| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
How do you get LOH not working? No natural healing, check. Can be healed to certain effects and spells, check. LOH does NOT say living creatures are healed and nothing in the Homunculus or a robot says that it doesn't work. See cure spells say living and make whole limits healing to constructs. See either the monster, LOH or spell has to limit the healing and it doesn't.
EDIT: I can find an instance of positive energy harming undead but not healing living. IMO that's as good as finding what you asked. If it HAS to work one way it should work the other way.
Somebody flat out saying they will ignore FAQs kind of loses credibility in a Rules Discussion.
The game isn't perfect, everybody knows that. Paizo's criteria between issuing FAQ vs Errata is pretty mutable and vague, that's also regrettable,
but we do have the communications from Paizo telling us how the rules they publish are intended to be played,
whatever form or location those instructions are located in is really irrelevant,
Paizo can choose whatever means they want to keep their game rules fixed up, even if subtoptimal, that is their choice.
I already specifically addressed that the grammar of the sentence "Alternatively..." is misleading on facevalue,
and you can't rely on that RAW if you go with the FAQ and SKR's post on the subject,
but clearly when explicit Paizo rulings are conflicting with minor details of RAW, they are meant to override those details,
even if Paizo for whatever reason doesn't feel the need to mark it as Errata, or future Errata, or whatever.
Ignoring Paizo rulings because you ultimately have a different preference and you want to invalidate their explicit ruling because it doesn't conform to narrow definitions of 'proper' Errata/whatever just doesn't convince anybody. People will in fact go by the official FAQ and SKR's post on the subject in PFS games where RAW is law. Go ahead and complain to PFS staff if you think that is so illegitimate, if you feel like wasting your time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghosts have no alignment association whatsoever.
I have no idea why anybody would think there is anything problematic with a Ghost Paladin.
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?
We already agreed on what the RAI was. We were basically already off topic when you entered the thread. That is basically what I am saying.
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 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.
His FAQ is not an assumption. Like I said before the enter RULES TEAM clarifies the rules before they get posted to the FAQ.
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.
There are some positive or negative affects that only harm. As an example disrupt undead harms undead, but doe not heal living creatures.
The key point here is that negative energy never heals living creatures unless they(that creature) has a rules exception, and positive energy never heals undead creatures unless there is a specific rules exception similar to the dhampir ability.
|
Ghosts have no alignment association whatsoever.
I have no idea why anybody would think there is anything problematic with a Ghost Paladin.
Sarcasm? I hope?
According to the Bestiary, a ghost is chaotic evil. There is no alignment restriction on the person that died to become the ghost, but the ghost is CE. Caspar is not a Pathfinder character.
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 was always positive energy, and I do agree it should have been errata'd instead of just FAQ'd.
As for ignoring it, that is your choice, but if you are only ignoring until(if) they specifically say "positive energy" that makes no sense to me. Whether they errata it or not you know the intent.
Ghosts have no alignment association whatsoever.
I have no idea why anybody would think there is anything problematic with a Ghost Paladin.Sarcasm? I hope?
According to the Bestiary, a ghost is chaotic evil. There is no alignment restriction on the person that died to become the ghost, but the ghost is CE. Caspar is not a Pathfinder character.
From your own link:
When a soul is not allowed to rest due to some great injustice, either real or perceived, it sometimes comes back as a ghost. Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right. Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.
James Jacobs has specifically discussed Ghosts as the exception to most Undead being inherently (unavoidably) Evil.
I see no reason why a Paladin's soul could be "not allowed to rest due to some great injustice" which they seek "to set things right".In fact, being LG aligned, they are probably especially prone to such issues, directly relating to them or not.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
How do you get LOH not working? No natural healing, check. Can be healed to certain effects and spells, check. LOH does NOT say living creatures are healed and nothing in the Homunculus or a robot says that it doesn't work. See cure spells say living and make whole limits healing to constructs. See either the monster, LOH or spell has to limit the healing and it doesn't.
EDIT: I can find an instance of positive energy harming undead but not healing living. IMO that's as good as finding what you asked. If it HAS to work one way it should work the other way.
