Positive and Negative Energy Defined Directly

[Mark Seifter]

I'm creating this thread to prevent further derail of the havoker witch thread. Feel free to discuss positive and negative energy here, as well as the lack of a direct definition of what they are and how they work. It's also fine to FAQ this post if you'd like to see these definitions directly stated in a FAQ (things like "positive energy healing effects don't heal undead, even if the individual effect doesn't mention undead at all" which right now is inferable but not directly stated).

[Squiggit]

I think the ultimate problem here is that positive and negative energy aren't ever spelled out explicitly. When this first came up I dug around my CRB and then the PRD/PFSRD and I was surprised that I couldn't find any sort of section on positive or negative energy themselves.

And as said in the other thread, it's really awkward that they aren't typed. Inflict spells channel negative energy to do untyped damage which means you need to put special exceptions in the spell or some sort of glossary somewhere to spell out what that means. Feels like it would be a lot easier if negative energy was just an energy type like fire or cold or acid.

[Mark Seifter]

Squiggit wrote:

I think the ultimate problem here is that positive and negative energy aren't ever spelled out explicitly. When this first came up I dug around my CRB and then the PRD/PFSRD and I was surprised that I couldn't find any sort of section on positive or negative energy themselves.

And as said in the other thread, it's really awkward that they aren't typed. Inflict spells channel negative energy to do untyped damage which means you need to put special exceptions in the spell or some sort of glossary somewhere to spell out what that means. Feels like it would be a lot easier if negative energy was just an energy type like fire or cold or acid.

Good insight Squiggit. I concur with you 100% on where the ultimate question lies, and that's why I titled the thread as I did.

[Drejk]

One of the changes introduced in 4th edition of D&D (and kept in 5th) that I particularly like is explicit inclusion of necrotic and radiant damage type as a replacement for poorly defined positive and negative energy damaging effects.

A side effect of this is that undeads don't necessarily have necrotic damage immunity (nor radiant damage vulnerability), though, if I remember correctly some level of necrotic resistance was very common in 4th edition among undeads (I would need to recheck the OGL bestiary to see how often it appears in 5th edition).

[Chess Pwn]

If we get a FAQ I'd like to know if negative energy damage always heals undead unless specifies otherwise.

[graystone]

Thanks for the follow-up Mark. I have to agree with Squiggit, it'd be easier if abilities that use positive/negative energy actually DO that type of energy damage. As it is, the hodge-podge of abilities are all over the place. this is particularly important when characters can have negative energy resistance.

Reply to Mark on Constructs ability to use fast healing based on "A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality."

You'd said: "As to fast healing, if we're getting ultra technical, that's only if the construct possesses fast healing as a special quality. That exception doesn't mention what happens if something else tries to give it fast healing, which implies that it doesn't apply."

My reply would be to point out the Rapid Repair spell: "The targeted construct gains fast healing 5." How does this function if only the constructs natural fast healing applies?

Secondly, if we're being super, ultra technical... No construct would ever gain fast healing as fast healing doesn't appear under the special quality section of the stat block, it comes behind hp in a separate section, Defense. ;)

[Abraham spalding]

Part of the problem in my view as a programmer is that we have a bunch of tags and objects that are not actually defined.

We don't have anything that defines "living" for creatures for example.

We have 4 forms of creatures:

Dead/destroyed
Live
Undead
Construct/other

The issues is Undead is also a type, as is construct and no where are the these distinguished from living or dead.

IF these were defined then many things (including interaction with positive and negative energy) would clear up. Barring that simply clearing up what is positive and negative energy would be a great thing too. Are they energy types? Are they damage types? Are they something else?

Honestly at the end of the day I think from a 'development' prospective and a 'rules' perspective what would help clean up pathfinder the most is going through grabbing all the loose terms and pinning definitions on them. After this going through interactions between these definitions should clean up most conflicts.

Very herculean task that would be though.

[Valantrix1]

I know where I stand on this issue, but I'll hit the FAQ just for giggles. That and listening to arguments I don't have to.

[Mark Seifter]

graystone wrote:

Thanks for the follow-up Mark. I have to agree with Squiggit, it'd be easier if abilities that use positive/negative energy actually DO that type of energy damage. As it is, the hodge-podge of abilities are all over the place. this is particularly important when characters can have negative energy resistance.

