Energy Types

[geeman]

3 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Let me reverse the question. What is positive energy if its not the

>opposite energy of undeath? It would seem to me that positive energy is

>specifically for combating undead. I know of no other characteristics of it.



Isn`t positive energy the same stuff that heals the living? Hence its

damaging effected on the nonliving undead in the same way that the negative

energy wielded by evil or otherwise negatively aligned clerics that damages

the living can heal the undead. By extension, isn`t turning a use of

positive energy and taking control of undead a use of negative energy?



>>I disagree. Incorporeal is a "no body" state, while gaseous form is a

>>"gaseous body" state, i.e. you still have a body but it`s been "changed"

>>to a different state (e.g. ice, water, steam).

>

>That may or may not be a technical definition in the rules, I`m really not

>interested in that. There is the broader notion obviously represented in

>the original post that being without a body included both technical

>incorporality and other kinds of being without a body, like being a gas.

>You are too tied to the rules and it leaves you unable to consider

>situations not covered in the rules.



The earlier question did specifically mention gaseous form v.

incorporable. While this might not be terribly well spelled out in the

texts it is covered in the rules, and would seem to be pretty accurately

described by the descriptors used above. A character turned into "gaseous

form" is not incorporeal, and cannot therefore attack an incorporeal

creature--at least not any more effectively than s/he could when solid. He

couldn`t pass into an airtight container, while an incorporeal character

could. If a person in gaseous form could attack an incorporeal creature

than what about other energy/material states? Would water elementals be

effective against ghosts? That`s just a few degrees away from gaseous. A

gust of wind could knock over a ghost if the state of matter that was not

"massy" allowed one to "penetrate" into the realm of the incorporeal.



Probably a better way to think of an incorporeal object is to note that it

is shifted into another (usually "adjacent") plane of existence in such a

way that its perceptions are on both, but it`s physical body is on the

alternate plane, and has very limited interaction with the material

plane. Gaseous characters are not plane shifted, and don`t interact any

more directly with the physical aspect of the incorporeal character than

any other material character. You could suck a gaseous creature up in a

giant bellows, but one wouldn`t want a set of rules that allowed one to

suck up a ghost. One needs a specifically designed Ghost Busters type

device for that....



It might even make sense to describe incorporeal creatures by noting the

plane their shifted to (assuming that in the BR cosmology there are

parallel planes from the MotP other than the

SW.) Incorporeal-shadow. Incorporeal-spirit. Incorporeal-ethereal. An

incorporeal-shadow character would not interact with an incorporeal-spirit

character any more than any material character.



>First, our notions of undead start in folklore, not

>in game rules, so my notions of what undead are like starts there. It may

>be modified by a host of factors, but there is conception of a game world

>without lashing yourself to the rules so an eagle can dine on your liver

>24/7. Just because the rules don`t have seven pages on two gasseous

>entities grappling, why is it inconcievable that they could engage in such

>combats or entirely new forms of combat? Perhaps gaseaous entites do force

>damage. The penumbra of the rules may not serve to explain every

>possibility someone can imagine.



I suppose they could if a struggle between smoke character and steam

character occurred in a campaign at some point, but gaseous combatants

isn`t what`s being addressed here... unless we`re assuming that ghosts are

gaseous instead of incorporeal and I missed that someplace.



Gary

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:13 AM





> Just because the rules actually cover it?! One is gaseous, one is

> not. One is incorpereal, one is not. Yep, the rules are pretty clear

there

> and all that`s happened in the text you`ve quoted is someone agreed with

> that.



The rules invent a distinction between being gaseous and being incorporeal,

there is none in the common meaning of incorporeal. The corpus in question

us fleshm once you become a being of no flesh, whether you are a light

being, a fire being, a spririt, or a gas you are, by common usage

incorporeal. When we draw on sources outside of D&D, such as movies, we

often see cool things we might like to do or try in our games, but conflict

with the definitions of gaseous in the rules. To answer this question we

must ask ourselves what is it about the undead that may or may not make them

vulnerable to gases. What can a character do as a gas. The game provides

some explanations, but its not exhaustive of the whole imagination for what

it might be to become gaseous.



> One, the person quoted didn`t deserve your attack on him.



This a phantom attack, I`ll check my books on undead special attacks. Why

phantom, because it never took place. I suggested the inquiring person

proceed down a line of reasoning. You would have them consult the all

exhaustive and complete rules.



> Two, the situation is well-covered in the rules and so your last sentence

> doesn`t really apply.



Its well covered if the person meant that they become gaseous in a typical

D&D way and confront D&D`s incorporeal undead (outside of D&D, gaseous

vampires are incorporeal undead because they lack flesh yet possess a will).

