glass wrote: Cavall wrote: Unless you have something that says undead lose their type upon death and then can be raised... it doesnt work. You have it backwards. The burden of proof is on those saying that a non-creature has a creature type.
Nobody needs to prove that a corpse does not have a creature type, and more than they need to prove that a long sword does not have a creature type.
_
glass. I assure you I dont have it backwards. The burden of proof may have been to prove an undead stays undead? I dont think I agree with that since it seems to be counter initiative to say "prove that since I'm not told it doesnt turn him into a plant he isnt a plant" but it doesnt matter. We have shown undead remain undead.
It would now be the burden of proof to show otherwise for there to be a continuing debate. As it stands all evidence says when killed his subtype turned undead and killing an undead does not, and has never, stated it returns them to their original subtype.
Since the spell says undead cant be returned to life, it isnt enough to say it's a non creature. Clearly subtypes still matter. Even in death.
gnoams wrote: By your logic, breath of life can't actually be used to bring anything back to life ever. If a body is just an object, then it is an invalid target for the breath of life spell, which specifically states:
"Target creature touched"
So it only works on creatures, and creatures do have types.
And if the spell did not explicitly state that you can cast it on the recently deceased, it would not work. But fortunately it does.
Cavall wrote: I assure you I dont have it backwards. The burden of proof may have been to prove an undead stays undead? I dont think I agree with that since it seems to be counter initiative to say "prove that since I'm not told it doesnt turn him into a plant he isnt a plant" but it doesnt matter. We have shown undead remain undead. You have shown nothing of the sort. willuwontu has come close, and I am still pondering his points, but you and gnoams are really not helping his cause!
Cavall wrote: It would now be the burden of proof to show otherwise for there to be a continuing debate. No. The default position is that creatures have creature types and things which are not creatures do not have creature types. If you are trying to claim otherwise, the burden of proof lies with you, no matter how you try to shift it.
Cavall wrote: Since the spell says undead cant be returned to life, it isnt enough to say it's a non creature. Clearly subtypes still matter. Even in death. Begging the question. Obviously if the corpse remains undead, then the spell does not work. But you are assuming that something that is very definitely now dead somehow still undead, and that is what you have thus far failed to demonstrate.
_
glass.
The default position is nothing of the sort. The target of the spell is not corpse touched. It is creature touched. Therefore your entire post is moot.
Is the target creature touched?
Yes.
Do creatures have subtypes?
Yes.
Is the creatures subtype undead?
Yes.
I fail to see anything you've stated that comes close to countering this. Anything else is a side tangent away from the original topic. I do not have to demonstrate anything further than this spell can not target this subtype with this spell as the target is a creature with a subtype that can not be affected by the spell.
The burden of evidence is no longer on this side of the debate.
Technically, Undead is a type, not a subtype, but doesn't change the end result.
LordKailas wrote: I get the impression from the OP it was something like
Initiative Order
Character A
Mohrg
Character B
Character C
Character A attacks the Mohrg in melee range.
The Mohrg attacks back and drops Character A putting them at -25 hp this is lower than the character's con stat and so they are dead. The Mohrg's ability triggers causing character A to immediately turn into a zombie as per it's create spawn ability.
Character B attacks the Character A zombie killing it.
Character C casts breath of life on Character A since it's still within 1 round of Character A dying, though they were a zombie very very briefly between when they originally died and now.
Correct.
We were having a quite interesting and tense race against time to liberate his corpse from undeath to then use breath of life before his soul fully departed.
The DM allowed it due to 'rule of cool' and I was on the side of it working due to the spell's fluff seeming to suit the situation, but the player decided he wanted no fiat and said he would accept death due to no official ruling.
My 2 copper thrown in the jar: undead are puppeted by negative energy that does not persist when they are destroyed, so asserting positive energy damages a corpse which was once an undead creature doesn't make sense.
Falkyron wrote: We were having a quite interesting and tense race against time to liberate his corpse from undeath to then use breath of life before his soul fully departed.
The DM allowed it due to 'rule of cool' and I was on the side of it working due to the spell's fluff seeming to suit the situation, but the player decided he wanted no fiat and said he would accept death due to no official ruling.
My 2 copper thrown in the jar: undead are puppeted by negative energy that does not persist when they are destroyed, so asserting positive energy damages a corpse which was once an undead creature doesn't make sense.
