Um, I think this is pretty clear, RAW.
Merciful says that when you suppress the ability, you're "allowed" to deal non-lethal damage. Not "when you suppress the ability, damage is no longer nonlethal" or "damage is whatever type it is before."
If you don't suppress the Merciful effect, you're not allowed to deal any non-lethal damage. That's important - you're simply *not allowed*.
So you can argue timing, order of effect, or any of that - and it doesn't matter. Because when it comes down to it, Merciful says, "Oh, you're trying to deal lethal damage? Sorry, not allowed unless you suppress me."
Um, I think this is pretty clear, RAW.
Merciful says that when you suppress the ability, you're "allowed" to deal non-lethal damage. Not "when you suppress the ability, damage is no longer nonlethal" or "damage is whatever type it is before."
If you don't suppress the Merciful effect, you're not allowed to deal any non-lethal damage. That's important - you're simply *not allowed*.
So you can argue timing, order of effect, or any of that - and it doesn't matter. Because when it comes down to it, Merciful says, "Oh, you're trying to deal lethal damage? Sorry, not allowed unless you suppress me."
Ah, but you ignored Deadly's text:
All damage a deadly weapon deals is lethal damage.
You can also suppress Deadly's effect, but while Deadly is in effect all damage dealt is lethal damage. That's where the conflict is coming from.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
My take on it: the two cancel out for the most part, causing the weapon to revert to the original damage type. Since deadly can only be placed on weapons that ordinarily do nonlethal, that means the damage type is nonlethal. For a whip, that'd be nonlethal +1d6 (merciful), with the ability to harm armored foes. And the odd quality of being able to take a -4 penalty to hit to do lethal damage, normally incompatible with merciful.
If I'd thought of it, I'd probably have excluded it being stackable with merciful, but I don't think it's a big deal either way.
My take on it: the two cancel out for the most part, causing the weapon to revert to the original damage type. Since deadly can only be placed on weapons that ordinarily do nonlethal, that means the damage type is nonlethal. For a whip, that'd be nonlethal +1d6 (merciful), with the ability to harm armored foes. And the odd quality of being able to take a -4 penalty to hit to do lethal damage, normally incompatible with merciful.
If I'd thought of it, I'd probably have excluded it being stackable with merciful, but I don't think it's a big deal either way.
Another way to read it is that when both are active the weapon deals no damage whatsoever.
Merciful prevents any lethal damage and Deadly prevents any non-lethal damage.
-James
wrong, very wrong
My take on it: the two cancel out for the most part, causing the weapon to revert to the original damage type. Since deadly can only be placed on weapons that ordinarily do nonlethal, that means the damage type is nonlethal. For a whip, that'd be nonlethal +1d6 (merciful), with the ability to harm armored foes. And the odd quality of being able to take a -4 penalty to hit to do lethal damage, normally incompatible with merciful.
If I'd thought of it, I'd probably have excluded it being stackable with merciful, but I don't think it's a big deal either way.
Another way to read it is that when both are active the weapon deals no damage whatsoever.
Merciful prevents any lethal damage and Deadly prevents any non-lethal damage.
-James
This is not what happens at all. Merciful converts all damage to non-lethal. Deadly converts all damage to lethal. This isn't "preventing" anything, it's converting. You're talking about a different operational idea altogether.
One doesn't have to activate both effects at once, just one after the other.
One doesn't try to eat all 3 meals of the day at once either
as the player/character decides when to activate/disable an effect, it depends on the player/character what sequence the effects are applied to the magic weapon too
this means there is no concern/issue about wrong sequence or being triggered at once either
"You are sidestepping the issue by positing your position as right with no supporting evidence."
The evidence was posted half a dozen+ times before, and activation of effects always worked as far I know the way that the most recent layer of power is in "control".
My position is that if a magic weapon can have both ice and fire damage at the same time, then there is no reason to suspect/assume two enchantments can't synergy and work at once, unless especially written so in the description or an errata.
I think the key word is normally in the Deadly description. 'Normally,' I would assume, means a non-enhanced weapon.
I think the key word is normally in the Deadly description. 'Normally,' I would assume, means a non-enhanced weapon.
Maybe, that is why most people hit FAQ on first post, to get that part clarified. As I see it, only that is what could deny this combination from working.
