| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No, Positive Energy hurts undead period. It can't be used to heal Undead.
Lay on Hands and Channel Positive Energy both specifically mention harming undead and healing the leaving.
Besides, you Paladin should probably be having a crisis and trying to keep from offing himself since most Paladins would find an undead existence unacceptable. However, thats up to you as GM.
It's kind of silly, but yes, that's how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the second player is correct.
There is nothing intrinsic about Positive and Negative energy that heals or hurts living or undead creatures.
The only reason Inflict Light Wounds heals undead is because it specifically says it does, which is the same reason Cure Light Wounds hurts them.
Otherwise, you could full heal your party by spamming Disrupt Undead (which is positive energy) and Wraiths should have extremely fast healing (since their touch deals negative energy, and uh, they're always touching themselves).
If you are an Undead Paladin, you can heal yourself (or others) with Lay on Hands, or you can harm undead with it. But it is a choice, and you are not forced to hurt yourself or whatever.
Channel Energy (Su): Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.
A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures.
Pretty damn clear. (Paladin Channel works like Cleric Channel)
Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. ...Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures...
You can decide whether 'alternatively' and the lack of the 'living' restriction to the first part is a poor choice of words, or an intent that LoH heals or damages undead at the will of the user... functioning unlike Channel Energy.
Lay on Hands uses positive energy.
The paladin can not heal himself.
Lay on Hands uses positive energy.
The paladin can not heal himself.
The paladin can because it says it can. The type of energy used is irrelevant.
There were creatures in D&D's past that dealt positive energy damage.
Abilities do what they say they do and nothing more or less.
Paladin: Does a paladin's lay on hands use positive energy?
Yes.—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12
edit:ninja'd by 10 seconds..
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So nobody bothered to check the FAQ?
That FAQ came about as a result of a discussion of dhampir paladins trying to heal themselves.
The undead paladin would hurt themselves with their own LOH.
EDIT: Ninja'd by 10 seconds!
EDIT2:
edit:ninja'd by 10 seconds..
Wait, what?
That is strange you were ahead of me, or so I thought. I don't know how it got switched.
"Paladin: Does a paladin's lay on hands use positive energy?
Yes."
That is not the same as saying it hurts undead Paladins, not by a long shot. There is no general rule about positive and negative energy.
It bothers me that SKR would say a Dhampir would hurt themselves with LoH, because just being positive energy is not enough. Saying that opens the door to essentially invincible Wraiths, and kills past precedent for monsters from the positive energy plane that dealt positive energy damage back in previous editions.
Lay On Hands is positive energy. I assumed that was true. But I see nothing to suggest Positive energy always hurts undead rather than healing them without a special clause to that effect.
Note: I'm not saying I'm right and SKR is wrong--he can't be. I'm just disappointed in his answer.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Paladin: Does a paladin's lay on hands use positive energy?
Yes."That is not the same as saying it hurts undead Paladins, not by a long shot. There is no general rule about positive and negative energy.
It bothers me that SKR would say a Dhampir would hurt themselves with LoH, because just being positive energy is not enough. Saying that opens the door to essentially invincible Wraiths, and kills past precedent for monsters from the positive energy plane that dealt positive energy damage back in previous editions.
Lay On Hands is positive energy. I assumed that was true. But I see nothing to suggest Positive energy always hurts undead rather than healing them without a special clause to that effect.
Note: I'm not saying I'm right and SKR is wrong--he can't be. I'm just disappointed in his answer.
The creature is alive but is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if it were an undead creature.
"Paladin: Does a paladin's lay on hands use positive energy?
Yes."That is not the same as saying it hurts undead Paladins, not by a long shot. There is no general rule about positive and negative energy.
It bothers me that SKR would say a Dhampir would hurt themselves with LoH, because just being positive energy is not enough. Saying that opens the door to essentially invincible Wraiths, and kills past precedent for monsters from the positive energy plane that dealt positive energy damage back in previous editions.
Lay On Hands is positive energy. I assumed that was true. But I see nothing to suggest Positive energy always hurts undead rather than healing them without a special clause to that effect.
Note: I'm not saying I'm right and SKR is wrong--he can't be. I'm just disappointed in his answer.
When the rules are made they are assuming normal(as an example, not undead) characters, and the game assumes that positive energy heals living creatures, and negative energy heals undead. That is why the Dhampire needs a special ability to be healed as if it were an undead. The game has always worked like that.