If the player was asking about some kind of gaseousness that was not typical

D&D you are forced back into plumbing the source material, which if its a

movie, may not answer the question, or trying to reason your way around the

problem.



> And third, the original post was a question on the ways the

> rules work, so yeah, quoting how the rules work here might

> actually be a valid way to go.



I didn`t notice the qualifier that we should assume standard qualities.

Because it would be so easy to look up the answer in the well organized

materials, it seems reasonable to suppose there was more to the question

than looking for a simple reference.



> >> I don`t think that "natural" states on alternate planes are necessarily

> >> corporeal, e.g. etherealness is the natural state of being on the

> >> ethereal plane, where all beings and things are composed more or less

of

> >> the same "stuff".

> >

> > The point of the reference was that when you are made of the same stuff,

> > whether you want to say you are embodied or not, direct conflict can

occur.

> > The rest of this is you caught in the rules.

>

> First of all, the part quoted at the very top already suggested that the

two

> beings are not the same "stuff" and so your statement isn`t absolute.



Now I have no idea what you are writing about. You earlier mention that

etherealness refers to beings on the ethereal plane and being made of the

same "stuff". I replied to this. Now you want to go back to some other

part of the message and pretend that I was refering to (presumably)

incorporeal and gaseous beings, rather than the seperate paragraph dealing

with becoming manifest on the ethereal plane, that is solid and tangible

with regard to beings there.



> Second, "the rest of this is you caught in the rules". How so? Rule-like

> buzzwords are being used like "ethereal plane" "composed" and "natural

> state" I guess, but these aren`t rules being tossed at you. The argument

> isn`t "this can`t be done because it says so on page XX"; its a rational

> argument about what form each being is composed of and whether or not

those

> forms should be able to interact with eachother.



Except that you offer no evidence of being able to make sense of some

condition existing outside of the rules. Must a creature, who is a gas, act

in all ways as described on page 77 of the DMG. No gas being could be

created by clever players who could dissolve in water, use a fizz attack

from water (casues dizziness), or attack with force energy blows?



> The question was can a gaseous entity attack an incorpereal entity, and

the

> answer was "no" because you have no attack form as a gas and the enemy`s

> incorpereal so your attacks would go through him anyway. Dealt with

pretty

> well in the rules.



If you go back and read my reply, this was the answer I presented as

standard. I on the other hand, was capable if imagining other, alternative

answers, and my answer to the original question works from that possibility.

Maybe someone didn`t have their books handy and was asking what it says on a

certain page about a certain situation. Maybe the questioner was looking

for answers about what is possible regarding gases making attacks. If that

is in fact the case, gasses wrestling other gasses has, in fact, everything

to do with the topic. If the question is contemplating alternatives to

gasses that don`t dissolve in water, can`t fly, and can`t interact with

ethereal or incorporeal beings, then such things must, but their very

nature, escape what the rules say.



> The worst part is I think this was all a misunderstanding. I`m fairly

> certain you`d both agree with another if you could communicate effectively

> and try to see where eachother`s coming from.



I don`t think the discussion is about the answer to the question. We both

stated that being incorporeal is different from being gaseous and advised

that gaseous character could not effectively attack incorporeal undead. The

disagreement revolves how we know that.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Jul 12 2003, 07:26 PM
You just love stirring up trouble, don`t you? : )

How do you know?

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by kgauck@Jul 14 2003, 09:59 AM
ge -----
From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:13 AM

The worst part is I think this was all a isunderstanding. I`m fairly certain you`d both agree with another if you could communicate effectively and try to see where eachother`s coming from.

I don`t think the discussion is about the answer to the question. We both stated that being incorporeal is different from being gaseous and advise that gaseous character could not effectively attack incorporeal undead. The disagreement revolves how we know that.

Please, please. This is a thread about fighting undead, not fighting each other. It only seems, you&#39;re partially of the same opinion...

[Peter Lubke]

t 02:08, Ariadne wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...=ST&f=2&t=1801

>

> Ariadne wrote:

>

ge -----

> From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:13 AM

>

> The worst part is I think this was all a isunderstanding. I`m fairly certain you`d both agree with another if you could communicate effectively and try to see where eachother`s coming from.

>

> I don`t think the discussion is about the answer to the question. We both stated that being incorporeal is different from being gaseous and advise that gaseous character could not effectively attack incorporeal undead. The disagreement revolves how we know that.

>

> Please, please. This is a thread about fighting undead, not fighting each other. It only seems, you`re partially of the same opinion... ;)

>

????

I though Kenneth WAS undead

????



** signed **

?Confused?