Because cold and fire damage are not at odds the same way that lethal and non-lethal are.
Really? For me that is way much stranger, and should result in a watery and very wet (or steamy) attack.
Anyway, as stated earlier I find the very mention of "non-lethal" silly to begin with, any kind of damage can be lethal, using such a specification in the system may be the actual core problem to start with.
Yet, it's put plainly in the description. The common understanding of normally is something that's 'obvious' to me, at least. Normally is how the weapon functions without any improvements or outside interventions in this context.
Yet, it's put plainly in the description. The common understanding of normally is something that's 'obvious' to me, at least. Normally is how the weapon functions without any improvements or outside interventions in this context.
For some people it is "obvious" what is good/right/just, for others those same actions are horrid/inhumane/sacrilegious/etc, other people laugh at the very idea of good/evil.
Simple fact is that this issue won't get clearly solved and answered unless there is an official comment on it and/or an errata.
To me, that's splitting hairs. I won't FAQ.
|
My take on it: the two cancel out for the most part, causing the weapon to revert to the original damage type. Since deadly can only be placed on weapons that ordinarily do nonlethal, that means the damage type is nonlethal. For a whip, that'd be nonlethal +1d6 (merciful), with the ability to harm armored foes. And the odd quality of being able to take a -4 penalty to hit to do lethal damage, normally incompatible with merciful.
If I'd thought of it, I'd probably have excluded it being stackable with merciful, but I don't think it's a big deal either way.
This appears to be correct.
To me, that's splitting hairs. I won't FAQ.
Your choice, I don't care. I am only interested in if we get any official ruling on this or not. Because nothing else matters as it all goes back to interpretation/misinterpretation of the rules and personal opinions without it.
Well, you know what the author of it would've done :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So wait... you want to toss deadly on a merciful weapon so it does an extra 1d6 and is still lethal damage? For an extra 16000 gp you can add 1d6 points of damage to a +1 weapon is how I'm reading this. Not going for the +3, not going for holy, just an extra 1d6?
Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Um, I think this is pretty clear, RAW.
Merciful says that when you suppress the ability, you're "allowed" to deal non-lethal damage. Not "when you suppress the ability, damage is no longer nonlethal" or "damage is whatever type it is before."
If you don't suppress the Merciful effect, you're not allowed to deal any non-lethal damage. That's important - you're simply *not allowed*.
So you can argue timing, order of effect, or any of that - and it doesn't matter. Because when it comes down to it, Merciful says, "Oh, you're trying to deal lethal damage? Sorry, not allowed unless you suppress me."
Ah, but you ignored Deadly's text:
All damage a deadly weapon deals is lethal damage.You can also suppress Deadly's effect, but while Deadly is in effect all damage dealt is lethal damage. That's where the conflict is coming from.
I didn't ignore Deadly's text at all. I guess it just depends on how you interpret this line:
On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).
Personally, I take this to mean: "Unless you suppress this ability, you cannot deal lethal damage." So it doesn't matter what abilities, feats, or bonuses you do, the weapon has a little engraving on it that says, "I'm incapable of dealing Lethal Damage." Deadly can try to change it to lethal all it wants, but the sword is incapable of actually dealing any lethal damage - because the rules say that it isn't allowed to.
Well, you know what the author of it would've done :p
Yep!
So wait... you want to toss deadly on a merciful weapon so it does an extra 1d6 and is still lethal damage? For an extra 16000 gp you can add 1d6 points of damage to a +1 weapon is how I'm reading this. Not going for the +3, not going for holy, just an extra 1d6?
Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Yep! Part two!
jamesmaissen: No. Quite frankly, you're wrong.
Can you rule it that way? Yes, of course. And more power to you, if you do!
But it makes less sense than anything else that's been posited and has even less support by other RAW.
Merciful: add +1d6. All damage is non-lethal. Can be suppressed at will.
--> This is clear. The weapon still does damage. This does not "prevent" damage in any measure. It alters the nature of the damage dealt. This is really clear. If it "prevented" lethal damage from occurring, the weapon wouldn't deal damage at all, unless a) you were choosing to deal non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon (which, incidentally, would cause a -4 penalty) or b) you were using a non-lethal weapon to begin with.
Deadly: All damage is lethal. Can affect armored foes. Can be suppressed at will.
