|
Not true. Sages advice and/or FAQ confirmed that you could, if they didn't save.
In 3.0, it was a hit or miss. Either nothing, or the target autodropped to 1d4, regardless of HP. That is also how it worked in earlier editions.
It's a much weaker spell now, (vs 3.0), but having it not able to kill seems like a very easy glory stealer from the cleric. I drop him to 1 HP, and the fighter walks up and throws a blade of grass and drops them.
Regardless it looks like Pathfinder is aiming to get rid of most of the old instant death effects. Replacing them with lots of damage. Of course if your 20th level cleric occasions to nuke a 1st level commoner with a Harm spell you can always 'house rules' that that would be enough to slay the unlucky fellow.
|
From the official D&D 3.5 FAQ:
'The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster
level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot
take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target
creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is
reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s
hit points to less than 1. What happens when the spell deals
50 points of damage or more to the target (as it might to
any creature that has 51 hit points or more)? Does the
death from massive damage rule apply? <rest of question cut for relevance>'
The question being asked was about death from massive damage, but it is obvious the questioner assumes harm cannot reduce a character to less than 1 hit point whatever the circumstances - and the offical answer given does not counter this view.
Go to D&D FAQs to down load the FAQ in question if you want to examine it yourself. The answer does note:
'...In the case of the harm spell, the death from massive
damage rule creates a situation that’s arguably absurd, because
once you have 51 hit points or more, you suddenly become
susceptible to instant death from the spell when lesser beings
(with fewer hit points) do not...'
Clearly, the intent is that harm cannot kill a character, regardless of the outcome of their saving throw. The Sage may have contradicted this, of course. It wouldn't be the first time they've offered two totally contradictory viewpoints on a rules topic.
The question and answer I've quoted from are from page 83 of the 'v3.5 Main D&D FAQ', available at the link.
My personal ruing on this would be this:
13th level Cleric casts Harm, dealing 130 dmg to Ogre champion, which has 117 HP. The ogre fails his save, dropping him to one point.
There, spell is over and complete.
Now we bring on the Excessive Damage ruling. Ogre rolls his save on taking excessive damage, and fails. Thus he is killed.
The spell itself did not kill the ogre. The ogre's system shock is what did him in.
This brings up a couple more points.
1) Should the ogre make his save, he goes down to one point. The cleric can simply say "Yield in the name of Bright Sun" and be offered a chance to yield. Failure to comply will most likely end his quick death, seconds later.
2) This seems to go along the lines of the clerical aspect, anyway. Kill only when you need to, give every enemy the chance to convert, or make peace with their diety.
A cleric who plays like this will earn a hefty RP bonus in my game.
Apologies for the double-post.
2) This seems to go along the lines of the clerical aspect, anyway. Kill only when you need to, give every enemy the chance to convert, or make peace with their deity.
A cleric who plays like this will earn a hefty RP bonus in my game.
While I agree with what you say I wanted to point out that sort of "redemption" is blatantly evil according to Book of Exalted Deeds.
Offering redemption at sword point is an evil act. :)
2) This seems to go along the lines of the clerical aspect, anyway. Kill only when you need to, give every enemy the chance to convert, or make peace with their deity.
A cleric who plays like this will earn a hefty RP bonus in my game.
While I agree with what you say I wanted to point out that sort of "redemption" is blatantly evil according to Book of Exalted Deeds.
Offering redemption at sword point is an evil act. :)
And exactly how does that differ from the BoED's "Sanctify the Wicked" spell, which is basically Soul Bind mixed with brainwashing?
Forcing someone to convert at swordpoint versus forcing their soul into the extradimensional Harmony Hut where after a year they'll come out quoting scripture like a Jehovah's Witness?
Buy a Helm of Opposite Alignment and a couple of saving-throw lowering curses. It's equally morally icky but cheaper and more honest.
Offering redemption at sword point is an evil act. :)
This is one of those areas where you're wrong unless you're right.
If conversion really IS a Good Thing for the universe at large (as well as for the person being converted), then forcing someone to convert at swordpoint is a laudable and heroic act. At the very least, it's more Good than killing them outright would be (and we've long established that executing an evil creature is often a good act).
It's only when what you are trying to "convert" them to ISN'T objectively and unambiguously good that it becomes loathsome and evil to force the point.
While I agree with what you say I wanted to point out that sort of "redemption" is blatantly evil according to Book of Exalted Deeds.
Offering redemption at sword point is an evil act. :)
I suppose it's how it all turned out. If the premeditated plan was to get him to the final blow, then convert him or kill him, then yeah, not a good thing.
But it also depends on the ogre. If his reply was blasphemous, kill him. If he simply said "no", and dropped his weapon, and the cleric killed him anyway? oooh, XP Penalty
There are many ways to role-play a clerical ability to bring an enemy to the point of death, without killing him. However, I cannot see any diety, except for an evil diety, to allow their cleric to deal that kind of massive damage that ends in total obliteration of the target.
After all, remember, they have 2 chances. 1) save for half damage, and 2) system shock
Ah, I was talking about forcing redemption, not yielding to the fight. You're right on that aspect: Offering someone up to justice is much better than slaying them in the eyes of good.
I thought we were talking about redeeming and forcing one to serve another deity.
Well, forcing someone to "do Kord's will" is basically just slavery with some blasphemy-against-Kord thrown in on the side.
I was thinking of something more like, forcing an ogre to surrender, then turning them in to a group such as Ptolus' Brotherhood of Redemption (who, yes, may well do some distasteful thing in their attempts to turn evil monsters into upstanding citizens, and will probably keep the ogre imprisoned for the rest of his life should they fail; but is that really worse than just killing him and sending him to an evil soul's afterlife?).
The clue is in the name "Harm".
Not "Kill".
Never has been a killer spell, never will be.
I would say wrong. Freedom of will is the greatest good that exists. No matter how justified conversion by force is evil because it takes away personal freedom.
You mean like sending a convict to prison? Not buying it.
I agree that, if you don't have the moral authority to kill them anyway, then the fact that you are trying to convert them doesn't grant that authority. "He had a chance to walk in the light and he turned it down" is not, by itself, justification for execution.
But there are countless situations where killing an evil creature is a Good act, and in virtually all of those situations, offering him redemption before doing so would be a Good-er act. Potentially, you aren't just making the world a better place, but you're saving the monster (or evil humanoid) from a hellish afterlife, and to prevent infinite suffering is an act of infinite compassion.
Freedom of will is the greatest good that exists.
All I can say is, this seems to be in line with 'chaotic good.' Those who prefer 'lawful good' would likely prioritize differently, such as peace, harmony, or something along those lines. And 'neutral good' would probably go for the sanctity of life, or at least 'innocent' life.
So, in game terms, and back on the topic, I'd say what one does with the ogre in question would likely be dictated by their own god. Kord probably didn't want much to do with prisoners, while Heironeus seems more likely to uphold such a tradition.