Reply to Mark on Constructs ability to use fast healing based on "A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality."

You'd said: "As to fast healing, if we're getting ultra technical, that's only if the construct possesses fast healing as a special quality. That exception doesn't mention what happens if something else tries to give it fast healing, which implies that it doesn't apply."

My reply would be to point out the Rapid Repair spell: "The targeted construct gains fast healing 5." How does this function if only the constructs natural fast healing applies?

Secondly, if we're being super, ultra technical... No construct would ever gain fast healing as fast healing doesn't appear under the special quality section of the stat block, it comes behind hp in a separate section, Defense. ;)

Heh, I like your super ultra technical point! As to rapid repair, that should probably fall under the (admittedly not super concrete) sentences about constructs being able to be repaired by things that specifically help constructs "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."

[Mark Seifter]

Valantrix1 wrote:

I know where I stand on this issue, but I'll hit the FAQ just for giggles. That and listening to arguments I don't have to.

This isn't that much of an issue where people stand on one side or the other (in fact, I'm guessing the reason this has never been FAQed is that the vast majority of groups actually agree on this, despite it not showing up directly in the rules); it's mostly about clarity and being direct about it.

[graystone]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Valantrix1 wrote:

I know where I stand on this issue, but I'll hit the FAQ just for giggles. That and listening to arguments I don't have to.

This isn't that much of an issue where people stand on one side or the other (in fact, I'm guessing the reason this has never been FAQed is that the vast majority of groups actually agree on this, despite it not showing up directly in the rules); it's mostly about clarity and being direct about it.

Yep. Pretty much the only reason it's coming up now is a PC class now has the ability to shoot negative energy blasts and people are asking 'does this affect a construct?' Once you get past the initial 'well of course it doesn't' and start digging around in the rules, you feel like you got the magic 8 ball "Reply is hazy. Try again later."

[Drejk]

Chess Pwn wrote:

If we get a FAQ I'd like to know if negative energy damage always heals undead unless specifies otherwise.

I would say that negative energy heals undeads only when the effect specifically says it heals undead.

[Drejk]

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Thanks for the follow-up Mark. I have to agree with Squiggit, it'd be easier if abilities that use positive/negative energy actually DO that type of energy damage. As it is, the hodge-podge of abilities are all over the place. this is particularly important when characters can have negative energy resistance.

Reply to Mark on Constructs ability to use fast healing based on "A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality."

You'd said: "As to fast healing, if we're getting ultra technical, that's only if the construct possesses fast healing as a special quality. That exception doesn't mention what happens if something else tries to give it fast healing, which implies that it doesn't apply."

My reply would be to point out the Rapid Repair spell: "The targeted construct gains fast healing 5." How does this function if only the constructs natural fast healing applies?

Secondly, if we're being super, ultra technical... No construct would ever gain fast healing as fast healing doesn't appear under the special quality section of the stat block, it comes behind hp in a separate section, Defense. ;)

Heh, I like your super ultra technical point! As to rapid repair, that should probably fall under the (admittedly not super concrete) sentences about constructs being able to be repaired by things that specifically help constructs "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."

Actually, it would fall under the meta-rule "specific trumps general rule". The spell is definitely more specific rule than the creature type.

[graystone]

Drejk wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Thanks for the follow-up Mark. I have to agree with Squiggit, it'd be easier if abilities that use positive/negative energy actually DO that type of energy damage. As it is, the hodge-podge of abilities are all over the place. this is particularly important when characters can have negative energy resistance.

Reply to Mark on Constructs ability to use fast healing based on "A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality."

You'd said: "As to fast healing, if we're getting ultra technical, that's only if the construct possesses fast healing as a special quality. That exception doesn't mention what happens if something else tries to give it fast healing, which implies that it doesn't apply."

My reply would be to point out the Rapid Repair spell: "The targeted construct gains fast healing 5." How does this function if only the constructs natural fast healing applies?