--> This is also clear. The weapon still does damage. This does not "prevent" damage in any measure. It alters the nature of the damage dealt. This is really clear. If it "prevented" non-lethal damage from occurring, the weapon wouldn't deal damage at all, unless you were choosing to deal lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon (which, incidentally, would cause a -4 penalty).
Your interpretation, quite frankly, doesn't make sense from a rules perspective. It's totally a valid interpretation for a home game, but you're arguing that it's the RAW interpretation, and that's simply incorrect.
KBrewer: you're presupposing that Merciful is the more "potent" enchantment than Deadly. The "allowing" comes from suppressing the effect that reads "All damage dealt is non-lethal". You're emphasizing the latter wording at the expense of the actual meaning behind those words.
Let me point to this again: Flaming/Frost. You all are actually, genuinely okay with a Flaming/Frost weapon - a weapon that simultaneously deals fire and cold damage to the same target at the same time - but are completely against the Merciful/Deadly. That's... bizarre, to say the least.
Let me suggest something. A test, as it were. Find a large piece of ice. Then set it on fire*. Then hit something with it. Tell me what happens. Alternatively: get a piece of dry ice. Drop some magma on it. Then hit something with that combination. Tell me what happens. 'Cause I predict that the fire and ice are going to negate each other (over time) outside of extenuating circumstances***. A blade that is on fire with burning hot heat, but simultaneously radiating frigid cold doesn't make sense. It violates the most basic laws of thermodynamics. In our world, it's dumb. It's also really, really nifty, and ripe for story ideas and makes a fascinating juxtaposition (Back to the Future, anyone?). But if we're going to talk real, honest-to-goodness "sense" (in the real world) and "magic" in the same sentence, we're going to break our brains really fast. In truth a flaming/frost blade should either warp itself due to randomized uneven distribution of heat and cold (as evidenced by the random amount of fire/cold damage it deals) or simply shatter (depending on the temperatures we're dealing with). But in-game, it's totally valid.
This? This is magic. Magic is extenuating circumstances. Magic allows the impossible to happen. And this isn't even overpowered! There is literally no reason whatsoever to argue against this combination. None. It's not against the rules. It's not against "sense" any more than any other strange, but legal combination is.
What completely baffles me is the strength of the opposition to this combination. "Oh, no! The dreaded, mighty whip and sap - certainly the two most powerful weapons to ever be devised - can deal lethal damage! And an extra 1d6!"
I mean, really, this makes far more sense than, say, I don't know, dealing cold damage with a sword****.
* Oh, wait! Ice isn't flammable! Right! So, I don't know, use frozen lighter fluid.**
** No. Don't.
*** Alternatively: I predict an explosion from the ice as it heats up too rapidly and in too many different ways. Seriously, don't try this.
**** Or a breath weapon, for that matter!
KBrewer: you're presupposing that Merciful is the more "potent" enchantment than Deadly. The "allowing" comes from suppressing the effect that reads "All damage dealt is non-lethal". You're emphasizing the latter wording at the expense of the actual meaning behind those words.
Not presupposing one is more powerful than the other - just that one places a limitation on the weapon that the other doesn't lift. It's no different than having:
Belt of Pacifism: "You cannot deal fire damage"
Gloves of Flame: "You deal an extra 1d6 of fire damage when you attack"
... the belt places a limitation (you cannot do this) that the gloves don't remove.
The reason I'm emphasizing the latter part because it implies something about the ability itself. Does the Merciful ability allow lethal damage? The first part doesn't really say. And if all you read is the first part of the text, you could just say, "Heck, it's just converting damage to nonlethal and that's the end of the story."
The second part implies that, no, Merciful weapons actually don't allow lethal damage at all. They could have just as easily wrote "Suppressing this ability restores the weapons regular damage types" or "Suppressing this ability no longer converts the damage to nonlethal." Instead, they say that you're allowed to deal lethal damage if you suppress the ability; that unless you do so, you can't deal lethal damage with the weapon.
Sorry if someone's said this already (I may have missed a post somewhere along the line), but:
- "this weapon deals an extra +1d6 damage. Also, all damage it deals is nonlethal"
- "all damage this weapon deals is lethal"
Simply put, these two contradict each other. If we speak purely in terms of the RaW, one does one thing, one does the opposite. But what order do they occur in? That, I believe, is the question here. Am I right?