To be fair, a living creature is powered by positive energy that doesn't persist when they are destroyed. This is why cure spells don't normally function on such corpses. BoL however, gets around this limitation by allowing it's positive energy to still affect the corpse of the creature.
For argument's sake, what if the character had been hit with Death's kiss (undeath sub domain ability) prior to getting killed by a normal attack (and not being turned into an undead creature) would BoL still heal them or would the spell actually destroy their body?
Cavall wrote: The default position is nothing of the sort. The target of the spell is not corpse touched. It is creature touched. Therefore your entire post is moot.
Is the target creature touched?
Yes.
Can you not see how this argument is self-defeating? If the "Target: Creature touched" was the be-all end-all and rendered everything else moot, then the spell would not work whether the dead character has been turned into a zombie or not. Fortunately the spell also says this:
"Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature."
Unless it is your position that these lines do nothing, and the spell can never bring anyone back that that has been killed, then you cannot rely on "Target creature touched" to make you case.
_
glass.
Falkyron wrote: We were having a quite interesting and tense race against time to liberate his corpse from undeath to then use breath of life before his soul fully departed.
The DM allowed it due to 'rule of cool' and I was on the side of it working due to the spell's fluff seeming to suit the situation, but the player decided he wanted no fiat and said he would accept death due to no official ruling.
Yeah it sounds like an awesome moment.
I may be misreading this, but did the player turn down the revive? If there's no official ruling the GM fiat IS the ruling.
glass wrote:
Can you not see how this argument is self-defeating? If the "Target: Creature touched" was the be-all end-all and rendered everything else moot, then the spell would not work whether the dead character has been turned into a zombie or not. Fortunately the spell also says this:
"Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature."
Unless it is your position that these lines do nothing, and the spell can never bring anyone back that that has been killed, then you cannot rely on "Target creature touched" to make you case.
_
glass.
I do not just rely on that, although that's all I would need to. It was enough to prove you wrong.
Fortunately it also says this "Like cure spells, breath of life deals damage to undead creatures rather than curing them, and cannot bring them back to life." Which you seem to have skipped over since you know they do more than "nothing".
Undead will not heal with this spell. This spell will not allow undead to live again. If it meant nothing it wouldnt have to be stated and the spell would work.
Again, no evidence shown to refute this. I'm no longer accepting "but I dont have to show evidence" as a retort when you're going to omit the things that refute your own statements while you edit them out.
Your consistent insistence that targets mean nothing, types mean nothing, lines can be omitted that directly reference type, and other spells being cited as supportive terminology as not good enough is bad form but to pretend they were never mentioned at all? That I only have "targets?" There are the lines you quote which are instantly refuted in the following paragraph. This is just arguing in bad faith.
It simply doesnt work on undead. Even IF we accept a corpse isnt undead and it's an object upon casting (which the target says otherwise), then since it hasn't lost its type it would remain undead upon using the spell to bring it back, which the spell clearly states DOESN'T WORK. You can not bring undead back to life.
It doesn't work to heal them. It doesn't work to bring them back. Two separate lines each saying it simply does. not. work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok I'm just gonna put this out there: This argument is going nowhere and it sounds like people are getting upset about it.
Why don't we take a step back from this one and agree to disagree?
MrCharisma wrote: Falkyron wrote: We were having a quite interesting and tense race against time to liberate his corpse from undeath to then use breath of life before his soul fully departed.
The DM allowed it due to 'rule of cool' and I was on the side of it working due to the spell's fluff seeming to suit the situation, but the player decided he wanted no fiat and said he would accept death due to no official ruling.
Yeah it sounds like an awesome moment.
I may be misreading this, but did the player turn down the revive? If there's no official ruling the GM fiat IS the ruling. The DM is known for being a bit of a cinnamon roll so we sometimes enforce harsher results on ourselves to show it's okay. The player felt there was too much fiat in his favour, even though the DM and I noted...
...which makes it even more awesome and less fiat.
Edit: Clarified in spoiler
Oh yeah I definitely would have given it to them in that circumstance.
Oh well, as long as the player is happy =)
@Falkyron, The GM could instead have made the tattoo work like a contingency spell instead of an SLA, in which case he would have never been turned into an undead in the first place.
@LordKailas, the ability wouldn't turn them into an undead to be destroyed when they die, but their corpse would still remain an "undead" for the purpose of being affected by BoL for almost certainly longer than the window of BoL to be applied.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