PS:That is not SKR. That is the entire team. SKR just gets blamed, for lack of a better word, a lot because he is the most vocal member.
From the dhampir race page.
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
Pretty cut and dry. Undead are harmed by positive energy. They are healed by negative energy. It has always been this way. So, to answer the original question, he would harm himself.
I have always viewed those statements as generalities. Yes, most sources of positive energy contain a clause to hurt undead, but not all of it.
Like I said, I am bothered by this because of the cans of worms it opens up.
Disrupt Undead is an infinite use source of positive energy, for example.
Every negative energy affiliated creature wants a Wraith buddy (if they're immune to Con drain) or a Marrowstone Golem if they're not for free endless healing.
It just bothers me that this is a "general assumption" and not written anywhere, plus abilities like the ones I mentioned (and there are more) were clearly not written with that in mind.
It bothers me that SKR would say a Dhampir would hurt themselves with LoH, because just being positive energy is not enough. Saying that opens the door to essentially invincible Wraiths, and kills past precedent for monsters from the positive energy plane that dealt positive energy damage back in previous editions.
Or, stay calm, and just read LoH as NOT meaning to intend any 'choice' between the options, but as simply describing it's unavoidable effects which work differently for living and undead.
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. ...Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures...
That still leaves Positive Energy as 'potentially' able to damage living creatures, although that depends on the specific ability/mechanic in play. Positive Energy Planes do lead to DEATH of living creatures, albeit not by HP DAMAGE reducing them to -CON but by Save vs. Death when exceeding their normal HP total.
Disrupt Undead is an infinite use source of positive energy, for example.
Every negative energy affiliated creature wants a Wraith buddy (if they're immune to Con drain) or a Marrowstone Golem if they're not for free endless healing.
No, because like Channel Energy all these abilities have their affect restricted to healing or harming.
Stat blocks' listing of offensive weapons gives their attack bonus AND DAMAGE, the listed figure is by definition DAMAGE, not healing.Melee: The creature's melee attacks are listed here, with its attack roll modifier listed after the attack's name followed by the damage in parentheses.
If an attack entry listing is meant to allow damage or healing, it needs to say so specifically.
What is so disturbing about a Wraith able to heal itself 1d6/round for a Standard Action anyways? (not that that is RAW)But when Positive Energy heals, it only heals living creatures. When Positive Energy harms, it only harms undead.
When Negative Energy heals, it only heals undead. When it harms, it only harms the living.
So Negative/Positive Energy damage is effectively useless vs. some creature types (unless a specific exception is in play).
It just bothers me that this is a "general assumption" and not written anywhere, plus abilities like the ones I mentioned (and there are more) were clearly not written with that in mind.
Sure, and Energy Damage in general is not well defined, e.g. whether Force is Energy Damage (as add-on products like UC's Performance Combat treat it as), whether Pos/Neg Energy is 'energy damage' in the sense that object hardness uses (for living/undead objects like trees). There are tons of Paizo rulings scattered in the forums or Blogs that aren't derivable from RAW, and don't show up in FAQs or Errata. And? :-)
I have always viewed those statements as generalities. Yes, most sources of positive energy contain a clause to hurt undead, but not all of it.
Like I said, I am bothered by this because of the cans of worms it opens up.
Disrupt Undead is an infinite use source of positive energy, for example.
Every negative energy affiliated creature wants a Wraith buddy (if they're immune to Con drain) or a Marrowstone Golem if they're not for free endless healing.
It just bothers me that this is a "general assumption" and not written anywhere, plus abilities like the ones I mentioned (and there are more) were clearly not written with that in mind.
The general use of the RAI use of an ability is clear. If a negative energy ability is said to heal undead then it can be assumed to not help or harm living creatures, if it does not say say so.
With the LoH we know it is positive energy that heals so it should heal living creatures, and not undead ones.
Also I would like to take the time to mention that the existence of creatures that dealt positive energy damage in 3.5 should stay in 3.5. It has very little to do with Pathfinder and does not create any precedent or reasoning that could be used to make rulings in this game. To date (and my knowledge) Golarion lacks any creatures that deal positive energy damage.
From the dhampir race page.
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.Pretty cut and dry. Undead are harmed by positive energy. They are healed by negative energy. It has always been this way. So, to answer the original question, he would harm himself.