I guess I'd say...they occur in the order they were bestowed upon the weapon.
- A +1 sap is enchanted to be Deadly and so it deals lethal damage. Then Merciful gives it +1d6 damage, and turns it all into non-lethal again.
- On the flip-side, a +1 sap is enchanted to be Merciful. It deals +1d6 damage, and is nonlethal. Then Deadly turns it all into lethal damage.
Then, you could supress/re-activate the enchantments and flip them around.
I'd also like to note, for argument's sake, that the Merciful enchantment makes the weapon deal an extra +1d6 damage, and then converts all of it to nonlethal, rather than granting an extra +1d6 nonlethal damage and also converting the rest.
Finally, to all those who've been rattled by this concept, I say this: I often like to play around with goofy concepts like this; weird number-games and word-traps, just to see what I can find. I do not use them in my games. So let's not be too hard on our OP. I'd like to thank him for the brainfood, as it were.
Furthermore, I'd like to say that a +2 bonus for +1d6 damage isn't all that awesome. I don't think it would ever be worth taking, if it weren't for the ability to make it nonlethal, and even then, I wouldn't be too tempted. Still, if a player wanted something like this, I'd insist he take a new enchantment, say, Brutal. A +2 equivalent for +1d6 regular damage. Because a weapon that is both Deadly and Merciful makes little sense, and would hinder the story with it's obviously video game-y brand of magic.
Thank you for your time.
You all are actually, genuinely okay with a Flaming/Frost weapon - a weapon that simultaneously deals fire and cold damage to the same target at the same time - but are completely against the Merciful/Deadly. That's... bizarre, to say the least.
From experience cooking at high altitude I can say that it is quite possible to burn oneself while simultaneously freezing damn cold :p
I agree. There is no reason whatsoever that this is the case. The weapon deals damage--that's what weapons do--it's just up for debate what kind of damage it deals.
James: a Merciful Flaming weapon is an entirely different issue. The order matters, in this case, because Deadly takes all the damage a weapon deals and makes it lethal.
Both effects cannot be activated at the same time; one has to be activated, and then the other. The first takes effect, does its thing, and then is covered up when the second takes effect. Order of Operations.
The idea that the Merciful enchantment does not allow you to deal regular damage has crossed my mind, but I'm not 100% sold on that yet. Need to do some grammar-ing.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, game rules aren't a programming language. Trying to ruthlessly parse the language of the rules doesn't get you the right answer, it just gets you an answer. That's why you're not having much luck convincing people who don't agree with your interpretation.
The thing is, game rules aren't a programming language. Trying to ruthlessly parse the language of the rules doesn't get you the right answer, it just gets you an answer. That's why you're not having much luck convincing people who don't agree with your interpretation.
Hey, it's exactly like it was on 8-bit computers - if I ran the same program in BASIC on different interpreters (like Atari BASIC and BASIC Turbo XL or Commodore BASIC) they were working differently (if at all - they often just blurted error message somewhere).
You all are actually, genuinely okay with a Flaming/Frost weapon - a weapon that simultaneously deals fire and cold damage to the same target at the same time - but are completely against the Merciful/Deadly. That's... bizarre, to say the least.From experience cooking at high altitude I can say that it is quite possible to burn oneself while simultaneously freezing damn cold :p
Heh, as someone who's lived in Lithuania, I can assure you I understand the nature of being hit by too cold and too hot at the same time!
But (tongue-in-cheek humor aside) that's not what's going on here. They are both being emitted by the same source. That's like saying lava can deal "cold" damage to you. It can't! It makes no sense! Lava can be cooled to the point that it is no longer molten (at which point it becomes rock), but it can't absorb enough heat (or "radiate cold") in order to deal cold damage. Dry ice could deal cold damage. But in setting fire to the dry ice (to deal fire) you're heating it up, which will quickly kill it's being ice.
Now, I have no problem with a flaming/frost weapon. Why? "It's magic." Simple. Similarly, I have no problem with the weapon itself not being harmed by the intense heat, cold, or both (especially on criticals), even though that should cause bending and warpiture at the same time.
But if we're arguing that something doesn't make sense, we've got to look at the entirety of things. Which was my only point.