Secondly, if we're being super, ultra technical... No construct would ever gain fast healing as fast healing doesn't appear under the special quality section of the stat block, it comes behind hp in a separate section, Defense. ;)

Heh, I like your super ultra technical point! As to rapid repair, that should probably fall under the (admittedly not super concrete) sentences about constructs being able to be repaired by things that specifically help constructs "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."

Actually, it would fall under the meta-rule "specific trumps general rule". The spell is definitely more specific rule than the creature type.

A construct getting fast heal and it actually being able to heal them are two different things. No "specific trumps general rule". You can cast a spell that grants fast heal and if they neither have or take damage during the duration the spell worked perfectly and no healing happened. So the spell would actually have to spell out it heals construct if fast healing in general doesn't. Nothing stops you from having a valid target from not being able to gain something useful from a spell. A creature immune to fire can still get a spell that grants fire resistance, to just don't do anything useful.

[loc]

As a energy can creatures get a resistance to positive or negative energy?

[Dragon78]

I have seen negative energy resistance on Kaiju and maybe some other creatures but positive energy not so much. Though I think there might be a spell that grants positive energy resistance but I might be thinking of 3.5.

Does anyone else house rule that positive and negative energy does full damage/healing against an incorporeal creature?

[GM Rednal]

For what it's worth, there are a few creatures in the Tome of Horrors that have Resist Positive Energy. It's even available as a Monster Feat in that book. XD The general theory seems to be "if it's something a creature can normally be damaged by, it's also possible to defend against it", which seems sensible enough for common attack forms. Rare stuff that bypasses resistances tends to be called out as such.

[Drejk]

graystone wrote:

A construct getting fast heal and it actually being able to heal them are two different things. No "specific trumps general rule". You can cast a spell that grants fast heal and if they neither have or take damage during the duration the spell worked perfectly and no healing happened. So the spell would actually have to spell out it heals construct if fast healing in general doesn't. Nothing stops you from having a valid target from not being able to gain something useful from a spell. A creature immune to fire can still get a spell that grants fire resistance, to just don't do anything useful.

Except all those examples are not analogous to the situation - in all the cases there is possibility of effect working when the right circumstances are meet.

In this specific case we have a spell whose sole purpose is giving fast healing to constructs. If constructs were unable to receive fast healing from outside source then the spell would do nothing ever.

Can spell do nothing? Not conditionally nothing like in the cases you listed but nothing at all, ever? Spell shouldn't do nothing, which means for it to have any effect at all it must overcome the postulated restriction. When a general rule makes something impossible and yet a specific rule does exactly the impossible thing then the specific rule trumps the impossible one.

Anyway, this is a moot dispute because it's based on a flawed argument:

graystone wrote:

You'd said: "As to fast healing, if we're getting ultra technical, that's only if the construct possesses fast healing as a special quality. That exception doesn't mention what happens if something else tries to give it fast healing, which implies that it doesn't apply."

The second sentence is nonsensical because Fast Healing is a special quality.

The rule mentioned does not restricts construct fast healing to innate special qualities, not granted by outside sources.

Quote:

Secondly, if we're being super, ultra technical... No construct would ever gain fast healing as fast healing doesn't appear under the special quality section of the stat block, it comes behind hp in a separate section, Defense. ;)

Again erroneous: the fact that fast healing is not placed in stat block in special qualities line but in defense section does not mean that it isn't special quality. Fast healing uses a specific formatting convention that calls for it to be placed there instead in the line where special qualities that don't fit elsewhere are placed.

In fact a lot of special qualities are spread around the stat block: auras, defensive abilities, damage reduction, resistances, senses, special attacks, etc.

[graystone]

The void Kineticist and Aasimars with Deathless Spirit gain negative energy resistance.

[Nathan Monson]

I would say that negative energy heals undeads only when the effect specifically says it heals undead.

I'd say that Negative energy damage Always heals undead unless specified otherwise, as in the Chill Touch spell

[Kazaan]

There are a few things to consider here.

1) Positive and Negative energy are fundamental energies originating from specific planes. In that regard, they have similarities to the other fundamental energies; Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.

2) Outsiders are, essentially, energy made physically manifest. Whereas non-outsiders have body/soul duality, for outsiders, body and soul are the same unit and they are made of energies from their home plane. Fire Elementals are made out of the fundamental Fire energy from the Fire elemental plane, for instance. But a Fire elemental, despite being "made of" fire, doesn't heal from fire damage; they are just immune to it.

