[3.5] Resurrecting natural Undead?

[GreenSerpent]

Hi all,

An interesting query here. What would be the result if you cast True Resurrection on a creature that's naturally undead - for example, a Nightwalker, Angel of Decay, or an Skirr?

Would you end up with some sort of profane-powered Giant? What would happen to its CON score? And what about the special abilities it possesses?

[DeltaEmil]

You can't resurrect undead creatures. If the undead creature was a living being once and was then transformed into an undead, like a mummy, a vampire, a lich or a skeleton, and is then destroyed, you can resurrect the living person it once was.

Nightshades don't seem to ever have been living beings once. They might resemble some corporeal living creature (nightwalker being like a giant, nightwing being a bat, nightcrawler being a purple worm, and the nightgaunt being like a gargoyle), but that's just a form, it seems.

If the Angel of Decay was for example a Planetar (that's just an example) before, you can resurrect the Planetar with True Resurrection (after having destroyed the Angel of Decay first), but you cannot resurrect the Angel of Decay.

[jindra34]

There is a spell called Revive Undead. Its brings them back as an undead. But yeah True Ressurection only works on undead that would ressurect as something else, at which point it brings them back (assuming they are willing and all) as that, not as an undead.

[The Viscount]

True resurrection has no effect on undead, as in the description. It does not effect constructs or undead. The best explanation for this being that true resurrection works by drawing in the soul of the individual. Neither undead nor constructs have souls, with the exception of Living Constructs.

[FleshrakerAbuse]

Technically, true resurrection will work on a slain undead to resurrect it back to living form.

I see revive undead has been mention. Or you could just reanimate it again with the right spells.

[Jack_Simth]

You can't resurrect undead creatures. If the undead creature was a living being once and was then transformed into an undead, like a mummy, a vampire, a lich or a skeleton, and is then destroyed, you can resurrect the living person it once was.

Nightshades don't seem to ever have been living beings once. They might resemble some corporeal living creature (nightwalker being like a giant, nightwing being a bat, nightcrawler being a purple worm, and the nightgaunt being like a gargoyle), but that's just a form, it seems.

If the Angel of Decay was for example a Planetar (that's just an example) before, you can resurrect the Planetar with True Resurrection (after having destroyed the Angel of Decay first), but you cannot resurrect the Angel of Decay.


True resurrection has no effect on undead, as in the description. It does not effect constructs or undead. The best explanation for this being that true resurrection works by drawing in the soul of the individual. Neither undead nor constructs have souls, with the exception of Living Constructs.


Technically, true resurrection will work on a slain undead to resurrect it back to living form.

I see revive undead has been mention. Or you could just reanimate it again with the right spells.
Hey all, I've got a different place for you to look, specifically the Undead Type Entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType):
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
So while casting Resurrection can't bring back someone who's dead body is walking around a few miles away, casting Resurrection directly on the walking corpse will work just fine.

[angry_bear]

Hey all, I've got a different place for you to look, specifically the Undead Type Entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType):
So while casting Resurrection can't bring back someone who's dead body is walking around a few miles away, casting Resurrection directly on the walking corpse will work just fine.

...That seems pretty exploitable. They still have to consent to be raised right?

I forget if wish and miracle cover reviving Undead as their superior, decaying selves. lol

[DeltaEmil]

So while casting Resurrection can't bring back someone who's dead body is walking around a few miles away, casting Resurrection directly on the walking corpse will work just fine.Seems that it really works. Although with a casting time of 10 minutes, you should really better first destroy them, lest they have a chance to escape.

[Jack_Simth]

...That seems pretty exploitable. They still have to consent to be raised right?

That depends. If the description of what happens in the type definition overrides the spell description (which it should) then no, they don't have to consent. If it doesn't, then they do. Basically, this is "ask your DM".


I forget if wish and miracle cover reviving Undead as their superior, decaying selves. lolThere's always the Revive Undead spell from... Spell Compendium, I think? ... as an alternative.


Seems that it really works. Although with a casting time of 10 minutes, you should really better first destroy them, lest they have a chance to escape.
There's ways around that - a Greater Ring of Spell Storing, for instance, or duplicating the spell by way of Miracle.

But yes, spending 10,000 gp or more and requiring a touch attack for a no-save-just-lose spell against an extremely particular type of creature is just... oh, wait, there's already a Core Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/irresistibleDance.htm) that does that which is less expensive and affects more critters.

[Steward]

Irresistible dance is great, but for true resurrection, you wouldn't use it just to win a fight. This would be something you would do to a friend that had been murdered, turned into an undead creature, and enslaved by an enemy, I think.