KBrewster has some good points, but he's not paying attention to mine. I get that I'm not going to convince him, but similarly, he's not convincing in his own arguments.
First, *IF* order matters then a merciful flaming weapon is the SAME issue. If the flaming is added on after 'merciful' then why isn't it adding lethal fire damage? But we know that's not the case. Order of activation doesn't matter here, and it doesn't for this other combination.
No, actually, it does not. Because those two enchantments don't come into conflict with each other, it's nothing at all like that case at all.
And saying "order of operations" doesn't matter is patently false.
What happens if I cast charm person on a guy and someone else casts bull's strength? The guy is stronger and charmed.
What happens if I cast bull's strength on a guy and someone else casts charm person? The guy is stronger and charmed.
In that case order of operations doesn't matter. But...
What happens if I cast charm person on a guy, then someone else casts dispel magic? The target is no longer charmed.
What happens if I cast dispel magic on a guy, then someone else casts charm person? The target is charmed.
In the second case, order of operations matters.
What you're describing above is the former situation. What we're describing now is (from our perspective) the latter.
Really what we're trying to determine is if, in the case of the latter, are we talking about something more like rage-and-calm emotions (bonus is negated), or crushing despair-and-calm emotions (penalty is negated) or crushing despair-and-good hope (both are negated), rage-and-crushing despair (penalty and bonus both concurrent, but effectively negate), charm-and-confusion (one makes the other mostly irrelevant), or something else entirely (like the above example).
Arguing that the weapon deals no damage is not only not RAW, it doesn't make sense. A weapon deals damage. The only thing that these do is change the quality of that damage (plus bonus effect).
We do know what the author would have done, though:
My take on it: the two cancel out for the most part, causing the weapon to revert to the original damage type. Since deadly can only be placed on weapons that ordinarily do nonlethal, that means the damage type is nonlethal. For a whip, that'd be nonlethal +1d6 (merciful), with the ability to harm armored foes. And the odd quality of being able to take a -4 penalty to hit to do lethal damage, normally incompatible with merciful.
If I'd thought of it, I'd probably have excluded it being stackable with merciful, but I don't think it's a big deal either way.
That makes much more sense than "no damage at all".
Gah! That's not true!
Look, both enhancements state that the weapon deals damage. It's only in your interpretation that the weapon no longer deals damage.
Merciful says the weapon deals damage: and deals more damage than normal. Then it notes that all damage dealt (and it does note that damage is dealt) is non-lethal. But in all cases, it informs you, the weapon deals damage.
Deadly states that it deals damage, and that that damage dealt is lethal. But in all cases, it informs you that damage is still dealt.
You're extrapolating based on the fact that the damage types are incompatible (which they are) that no damage can be dealt. But that's not RAW! RAW states that the weapons deal damage on both enhancements.
You're looking at two things that are incompatible and making the presumption that everything just stops working. That doesn't make sense, and is supported by no RAW anywhere.
EDIT: I'd like to apologize for the emotion in this post. It's just frustrating to see something that is clearly untrue being trumpeted as the only way of interpreting things when I've shown in the rules where it talks about magical interactions and clearly violates the RAW (that the weapons deal damage).
NOTE: you're totally valid ruling that the weapon deals no damage, but both of them state that they deal damage. So ruling that way also violates RAW.
I still say the combination can't work. Deadly only works on a weapon that NORMALLY deals nonlethal damage and merciful already deals nonlethal so it'd be useless on such a weapon.
NOTE: you're totally valid ruling that the weapon deals no damage, but both of them state that they deal damage. So ruling that way also violates RAW.Follow the logic.
All the damage that the weapon deals is purple. If no damage can be purple, then the only way that this can be true is if the weapon deals no damage.
Let me ask two simple questions:
If the weapon did any lethal damage then merciful would be violated, right?This isn't possible while merciful is active, also right?
-James
I follow your logic. I really do. I get it. But your logic isn't RAW.
That's my point. I get what you're saying, but it violates the other part of the effect that specifically notes that it does deal damage and more damage than normal. By saying "the both active together don't deal damage" what you're saying is "I'm ignoring the part where they both say the weapon deals damage because we can't resolve the kind of damage the weapon deals."
That is stepping out of RAW. I see where you logic is coming from, but it has no similarity to anything in all the rules of PF.