3) There are feats for clerics that let them use elemental or alignment energies in place of channeling positive or negative energy. With Elemental Channel, a cleric could, for instance, channel the raw Fire energy of the Fire plane, either into creatures with the Fire subtype in order to heal them, or out of such creatures in order to harm them, even though other uses of Fire energy, such as Scorching Ray, will merely have no effect. The same applies to using Alignment Channel with alignment subtype outsiders. But living (or undead) beings aren't proper sources from which to "channel energy from". You couldn't, for instance, use your ability to channel positive energy to channel the positive energy out of a living being in order to harm them; you can only channel positive energy into them to heal, or channel it into an undead, in which case, the negative energy already in the undead is "canceled out" by the incoming positive energy.

4) The Undead creature type states that they can be healed by negative energy effects (listing inflict spells as an example), but that doesn't mean that all negative energy effects will heal them. However, it doesn't state that positive energy harms them. No where in the description of the Undead creature type does it mention positive energy. Hence, it is up to each positive energy effect to state that it either doesn't work on non-living creatures, or that it specifically harms undead.

5) Some effects reliant on negative energy explicitly state that they don't heal Undead. Others have odd interactions; for instance, Chill Touch uses negative energy to harm living creatures, but does not heal undead; instead, they flee as if panicked.

6) Overexposure to positive energy on the PEP can kill living beings because, when you get high on life, you run the risk of getting totally wasted on life.

All this put together demonstrates that it's only very specific applications of positive and negative energies, which must be explicitly stated in the associated rules elements, which cause healing effects. Negative energy might not necessarily heal Undead and, by the same token, Positive energy might not necessarily heal the living. Just as Outsider(Fire) creatures aren't necessarily healed by exposure to Fire energy, nor are they harmed by exposure to Cold energy which is not used to deal damage, Positive and Negative energy should be treated similarly.

[Serisan]

I think the single most confusing thing about Pos/Neg energies are the game balance decision around Channel Energy. Clearly, the ability was explicitly designed to avoid having Pos and Neg channelers heal and harm simultaneously, but suddenly we have energy with dual natures working based on intent, ignoring the idea of a basic definition for the two energies.

We end up with odd side effects, as well, with the Positive Energy Plane being the best place to house spare undead (who will never pop due to overexposure and constantly receive temp HP) while receiving no benefits whatsoever on the Negative Energy Plane. This seems like an oversight more than a conscious decision, though.

Some of the confusion can be tied back to the way that Cure and Inflict spells ended up being worded - "you channel <pos/neg> energy that <cures/deals> xd8 points of damage + 1 per caster level." That language is not parallel with other damaging spell types. This ties back to my position that the CRB needs to be rewritten to more modern standards.

[graystone]

Drejk wrote:

Except all those examples are not analogous to the situation - in all the cases there is possibility of effect working when the right circumstances are meet.

In this specific case we have a spell whose sole purpose is giving fast healing to constructs. If constructs were unable to receive fast healing from outside source then the spell would do nothing ever.

Can spell do nothing? Not conditionally nothing like in the cases you listed but nothing at all, ever? Spell shouldn't do nothing, which means for it to have any effect at all it must overcome the postulated restriction. When a general rule makes something impossible and yet a specific rule does exactly the impossible thing then the specific rule trumps the impossible one.

Look at the first printing of prone shooter. Sometimes you get rules elements that don't actually DO anything.

Drejk wrote:

The second sentence is nonsensical because Fast Healing is a special quality.

The rule mentioned does not restricts construct fast healing to innate special qualities, not granted by outside sources.

You're arguing to the wrong person. Mark was the one to say that in the thread that spawned this one. HE said what was in the quote and I was debating him on it. I agree fast healing should work no matter it's source.

Drejk wrote:

Again erroneous: the fact that fast healing is not placed in stat block in special qualities line but in defense section does not mean that it isn't special quality. Fast healing uses a specific formatting convention that calls for it to be placed there instead in the line where special qualities that don't fit elsewhere are placed.