It'd be nice if it actually said that under undead but it doesn't. By the RAW, LoH doesn't hurt an undead in general (dhampirs an exception).
The issue I have with the quote from SKR "If LOH (whether 3.5 or PF) said "heal a living creature" or "uses positive energy to heal," this discussion wouldn't be happening at all". I think the an issue on top of that is that NOWHERE in the undead type is there ANYTHING that says "positive energy harms [undead] as they say in negative energy affinity.
Now I'm fine with positive energy harming undead by default, but that's something that needs errata in the monster section under the undead type for that to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the dhampir race page.
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.Pretty cut and dry. Undead are harmed by positive energy. They are healed by negative energy. It has always been this way. So, to answer the original question, he would harm himself.It'd be nice if it actually said that under undead but it doesn't. By the RAW, LoH doesn't hurt an undead in general (dhampirs an exception).
The issue I have with the quote from SKR "If LOH (whether 3.5 or PF) said "heal a living creature" or "uses positive energy to heal," this discussion wouldn't be happening at all". I think the an issue on top of that is that NOWHERE in the undead type is there ANYTHING that says "positive energy harms [undead] as they say in negative energy affinity.
Now I'm fine with positive energy harming undead by default, but that's something that needs errata in the monster section under the undead type for that to happen.
The game assumes you will be playing a medium or small sized living creature. If the GM wants to include undead as an option he needs to remember that when adjudicating the rules. The idea of an undead paladin is also not something the devs would think of because it is an anomaly.
As an example if you let someone play a camel, dont be surprised if the devs tell you a camel with a +1000 climb check cant make it up a vertical cliff because it has no hands.
Lay on Hands (Su).......
Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. The paladin decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.
It does not say it deals positive energy, but it did also heal living creatures so it was understood.
The game assumes you will be playing a medium or small sized living creature. If the GM wants to include undead as an option he needs to remember that when adjudicating the rules. The idea of an undead paladin is also not something the devs would think of because it is an anomaly.As an example if you let someone play a camel, dont be surprised if the devs tell you a camel with a +1000 climb check cant make it up a vertical cliff because it has no hands.
How does this have anything to do with the fact that the undead type never says undead are harmed by positive energy? In the case of the dhampir, it's clear cut and spelled out. For anything else that's undead though, if it says it's positive energy and doesn't spell it out, an undead is unharmed unlike what it infers in the dhampir ability/trait.
EDIT: Note that LoH does NOT say it has to damage undead. If you look, the undead type even states that they can be healed and the lay on hands ability stated it can heal and doesn't make an exception that some things can't be healed and neither does the undead types ability to be healed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game assumes you will be playing a medium or small sized living creature. If the GM wants to include undead as an option he needs to remember that when adjudicating the rules. The idea of an undead paladin is also not something the devs would think of because it is an anomaly.As an example if you let someone play a camel, dont be surprised if the devs tell you a camel with a +1000 climb check cant make it up a vertical cliff because it has no hands.
How does this have anything to do with the fact that the undead type never says undead are harmed by positive energy? In the case of the dhampir, it's clear cut and spelled out. For anything else that's undead though, if it says it's positive energy and doesn't spell it out, an undead is unharmed unlike what it infers in the dhampir ability/trait.
EDIT: Note that LoH does NOT say it has to damage undead. If you look, the undead type even states that they can be healed and the lay on hands ability stated it can heal and doesn't make an exception that some things can't be healed and neither does the undead types ability to be healed.
My point is this. The ability says it damages undead. It says it heals you. Now if the game assumes "you" will be "normal" then there is no reason to state that if you are undead you will be harmed. The problem with the undead paladin is that it is not normal for PC's so they would have had to adjust to account for that.
Short version:If you are not playing by the normal expectation of the rules prepare to adjust the rules to fit the situation.
In other words: When you read the rules they will always assume normality. Adjust for windage after that.
The undead type says they can be healed by negative energy. It does not just say they can be healed. All healing in the game is positive or negative energy, unless you are dealing with constructs.
edit:As for undead being harmed by positive energy that goes back to 3.5, but I am about to write a post on that.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here is the issue. This ruling is based upon 3.5 and previous editions to a large degree so people are just assumed to know it, but no general rule about it*. Pathfinder is according to some is its own game. In reality it is a copy and paste with a few rules changes, and some differences in design philosophy. People can say it is its own game, but my 3.5 rulings often help me to get rules right when the RAW is not clear. That 3.5 FAQ is also often useful as well as the "Rules of the game" articles.