It's kind of like me using Baleful Polymorph on, say, an elf, and then Awaken, and you indicating that he should become a construct because "that's just unnatural, and you just created it". Well, yes, it is "unnatural", and I did "create" it, but that's not how those spells work and nothing in their description or anything else would ever indicate that using Awaken on a Baleful Polymorphed creature would turn the creature into an construct. (I'm not trying to argue that using Awaken on someone who was under the effect of Baleful Polymorph would work, by the way, it's just an example.)
Mercy notes that it deals normal damage +1d6 and also the damage is non-lethal.
Deadly notes that it can deal damage to those with armor bonuses, and also the damage is lethal.
In both cases they deal damage. Saying that the two damage type cancel out all damage is entirely outside of the scope of RAW. Yes, I see the logic of what you're saying. But then: what happens to the weapon? Seriously, what happens? How can it not do damage? Why can it not do damage? What happens if it's whacked against, say, a rock? Does it just pass right through? Does it slow down until it doesn't hit?
The fact that a heavy sap can't hit something hard enough to deal damage no matter how hard it hits doesn't make sense. There is literally no mechanic that describes what you're talking about. There's nothing RAW about saying that "it doesn't deal damage".
No. You're saying that it's RAW, but it's not. No matter how many times you repeat that it's RAW, there's nothing in RAW that supports that. I'll repeat my line again: you're fourth RAW conclusion isn't RAW.
That's what I'm saying.
There is nothing in the RAW that allows the weapon to not deal damage. Both say they still deal damage.
Your conclusion is a fine thing to come to (for you), but it's a ruling, not RAW, and not even based on anything else found anywhere in the books.
Do the effects conflict? Yes. So, then, what does RAW say about conflicting magical effects?
Let me quote it from the d20PFRD:
Combining Magic Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Stacking Effects
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant
Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects
Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
Spells with Opposite Effects
Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.
Instantaneous Effects
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
There? There's nothing about the magic effects - even when conflicting - causing other things to simply stop functioning in any way. You're citing that because the magical effects are incompatible, the entire weapon ceases to function in-game. That does not make sense.
Specifically, let's look at some of the rules again:
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Bolding mine. What that means is that these rules apply to more than just spells, because they also apply to "magical effects".
Next:
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant
Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
This is very similar to what we're talking about here, and in this order of operations matters. If this was the ruling followed (and it would have to be a ruling), than activating Merciful first would make the lethal line of Deadly irrelevant and vice versa. That's the opposite of the order we've been using before, but it does support the idea that order of operations matters.
Next:
Spells with Opposite Effects
Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.
This also applies, as the base spells to make Merciful and Deadly (cure and inflict) are opposites and have the opposite effects. This is the order of operations we've been using.
By RAW, unless you're able to cite me something else (which I'd really like you to do), that's how to handle conflicting magical effects. Which is what we're doing. Handling conflicting magical effects.
Either:
1) Order of operations matter and the former negates the latter
2) Order of operations matter and both are active at the same time with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply
3) Some combination of the above two in which partial elements are negated, while non-relevant effects still apply (which is what the developer suggested)
There is nothing anywhere within the rules to support a conclusion, by RAW, that "it does no damage".
Again, I get the logic.
LOGIC:
But that's not RAW how to handle conflicting magical effects. Which is my point. The RAW handling is "Make a ruling based off of the above general rules."
EDIT:
It's very simple the enchantment has to be valid for the base weapon before any other enchantments are applied.
The Deadly enchantment can not be applied to a base weapon which does lethal damage normally.
Likewise you can't do the same with Merciful and non lethal weapons like saps.
Enchantments placed on a weapon don't alter the base nature of the weapon, just the result.
There is no base weapon which can be a valid target for both enchantments.
Laz*, Merciful doesn't restrict itself that way, and there are benefits for putting Merciful on a weapon that already deals non-lethal damage (specifically the +1d6 damage).
Also, james*, arguing that Merciful doesn't say that the weapon deals damage, but only that it deals "an extra 1d6" damage is fallacious, because the word "extra" means "in addition to", and you can't interpret it as being anything more than that.
* Also, guys, should it be "James" and "LazarX"? I really want to know what you would prefer - I'm using your screen names as a basis and shorthand (it's more convenient), but let me know if you'd prefer something else.