The humuculus is a contruct, and if robots are constructs they won't benefit since they can not be healed by positive energy. Every positive healing ability calls out living creatures. Constructs much like undead are not actually alive.
As for your edit I pointed out that they are specific a while back. You can do whatever you want at home, but that does not make it a rule, nor a "should".
I'm still trying to get my head around how an undead paladin can exist in the first place. If we want to discuss precedent, is there any precedent for an undead creature that is not evil? The simplest way to avoid the question is to disallow the character.
Also when the rules list intelligent undead as evil it really means (99% or until GM Fiat says otherwise), so it is possible, but highly unlikely.
PS:Yeah I know about ghost, but I was referring to a vampire(insert other undead as needed) that might not be evil for the purpose of a story.
Ghosts have no alignment association whatsoever.
I have no idea why anybody would think there is anything problematic with a Ghost Paladin.Sarcasm? I hope?
According to the Bestiary, a ghost is chaotic evil. There is no alignment restriction on the person that died to become the ghost, but the ghost is CE. Caspar is not a Pathfinder character.
Actually ghost unlike the other undead are not assumed to be automatically evil. That ghost is evil because the aristocrat was already evil, but if you look into the actual template you will see nothing that says it must be evil.
Compare to the vampire and lich
Creating a Lich
“Lich” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery. A lich retains all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here.CR: Same as the base creature + 2.
Alignment: Any evil.
Creating a Vampire
“Vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most vampires were once humanoids, fey, or monstrous humanoids. A vampire uses the base creature's stats and abilities except as noted here.CR: Same as the base creature + 2.
AL: Any evil.
As you can see the ghost template has no rule saying it has to turn evil.
|
No one seems to realize that with the positive energy LOH, in the Core Rulebook, it never says that a paladin's LOH is a positive energy effect. Maybe its an aging effect that REALLY enhances natural healing and the paladin deity doesn't like undead and decided that they are the only ones that paladin's are allowed to simply rot away their flesh and bones. If you say anything in the Core Rulebook goes than allow undead to be healed saying that loh is an aging effect and that particular undead used to be a friend of Iomedae. If you go with the FAQ, then tell all characters in your campaign to run their character sheets by you because of exeptions to the core rules. The fact is that the book gives you a clear cut chance to heal undead by not saying that loh must harm undead, but can.
No one seems to realize that with the positive energy LOH, in the Core Rulebook, it never says that a paladin's LOH is a positive energy effect.
We know it never says it. Some of us just which it did, and will ignore it until it does, while the rest of us are satisfied with the FAQ.
It is basically a difference in "The rules need to tell me ____. I can figure out the rest." What is in the "___" is not the same for everyone, so I can understand why some need it to be spelled out specifically.
I am happy with the FAQ, others not so much.
As for the ghost issue
Stat Block<---Main heading
This is where you'll find all of the information you need to run the monster in an encounter. A stat block is organized as follows. Note that in cases where a line in a stat block has no value, that line is omitted.Subheading-->Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
When you use a template for a creature you are given instructions on how to apply it. You are also given a sample build, which will normally be evil just because most of the monsters are not on the side of "Team Good".
Now we know alignment is a stat from what I just quoted.
Let's now go to the ghost template:
"A ghost retains all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here."
As you can see from the template, no exception is listed like it is for the Lich and Vampire.
|
|
Ghosts have no alignment association whatsoever.
I have no idea why anybody would think there is anything problematic with a Ghost Paladin.Sarcasm? I hope?
According to the Bestiary, a ghost is chaotic evil. There is no alignment restriction on the person that died to become the ghost, but the ghost is CE. Caspar is not a Pathfinder character.From your own link:
When a soul is not allowed to rest due to some great injustice, either real or perceived, it sometimes comes back as a ghost. Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right. Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.James Jacobs has specifically discussed Ghosts as the exception to most Undead being inherently (unavoidably) Evil.
I see no reason why a Paladin's soul could be "not allowed to rest due to some great injustice" which they seek "to set things right".
In fact, being LG aligned, they are probably especially prone to such issues, directly relating to them or not.
I stand corrected.
It's OK. Everybody misunderstands Casper. ;-)
I don't know why you (the OP) let your player play an undead paladin, but let's take it as given.