That backwards compatibility is not just a marketing ploy. It actually has merit for the rules. It has to or otherwise the game can't really be backwards compatible. When Pathfinder goes back and restates everything it left out when from 3.5 then it can be its own game. For now it is basically 3.75.
PS: *The game also assumes that undead and living along with positive and negative energy are something like polar opposites so barring specific exceptions negative and positive energy will never benefit both living and undead creatures.
The undead type says they can be healed by negative energy. It does not just say they can be healed. All healing in the game is positive or negative energy, unless you are dealing with constructs.
edit:As for undead being harmed by positive energy that goes back to 3.5, but I am about to write a post on that.
Actually, it DOES just say that they can be healed. "Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed." Now it goes on to give it another ability. "Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures." Now assuming this :
In other words: When you read the rules they will always assume normality. Adjust for windage after that.
'normality is that things can be healed by spells that can heal right? This is why cure spells call out that they work differently. Note, it's an exception written into the spell and NOT into undead and by RAW any spell/power/ability not written with that kind of exception works just fine un undead, positive energy or not.
EDIT: You'll note that by default, undead aren't injured by positive energy either, so this isn't a 3.5 backwards compatible issue either. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType
The undead type says they can be healed by negative energy. It does not just say they can be healed. All healing in the game is positive or negative energy, unless you are dealing with constructs.
Stop trying to argue and read what I said. I specifically said negative energy heals them. I also said it does not just say they can be healed. In short the rules specify that you need to use negative energy to heal them. So like I said. It does not just say they can be healed. It gives you a specific way to heal them.Actually, it DOES just say that they can be healed. "Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed." Now it goes on to give it another ability. "Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures." Now assuming this :
edit:As for undead being harmed by positive energy that goes back to 3.5, but I am about to write a post on that.
In other words: When you read the rules they will always assume normality. Adjust for windage after that.'normality is that things can be healed by spells that can heal right? This is why cure spells call out that they work differently. Note, it's an exception written into the spell and NOT into undead and by RAW any spell/power/ability not written with that kind of exception works just fine un undead, positive energy or not.
EDIT: You'll note that by default, undead aren't injured by positive energy either, so this isn't a 3.5 backwards compatible issue either. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType
In 3.5 the rules worked just like they do now, and in 3.5 undead were assumed to be harmed by positive energy, and I also said it was a legacy issue, with the rules assuming you know certain things. I am not saying it is right, but that is how it is.
There does need to be a written rule saying what the intent is.<--------- I think we both agree on this, but since that rule does not exist for this situation, and the game assumes we know certain things you must assume they are in play when determining what RAI is.
Normality is what I said it was, which is you playing a normal PC, and not letting an PC become undead or play a camel, and expecting it to be able to climb vertical cliffs.
Once you let paladins become undead or let camels take class levels you have to adjust for that.
Look, let's end the pointless back-and-forth ranting. Neither side can sufficiently convince the other. This whole thing is going to boil down to two points:
1st) Dear Paizo Devs,
We don't need you to spend a lot of time on this, and please don't be angry with we forumgoers who are asking you to take some time out of your days to help clarify something. In fact, I don't think this even needs to go in the FAQ. But, when the next reprinting of the Bestiary or any book in that line comes out, please make an errata in the Undead monster type section to clear this up. I don't even care if you decide that Positive Energy grants undead regeneration and flight for the rest of their existence, but please take the extra bit of time to throw that in there for the next print as errata. Thanks!
2nd) Dear OP,
You're the GM, it's your ruling. RAW doesn't explicitly address this, and everyone will read the rules slightly differently. We all have our own viewpoints; none of us are inherently right or wrong; and until the actual game developers say it one way or the other, there's no hard and fast way to know what should happen. Even then, houserules exist for a reason. In the end, you decide, and that's the great thing about Pathfinder and tabletop RPGs in general. Mods are always at your fingertips and take mere seconds to implement.
Loup this is the rules section and the discussion is not about what the rule is. The disagreement is on how to make the ruling. I am trying to give a history lesson, and also explain the core rules have default assumptions, and those need to be known to get correct rulings.