In fact a lot of special qualities are spread around the stat block: auras, defensive abilities, damage reduction, resistances, senses, special attacks, etc.

Well... It's best NOT to hinge an argument on special qualities as that's not a defined term. You can reasonable argue different points of view on that. My point was that if Mark focus on 'special qualities', you can look at it in different ways. When you have a section called "special qualities" wouldn't it make sense that things just in that section are "special qualities" or why separate that section out? Again, hinging a debate on "special qualities" fails from the start. [which was kind of my point to Mark]

[Drejk]

graystone wrote:

The void Kineticist and Aasimars with Deathless Spirit gain negative energy resistance.

I though that I remembered seeing explicit resistance to negative energy somewhere but I couldn't remember where (I thought it was bestowed by corruption resistance (which is granted by one of the Aasimar alternate traits) but it works against unholy damage instead (also a very similar topic with not-a-damage-type).

[Drejk]

Kazaan wrote:

4) The Undead creature type states that they can be healed by negative energy effects (listing inflict spells as an example), but that doesn't mean that all negative energy effects will heal them. However, it doesn't state that positive energy harms them. No where in the description of the Undead creature type does it mention positive energy. Hence, it is up to each positive energy effect to state that it either doesn't work on non-living creatures, or that it specifically harms undead.

Agreed. In fact it would make no sense for positive energy to automatically harm undeads: because all the almost all living creatures are powered by positive energy eating them or draining their energy would damage undeads.

[MadScientistWorking]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Valantrix1 wrote:

I know where I stand on this issue, but I'll hit the FAQ just for giggles. That and listening to arguments I don't have to.

This isn't that much of an issue where people stand on one side or the other (in fact, I'm guessing the reason this has never been FAQed is that the vast majority of groups actually agree on this, despite it not showing up directly in the rules); it's mostly about clarity and being direct about it.

Weirdly enough I've seen it attempted multiple times namely in an effort to try and find the rules. Its just one of those things that I don't think ever necessitated a rules specification until now. From reading those threads its just one of those rules translations from 3.X->PF where the rider that clarified everything didn't make the change.

EDIT:
I appreciate this being elaborated upon. Thanks.

[VampByDay]

Another issue is that positive and negative energy do whatever people want them to do at any particular moment. A positive-channeling cleric can have positive energy not affect undead (channel to heal) or not effect the living (channel to harm undead). Same with negative channelers in reverse.

If forced for a definition, I'd say positive energy is life energy, and generally heals the living. Negative energy is the energy of unlife and generally hurts the living and heals undead.

[Kazaan]

Another thing I almost forgot; in Occult Adventures, ki is explicitly explained as being derived from Positive Energy. How would that, then, interact with Undead; especially undead that possess a ki pool feature?

[graystone]

Kazaan wrote:

Another thing I almost forgot; in Occult Adventures, ki is explicitly explained as being derived from Positive Energy. How would that, then, interact with Undead; especially undead that possess a ki pool feature?

Or constructs. A Wyrwood could be a ninja or monk.

[MeanMutton]

My big thing - do negative energy effects which do not do hit point damage and do not say that they heal undead actually heal undead? Do they harm the undead? What about Dhampir? For example:

Shadow Strength Damage (Su) wrote:

A shadow's touch deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

Yeah, undead are immune to attribute damage and they're not a living creature but does this actually heal them? Does it affect a Dhampir at all since they are treated as undead in regards to negative energy?

[Serisan]

MeanMutton wrote:

My big thing - do negative energy effects which do not do hit point damage and do not say that they heal undead actually heal undead? Do they harm the undead? What about Dhampir? For example:

Shadow Strength Damage (Su) wrote:

A shadow's touch deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

Yeah, undead are immune to attribute damage and they're not a living creature but does this actually heal them? Does it affect a Dhampir at all since they are treated as undead in regards to negative energy?

Or clerics with the Death domain's 8th level power.

Quote:

Death's Embrace (Ex): At 8th level, you heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy. If the channeled negative energy targets undead, you heal hit points just like undead in the area.

[Cyrad]

I love positive and negative energy. I love that it's a lore concept with mechanical effects. I hate that the game mechanics aren't consistent since we have positive energy that deals damage to the living and channel energy that only affects targets based on intention.