LoH uses positive energy, as per the FAQ. ArmouredMonk13, it doesn't matter if it doesn't say it in the CRB, the FAQ overrides that.
According to the Advanced Race Guide:
Undead are harmed by positive energy and healed by negative energy.
So, the LoH will heal others, but not heal himself, unless you want to GM fiat the paladin's deity causing a miracle to occur in which the Paladin gains 'positive energy affinity' which works like negative energy affinity but in reverse. "This creature is undead, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were alive—positive energy heals it, while negative energy harms it." (If the paladin was a normal living one for a while until some event occurred that turned him into an undead, this would be my recommendation. If he was undead from the get-go, then no. The munchkin can live with his choices.)
Dhampir Paladins likewise cannot Heal themselves with LoH. Same with Warforged (Constructs).
Big deal. Not a surprise. No reason to make special dispensation.
RAW it should both heal him for using it on himself (since it says it heals his wounds) and injure him (since it says it hurts undead). RAI never meant to allow an undead pally.
The problem here isn't LoH. Mavrickindigo let a player be an undead paladin. LoH wasn't designed to support that, so they don't make sense when you try to apply them.
|
|
Mavrickindigo the solutions here are make the paladin not be able to heal himself because faq, allow it because of CRB, disallow undead paladin, let it heal because common sense says undead paladin gets positive energy affinity free class feature. If these don't work then help us get more ideas so we aren't locked in arguement for a while.
I don't know why you (the OP) let your player play an undead paladin, but let's take it as given.
LoH uses positive energy, as per the FAQ. ArmouredMonk13, it doesn't matter if it doesn't say it in the CRB, the FAQ overrides that.
According to the Advanced Race Guide:
Undead are harmed by positive energy and healed by negative energy.So, the LoH will heal others, but not heal himself, unless you want to GM fiat the paladin's deity causing a miracle to occur in which the Paladin gains 'positive energy affinity' which works like negative energy affinity but in reverse. "This creature is undead, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were alive—positive energy heals it, while negative energy harms it." (If the paladin was a normal living one for a while until some event occurred that turned him into an undead, this would be my recommendation. If he was undead from the get-go, then no. The munchkin can live with his choices.)
Nice find...
|
|
Back in Beta, unless I'm mistaken, positive energy always healed living creatures and hurt undead, and negative energy always hurt living creatures and heal undead.
Channel Energy was awesome, just walk into melee and let it rip. Allies would be healed and undead would go down. It was way too good of an ability.
Then (again, as far as I remember) it was changed that the one doing the channeling had to decide the purpose of the channeling, i.e. using the positive energy to either heal living or harm undead. It was, I understand it, a balance-oriented decision.
So now you have
a) Positive Energy that heals living creatures,
b) Negative Energy that hurts living creatures,
c) Positive Energy that hurts undead creatures, and
d) Negative Energy that heals undead creatures
But as far as I know, there is no mention anywhere to positive energy healing undead creatures.
That would be my ruling, based on rules and FAQ.
EDIT: Spelling.
Dhampir Paladins likewise cannot Heal themselves with LoH. Same with Warforged (Constructs).
Big deal. Not a surprise. No reason to make special dispensation.
Not that it matters much because its Pathfinder, but warforged were constructs with the living construct subtype which does not exist in PF. They received half healing from positive energy.
Normal constructs were out of luck though. They do have a magical item in the APG called a construct channel brick that allows constructs to heal normally with channel energy..
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#_ construct-channel-brick
This solid red brick changes its shape to match its bearer's holy symbol. If the bearer has the channel energy class feature, she can focus her power on the brick, allowing her to repair damaged constructs and objects as if they were living creatures. The item works whether the bearer channels positive or negative energy. If the bearer has the artifice domain, she adds +2d6 points of damage to her channel energy result when repairing constructs and objects.
It seems the undead paladin was allowed under a misunderstanding. I would allow the player to go back to become a living creature again.
Antipaladin?
If you're going to be an undead paladin, well there's an app- I mean an alternate class- for that. Solves the whole LoH thingy, or at least gives the OP a better baseline for this character.