He does not have to like it, but that is the way it is...:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Lay on hands hurts self when undead. Then Disrupt Undead must therefore heal living creatures by precedent.
I guess, as an oversight, or really lame RAW ruling, the undead paladin could heal himself. As long as whatever type of undead he is doesn't specifically say it's harmed by positive energy. But man is that lame. I think Paizo should update the undead type to say that in addition to negative healing undead, positive harms them. Shame it's gotta be specified, but guess that's the case.
I think each affect just has to say exactly what it does. In addition there should be a notation that the games assumes standard PC's are being used. That saves wordspace in other places in the book, and yeah a line such as "positive energy harms undead" would also be nice.
Also the as the GM it is always his ruling but the OP is asking for intent. The FAQ handles the intent.
In 3.5 the rules worked just like they do now, and in 3.5 undead were assumed to be harmed by positive energy, and I also said it was a legacy issue, with the rules assuming you know certain things. I am not saying it is right, but that is how it is.
IMO it isn't a legacy issue, it was an assumption issue. Just because lots of things that were positive energy hurt undead it was assumed in 3.5 and now that everything that used it had to injure undead and that just wasn't true. Take a look at the 3.5 positive energy plane. It did the exact same thing to undead and living creatures and that was give them fast heal. So on a plane filled with positive energy, an undead can frolic just as well as a human. A plane traveling vampire can pop into that plane, heal up and come back...
There does need to be a written rule saying what the intent is.<--------- I think we both agree on this, but...
This was my issue with SKR. It was based on that old assumption (RAI) and not on what the books actually said. And I agree with Starbuck II. If we go by the old assumption positive heals living, negative harms and do the reverse for undead, why doesn't my disrupt undead heal my elf?
If Lay on hands hurts self when undead. Then Disrupt Undead must therefore heal living creatures by precedent.
Lay on Hands specifically calls out harming undead so that idea is false.
Like I said before the abilities specify exactly what they do, and there is no bypass written into lay on hand that allows for undead to be healed by it.
In case you missed it:
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.
Now since the game assumes normal PC's, which makes them living PC's the GM has to adjust for "other than normal" circumstances.
This was my issue with SKR. It was based on that old assumption (RAI) and not on what the books actually said. And I agree with Starbuck II. If we go by the old assumption positive heals living, negative harms and do the reverse for undead, why doesn't my disrupt undead heal my elf?
The legacy issue is what is leading to the assumption, by those that wrote the rules. That is why it is not written as a rule, when it should be, and nobody ever bother to fix it because most people know the intent. No, I am not sayign most people knowing the intent is a reason to not fix this rule.
You are not able to heal the undead paladin for the normality reason I gave, and the ability specifically harms undead.
So with that in mind why do you think your undead would not be harmed by an ability that says it harms undead?
edit:SKR does not make the rules alone. I explained this upthread
I think we agree the a rule change to lay on hands saying it is positive energy would make things better. I have to go for now. We can finish the debate on "why" things are the way they are later.
If Lay on hands hurts self when undead. Then Disrupt Undead must therefore heal living creatures by precedent.Lay on Hands specifically calls out harming undead so that idea is false.
Like I said before the abilities specify exactly what they do, and there is no bypass written into lay on hand that allows for undead to be healed by it.
In case you missed it:
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.Now since the game assumes normal PC's, which makes them living PC's the GM has to adjust for "other than normal" circumstances.
My issue is with the word can and alternatively in "Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to [b]deal damage to undead creatures". You have two options, to deal damage to undead OR heal. Nothing says it's an the same power it could be the option to use two different powers much like ki and monk abilities). Since it gives me the option to damage, why can't I chose not to do it and instead use the first ability. Since the undead type is silent on this the positive energy issue, you can't make the RAW leap that they are intertwined. It could be that they are the same power, that the paladin is 'healing' the undead to death, but it also could be like disrupt undead and be a alternate power that only hurt undead. SO I can't see RAW as anything else other than a default undead paladin being able to heal themselves with LoH.
EDIT: I meant to say SKR's post, not him per se. However they came up with it, he based his post on an assumption and not what was written.
Loup this is the rules section and the discussion is not about what the rule is. The disagreement is on how to make the ruling. I am trying to give a history lesson, and also explain the core rules have default assumptions, and those need to be known to get correct rulings.