I think the best approach is differientating between positive/negative energy effects and positive/negative energy damage.

[Rysky]

Cyrad wrote:

I hate that the game mechanics aren't consistent since we have positive energy that deals damage to the living and channel energy that only affects targets based on intention.

Just a minor thing to point out but that was done specifically as a balancing mechanic against channel energy rather than being indicative of how positive/negative works.

[wraithstrike]

Most hit point based negative energy effects heal undead. That is stated in the undead entry. They do say "(such as an inflict spell)", but they probably should have added "that do hit point damage" to make it clear.

[Dragon78]

Yeah, unless otherwise stated effects that deal negative energy damage heal undead(and living creatures healed by negative energy).

Also positive and negative energy have no effect on constructs and objects unless the effect states otherwise.

[Cuup]

If Negative and Positive Energy become actual energy types like Acid, Fire, etc. will that lead to creatures with Positive and Negative subtypes (immune to Negative Energy, and Vulnerable to Positive Energy)? I hope so, because that could open the floodgates for two entirely new types of monsters not directly tied to Undead or Celestials.

[Serisan]

Cuup wrote:

If Negative and Positive Energy become actual energy types like Acid, Fire, etc. will that lead to creatures with Positive and Negative subtypes (immune to Negative Energy, and Vulnerable to Positive Energy)? I hope so, because that could open the floodgates for two entirely new types of monsters not directly tied to Undead or Celestials.

Ultimate Equipment already has some super-fun stuff on that front.

UE wrote:

DEATHLESS

Price +1 Bonus; Aura moderate abjuration; CL 7th; Weight —
This armor protects its wearer from harmful negative and positive energy, including channeled energy. The armor absorbs the first 10 points of positive or negative energy damage per attack that the wearer would normally take. The wearer has a 25% chance to ignore negative levels from any attack. Deathless armor does not block healing of any kind and does not protect against positive or negative energy effects that do not deal damage or bestow negative levels. The deathless ability can be applied to armor of any sort, but not shields.

Humorously, this relies on the weird wording of Cure spells because when using them to cure, they explicitly "cure" damage, not deal positive energy damage that would cure living things. This means that Deathless never stops a cure effect at all, but always stops a harmful effect, regardless of whether you're alive or undead.

[GM Rednal]

@Cuup: The Tome of Horrors introduced Positive and Negative Energy Elementals. The Advanced Bestiary has Negative Energy-Charged and Positive-Energy Charged templates for undead, and the Sublime template (from... Pathways magazine, I think it was?) creates a positive energy version of a creature (not made out of positive energy, per se, but abnormally healthy and good at healing). So it's not like options for that kind of thing don't exist... XD

[Ravingdork]

Isn't the Tome of Horrors a D&D v3.5 (or possibly v3.0) product, and not a Paizo product?

[Cuup]

GM Rednal wrote:

@Cuup: The Tome of Horrors introduced Positive and Negative Energy Elementals. The Advanced Bestiary has Negative Energy-Charged and Positive-Energy Charged templates for undead, and the Sublime template (from... Pathways magazine, I think it was?) creates a positive energy version of a creature (not made out of positive energy, per se, but abnormally healthy and good at healing). So it's not like options for that kind of thing don't exist... XD

Fair enough, but the elementals are 3rd party, and the Advanced Bestiary introduced templates. I'm talking about Paizo-produced, legit, template-less monsters from Bestiary X.

soon... :)

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

Isn't the Tome of Horrors a D&D v3.5 (or possibly v3.0) product, and not a Paizo product?

It's not a Paizo product and the positive and negative energy elementals are also 3rd party.

[GM Rednal]

True, they're 3rd Party. However, it's worth noting that Paizo has used both the Tome of Horrors and the Advanced Bestiary in various products. At the very least, they seem willing to reference these sources. XD

[Set]

VampByDay wrote:

If forced for a definition, I'd say positive energy is life energy, and generally heals the living. Negative energy is the energy of unlife and generally hurts the living and heals undead.

While that would fit thematically, in the game, many undead, particularly the incorporeal ones, *feed on life-force.* And if positive energy and life-force are same-y, these undead would be empowered by positive energy, and weakened by negative energy (which would rip 'food' right out of their 'bellies').

