that mercy first is the best option, rather then stabilizing foes after the battle I would rather make sure that I don't do anything which would cause them to bleed in the first place.

Well said, sister of the divine inferno.

I stabalize all the foes, how can I get legal fees if all the lawbreakers are dead.

Lethal or nonlethal? Hah! Those of us who you read about in the chronicles solve our problems not from punitive damage, but by turning our enemies into small fluffy kittens. That is truly how you take a prisoner.

Yeah, it's simply not profitable to let foes die.

Life is precious, but death is simply another stage of life, one which we all must experience. Preserve what life you can, but do not steal a soul who is to be judged for its actions.

It depends. Sometimes the foe can be brought in. Sometimes their deeds merit turning them over to the locals for justice.

That being said, more often than not, when dealing with the Apsis and False Shadow Lodge types. 'Ol Painless' takes no prisoners.. (pats her musket)

Oh, don't confuse me for a follower of Pharisma. If I'm able to keep some poor aspis stooge from bleeding out, clearly she didn't want him yet.

While one person can end life, no one person can create it. (unless the Andoran tradition of sitting in the corner with a broadsheet really does produce results.) The Lady is a lady of order, but she is also a Lady of Freedom. If the locals wish to execute someone for their crimes, then I will let their justice go forth, but I was not hired as an executioner, or as a thug, though I've worked with both. I've used Her gifts, especially her brand to mark those who have opposed her will, but if I can keep a misguided soul from passing on before he has a chance to find redemption, I most certainly will. If it does come down to 'him or me' then I will definately choose 'me', but I will mourn his lost chances and ask the Lady to cradle him close.

Even with the blood of fiends coursing through my veins, I still chose the path of good. For those whose very nature doesn't push them toward evil, I therefore have very little sympathy if they choose it anyway. I'm not out for blood, but protecting those who pursue evil despite total freedom to do otherwise is not high on my priority list.

If they seek to lead a life of evil I can find no more fitting a place for such a soul than the domains of devils, daemons, and demons. Repentance made after a brush with death is shallow, and a person acts true to their nature when they do not fear judgement.

I've actually been keeping a count. The times I would have used Selective Channeling (if I had it) vs not and had a good result, the later far outweighs the former. I've literally saved the party more than once by NOT having Selective Channeling, so I'm going to really disagree here. In my experience, most in combat healings waste the resorce we will really need later on.

Please explain your position here, as I'm completely confused by it. First, in what situations can not having Selective be better than having it? Second, how does healing someone in combat waste a resource? If the person needs healing, how is it wasteful to do it sooner rather than later?

Ignatious the Seeker of Flame wrote:

I've actually been keeping a count. The times I would have used Selective Channeling (if I had it) vs not and had a good result, the later far outweighs the former. I've literally saved the party more than once by NOT having Selective Channeling, so I'm going to really disagree here. In my experience, most in combat healings waste the resorce we will really need later on.

Please explain your position here, as I'm completely confused by it. First, in what situations can not having Selective be better than having it? Second, how does healing someone in combat waste a resource? If the person needs healing, how is it wasteful to do it sooner rather than later?

If they're dead before the fight ends then they don't need healing later. That's obviously what he meant.

The sentiment against in-combat healing is generally that it's more resource-efficient to spend your actions/spell slots ending the fight and then patch up afterwards (usually with a wand), rather than blow a cure spell, and then another, and then another as you try to keep someone up round after round.

It's just a rule of thumb, of course - sometimes a really solid tank took an unlucky crit and one good cure spell will set them for the rest of the fight. Sometimes circumstances are such that only one person is a threat to the enemy, so keeping them up and fighting fit is Job #1 for everyone else. Sometimes you're just such an effective healer that your party is all but invincible with you around.

But as a starting point, it's often better to tend toward ending a fight rather than trying to heal someone.

The first, and most important was in

In two other scenarios, I was able to save individuals that had attacked us, and turned out to not be our enemies. If I would have had Selective Channeling, (and would therefore have used it), those NPC's would have died, leaving us without a future ally, information, etc. . .

Like I said above, I try to go out of my way to not kill most opponents, so I honestly can't say how many times we have gotten information or bonuses from just random prisoners or people who didn't die.

In one of the

Ick...

Your GM was running Negative Energy Affinity, your healing your group does not harm someone with Negative Energy Affinity.

Doyle is a very nice, tree hugging silver crusade druid. He routinely readies an action to stabilize the first person to drop, friend or foe.

Corvus is CG, andoran and a little more gung ho. He'll usually let the mooks live since they're just a cog in someone elses machine that need to be free

Shamus is a CN gnome. If you can make him laugh and have some style he'll keep you alive. Boring old mook? He'll put a crossbow bolt in em while they're down. He wants to bring life to the undead through ensemble dance numbers.

I have a reputation to build and fear to instill in the hearts of those who have yet to meet me. The more pathetic little people left alive to spread rumors of me, the better!

Ick...

Your GM was running Negative Energy Affinity, your healing your group does not harm someone with Negative Energy Affinity.

According to the last errata I've seen it does, but it has been awile. This creature in particular, I think had something differnt.

According to the last errata I've seen it does, but it has been awile. This creature in particular, I think had something differnt.

It never has, people have just consistently read it wrong. And the creature does have Negative Energy Affinity.

It is laid out here by Sean how it is supposed to work.

Folks, suggesting we go back to how channeling was in the Beta doesn't help the discussion of NEA. We're not going to change how the channeled energy rules work and we're certainly not going to change it back to how it was in the Beta. Let's remained focused on NEA so we can make it understandable, compatible with channel energy as written, and still fit in the 3-4 lines available in the Bestiary 2 appendix.