He does not have to like it, but that is the way it is...:)
My point was that this boils down to a rules question, because the discussion on "how to make the ruling" is getting nowhere. All these arguments are the same--one side references this bit of information to stake their RAI claim, the other side references something else, one side points out a fallacy in the other's argument, that side retorts with a precedent that builds a valid case for their claim... It goes back and forth until devolving into senseless banter and the thread gets locked.
What we really need is an RAW clarification so that the argument is done. I don't think that Paizo should have to put out official clarifications for every tiny thing, but it seems that they do.
Also, the original question actually did boil down to a question of the rule.
Can an undead paladin be healed by positive energy?
Can an undead paladin be healed by positive energy?
Yes. RAW quote from undead type. "•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 is what governs undead healing and there is no other rule quote that makes the blanket statement that positive energy harms undead.
As close as we have to positive harming undead is this "Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it". It seems that the RAI and assumptions of the staff is that it should harm them but a racial ability of a living race doesn't IMO overturn the base monster type.
On a personal note, I'd go with the paladin being able to heal himself. RAW/RAI really don't matter to me THAT much in my game and I don't see this being overpowered of throwing things out of kilter. So to Mavrickindigo, I'd say the ball in in your court and rule however you feel is right. One is RAW and the other seems like RAI.
Well I'll be, never figured I'd see the day when Undead Paladins are healed by Positive Energy but I'll be damned if somebody doesn't really think that's how it should be.
I think my problem is that if undead were always healed by negative energy and and always harmed by positive, and living creatures were always healed by positive energy and always harmed by negative, then there would be no need to specifically call out the fact that Channels, Cures, Inflicts, and Lay on Hands type abilities heal/harm undead. It would simply be sufficient to say, "this is a positive energy effect," or "this uses negative energy." Then, one could flip to a rule in the glossary or something that shows "oh yeah, positive energy always heals living creatures and harms undead," etc.
Again, though, this is why I don't like the ruling, not an argument that the ruling is wrong.
Well I'll be, never figured I'd see the day when Undead Paladins are healed by Positive Energy but I'll be damned if somebody doesn't really think that's how it should be.
LOL there is a difference between how it should be and how it's written. :P It wasn't even positive energy until last year.
Myself, I'd use it as written and ignore the FAQ giving it positive energy. Seems silly for the paladins god to hurt him when he uses his healing power but he can use it on a mummy of vampire and it works. That's why it written down in the monster section that positive energy actually hurts undead instead of saying 'well that's how it worked in another game... maybe... well not even there...'.
EDIT: I like the way mplindustries put it. Give those spells a negative/positive energy type and say under that type/damage what they heal/hurt. It'd make everyone happy.
It seems silly that a Undead Paladin exists. That's what silly. the moment that paladin became undead he should have fallen harder than the Star Stone. The Lawful Good gods pretty much view undead collectively as an abomination that should be eradicated, I very much doubt they'd ever share their holy power with one.
Ultimately you're free to rule how you like, Undead Paladins everywhere healing themselves with Positive Energy! But I'm going to continue to use some common sense on this one.
Ah... This is d&d/pathfinder. It being 'commonsense' doesn't make it the right answer. And As I pointed out above, undead can frolic around on the positive energy plane all day and be no better/worse off than a human. If that makes sense then so does an undead paladin healing himself with lay on hands.
Ultimately you're free to rule how you like, Undead Paladins everywhere healing themselves with Positive Energy! But I'm going to continue to use some common sense on this one.
The main problem you seem to have with this is that LoH is positive energy, yet, in the LoH description in the CRB, it says nothing about positive energy being used to heal or harm. It merely says that It can heal the living and it CAN,not MUST but CAN, harm undead.
Yep, that's my point. I'll note that it also never says it can 'heal the living', just heal. It can also heal a construct. For instance, you can heal a Homunculus or a robot.
If you can find a single instance where Positive Energy is used to heal and not harm undead I would be inclined to agree with you. But you wont find it. Every time positive energy is mentioned it is either healing the living, harming undead, or something else altogether. The reason they say it can be used to heal the living is because it is limited to the living, or else they would say it can be used to heal (without any qualifiers). Now, this goes down the line of "LOH says he can heal himself", but that was written with the assumption that undead paladins did not exist (which should be the case).
Also,
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.
So LOH and Channel Positive Energy will not heal a construct.