The current setup has negative energy reacting adversely to the life-energy in living creatures, but *empowering* creatures that *feed* on life-energy, while positive energy empowers and enlivens living creatures, but harms and weakens creatures that *eat* life-force.

That isn't necessarily a total contradiction, since I'm made out of meat and eat meat to survive and can be beaten to death by a frozen turkey just fine. Sometimes it's not the substance, so much as the way it's being delivered. (Cooked turkey into mouth, yum. Frozen turkey to noggin, ouch.)

In theory, positive energy is supposed to engender and sustain life, except for disease organisms, which it arbitrarily murders. Meanwhile, negative energy ends up far from the notion of 'hating life' in that it seems pretty comfy with disease organisms, worms, flies, etc. (ghouls, for example, carry a disease, which seems to thrive just fine on their negative-energy-animated bodies, and turns other people into undead over time). It sometimes seems like 'alive' or 'dead' doesn't matter as much as whether one is icky (like worms or the postulating purple pox) or not icky (like those discorporate souls that become petitioners or 'ancestor spirits' rather than ghosts).

Since there's no real consistency, it makes any real discussion of positive and negative energy one of 'it works this way, because it works this way, except when it works completely differently, because... socks blue reprisal?'

[Dragon78]

So I take it I am the only one who house ruled that positive and negative energy has it's full effect(damage or healing) against incorporeal creatures?

[swoosh]

Rysky wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

I hate that the game mechanics aren't consistent since we have positive energy that deals damage to the living and channel energy that only affects targets based on intention.

Just a minor thing to point out but that was done specifically as a balancing mechanic against channel energy rather than being indicative of how positive/negative works.

Which is sort of funny because Channel is kind of bad. So both confusing in regards to the lore and not great mechanically.

[KingOfAnything]

Set wrote:

VampByDay wrote:

If forced for a definition, I'd say positive energy is life energy, and generally heals the living. Negative energy is the energy of unlife and generally hurts the living and heals undead.

While that would fit thematically, in the game, many undead, particularly the incorporeal ones, *feed on life-force.* And if positive energy and life-force are same-y, these undead would be empowered by positive energy, and weakened by negative energy (which would rip 'food' right out of their 'bellies').

The current setup has negative energy reacting adversely to the life-energy in living creatures, but *empowering* creatures that *feed* on life-energy, while positive energy empowers and enlivens living creatures, but harms and weakens creatures that *eat* life-force.

I think of "feeding on life-force" as an act of corruption to that life force. Essentially transforming the positive energy into negative during the act of consumption.

[AlaskaRPGer]

Dragon78 wrote:

So I take it I am the only one who house ruled that positive and negative energy has it's full effect(damage or healing) against incorporeal creatures?

I haven't had the opportunity, but if it came up when I DM I'd let it work.

[Mark Seifter]

Dragon78 wrote:

So I take it I am the only one who house ruled that positive and negative energy has it's full effect(damage or healing) against incorporeal creatures?

You probably aren't alone because that was true in 3.5. 3.5 still didn't define their full effects on undead and constructs directly, but they did have this line, which mostly changed to be 50% damage rather than 50% chance in Pathfinder but also lost the energys in the bargain:

3.5 SRD wrote:

Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons).

[Drejk]

And yet, they have full vulnerability to channel energy damage to make the matter more complicated...

Quote:

So I take it I am the only one who house ruled that positive and negative energy has it's full effect(damage or healing) against incorporeal creatures?

Technically, the negative energy healing has a full effect on incorporeal creatures - damage is halved, healing is not. On the other hand, because it is non-damaging effect, it has 50% chance of not affecting incorporeal creature (same applies to living incorporeal creature and positive energy healing).

Want more complications? Strict reading of incorporeal quality shows us that channel energy exception applies only to damage inflicted, so channeling negative energy to heal incorporeal undead has 50% chance of not affecting the undead (assuming the channeler is corporeal). And the same strict reading also means that Turn Undead has 50% chance of not working on incorporeal Undead...

Yeah, purge or two in the rules would be greatly appreciated...

[GM Rednal]

In short, incorporeal creatures are weird. XD