Here's the example scenario, and how NEA is supposed to interact with channel energy.
You have a cleric PC, his dhampir buddy PC, and an enemy ghoul.
If the cleric channels positive energy to heal the living, nothing happens to the dhampir or the ghoul (because the channel ignores undead).
If the cleric channels positive energy to harm undead, the cleric takes no damage (he's living, the channel ignores him) and the dhampir and ghoul take damage (because they're both effectively undead).

And here's the latest revision to NEA:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, and targeted by these effects as if it were an undead creature. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Is that sufficient, or can we make the NEA wording clearer so "everyone" would interpret the example scenario correctly? I think the problem now is the word "targeted," because channel energy doesn't "target" anyone, it's an area that is tuned to either heal the living or harm undead.

Yes, I remember that thread, I was in it pretty often. But like I said, last I heard, it changed so that said Dhampire wouldn't be hurt each time some Channeled to harm Undead.

I prepare Stabilize for allies and enemies alike. Sometimes your foe doesn't want to fight any more than you do. I recall a lad in Absalom who was coerced with threats on the lives of his family. The Crusade took him in while we dealt with his oppressor. More than one life was saved that day.

I prepare Stabilize for allies and enemies alike. Sometimes your foe doesn't want to fight any more than you do. I recall a lad in Absalom who was coerced with threats on the lives of his family. The Crusade took him in while we dealt with his oppressor. More than one life was saved that day.

** spoiler omitted **

Yes, I remember that thread, I was in it pretty often. But like I said, last I heard, it changed so that said Dhampire wouldn't be hurt each time some Channeled to harm Undead.

It has not changed to read different then proposed in that thread, which is they are harmed just like undead.

So when my cleric channels to heal the party, the dhampir is not affected, only when the cleric channels to harm undead?

Correct

Correct TOZ. Or if your cleric channeled negative you could channel to heal undead and the dhampir would be affected, but if he channeled to harm living he wouldn't be affected. It can be summed up as:

1) determine what type of energy you channel
2) determine who you want to target: living or undead
3) determine if you want to heal or harm those targets
4) creatures in the target group are affected by the energy as appropriate

May you live a life of purpose and be judged favorably upon your death.

Well, that will make it easier whenever I happen to have a dhampir on the crew.

My Paladin/Shadowdancer made it to one mission shy of 6th level before she or any of her companions, had killed anyone without stabilization, who wasn't an undead, evil outsider, or animal.

Beckett, you are reading it wrong, and I pointed that out to you.

The FAQ on that came from that Blog post, The FAQ was posted on 2/7/2012, the link I pointed out were he clarifies it was posted on 2/8/2012 (And his final post on the subject).

The FAQ is also incorrect in what the final version that went in the Errata for Bestiary 2 on 7/6/12. The Final version is:

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if it were an undead creature. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Both the final Version and the FAQ (Which needs to be corrected for the final wording) both state they are targeted as undead which means they are only harmed by positive when it is being channeled to harm Undead.

The alive part is just to point out though they are treated like undead they are still considered alive (Most likely so someone does not try to find some kind of weird rule loop hole for treating the character as undead for other purposes).

Edit: Sorry for the derail

Correct TOZ. Or if your cleric channeled negative you could channel to heal undead and the dhampir would be affected, but if he channeled to harm living he wouldn't be affected. It can be summed up as:

1) determine what type of energy you channel
2) determine who you want to target: living or undead
3) determine if you want to heal or harm those targets
4) creatures in the target group are affected by the energy as appropriate

May you live a life of purpose and be judged favorably upon your death.

1) Okay, simple enough.

Especially when, as you so cogently pointed out, the decision on channel energy is affect living or affect undead, not harm/heal target creature type?

Negative Energy Affinity, as currently being ruled, is counter-intuitive, and also takes it back to the Beta model, since it is allowing the channeler to affect both living and undead with one use of the channel.

As if, to me at least, is not equal to as though.
As if, to me, means in a similar fashion, but not identically.
As though, again to me, means in an identical fashion.

Again, it is a break in the rules for how Channel Energy works, takes it back to the Beta version that was deemed too powerful, and is counter-intuitive.

Because the dhampir isn't entirely alive. For purposes of channeling, he's dead jim.

Depends on the opponent, depends on the PCs.

Sure, my group has stabalized opponents before. At worst they are left to stabalize on their own.

Even my CN fighter doesn't kill everything. In Golemworks he hit once to subdue an NPC.

One of my PCs would stabalize dire rats. :) That annoyed the crap out of the GM. :)

Let me guess, you're trying to prove that "The GM should kill all downed PCs" right?

One of my former players tried this and I choose to try it another time as a player with good results. If you do not want to kill them but you do not have time/ability to take them with you. Leave them with basic gear like armor, weapon, rope and hook, one or two days of food and water or at least a dagger and their own waterskin. But also leave them with a note saying something like I spared you your life, when next we meet, you owe me.

I just began a Kingmaker campaign. We are three games in and still in book one short of level three. So far we have taken 5 "Workers for the labor camp." Hehehehehehe!!!! It is so nice not to have any rebel scum, I mean Andorans insisting on fair wages and the freedom to change employers and the expectation of healthcare. All of that nonsense. I had other characters in other campaigns offer surrender for fair trials. This campaign the character is threatening, "Hard labor! Or death!" After a few examples are made, we sometimes manage to recruite one or two survivors. Havering a lot of fun not needing to play a hero for a change.

When playing society games without said rebel scum, I encourage taking prisoners so we can sell them as slaves and make more money from our adventure/mission.