What would happen though if you used True Resurrection against a creature like a Charnel Hound, that is (if I remember correctly) is made out of multiple dead creatures fused together into one monster? Would it simply convert the undead into a hundred living people, or just one of the corpses, or would it created an entirely new living creature with the size and attributes of all of the constituent former-corpses that made up the Hound?

[Jack_Simth]

Irresistible dance is great, but for true resurrection, you wouldn't use it just to win a fight.
Due to the costs, yes. Against an undead, though, if you get around the casting time, it pretty much is a no-save-just-lose effect vs. undead. Tell me: If you had a way to ignore the material component and the casting time, is there any reason you *wouldn't* use it against a lich to strip him of his special abilities & immunities, any levels he gained while undead, and his ability to revive himself from his phylactery?

This would be something you would do to a friend that had been murdered, turned into an undead creature, and enslaved by an enemy, I think.
If you can't bypass the casting time or component costs, agreed.


What would happen though if you used True Resurrection against a creature like a Charnel Hound, that is (if I remember correctly) is made out of multiple dead creatures fused together into one monster? Would it simply convert the undead into a hundred living people, or just one of the corpses, or would it created an entirely new living creature with the size and attributes of all of the constituent former-corpses that made up the Hound?

Not clearly defined in RAW. Ask your DM.

[Kyberwulf]

On creatures with no form before they where undead. I think they would just cease to exist. Assuming they aren't outsiders. Then I think they just go back to whatever plane they came from.

[Steward]

Due to the costs, yes. Against an undead, though, if you get around the casting time, it pretty much is a no-save-just-lose effect vs. undead. Tell me: If you had a way to ignore the material component and the casting time, is there any reason you *wouldn't* use it against a lich to strip him of his special abilities & immunities, any levels he gained while undead, and his ability to revive himself from his phylactery?

Certainly, it's very useful and if you ignore all of its costs then you might as well. (I'm assuming that resurrection does not require the consent of the deceased creature, right?)

But I think, in a campaign, one main reason why you would want to Resurrect an undead is if the undead used to be a loved one or teammate. Otherwise, the sheer time, resources, and risk that it would take to use this spell would be better used just destroying the creature outright.



Not clearly defined in RAW. Ask your DM.

DM? It's just something I was curious about, not something I was planning to do in a game.


On creatures with no form before they where undead. I think they would just cease to exist. Assuming they aren't outsiders. Then I think they just go back to whatever plane they came from.

That makes sense. One fun alternative is to have the creature simply become a living creature, with all of the requisite headaches, aches and pains, and assorted biological problems of suddenly having skin, blood, organs, and other squishy things after an eternity of being a sleek, efficient, soulless killing machine.

"Why, Orcus, whyyyyy??"

[Jack_Simth]

Certainly, it's very useful and if you ignore all of its costs then you might as well. (I'm assuming that resurrection does not require the consent of the deceased creature, right?)

That appears to be the case... but my point about avoiding the casting time and components was in comparison to a no-save-just-lose touch attack vs. a very specfic creature type... in comparison to a note from ... someone else, I'm feeling lazy... mentioning that it'd be horribly overpowered to use it that way - and just comparing to Irresistable Dance, a Core spell most don't complain about much.


But I think, in a campaign, one main reason why you would want to Resurrect an undead is if the undead used to be a loved one or teammate. Otherwise, the sheer time, resources, and risk that it would take to use this spell would be better used just destroying the creature outright.

Oh, definitely, although if you're planning this there are a couple of simple ways around the time (hold the charge on a touch spell, make use of a Ring of Spell Storing, et cetera) although all of those have their own associated drawbacks and costs (holding the charge on the touch spell means not touching or casting anything else until your target is available, for instance).


DM? It's just something I was curious about, not something I was planning to do in a game.
Any time the rules are silent on an issue, all you've got is opinion.

In the case of a 'standard' undead (one created from the corpse of a single once-living being), then RAW is relatively clear on what happens when you hit them directly with a Resurrection spell.

In the case of undead that never were living creatures, or were more than one, then you've got a case where the rules simply don't cover what happens (the undead type references the singular on the raised critter, and specify that it turns into what it once was), but demand that something does happen (by way of saying that a resurrection spell applied directly to an undead produces a living critter).

Clearing up instances where the rules are silent, contradictory, make no sense, or are confusing is quite simply part of the DM's job. There may not be a relevant DM right now, but your answer will vary by gaming table, so the DM is the person to ask.

[Coidzor]

I'm partial to the "Revive Kills Zombies" line of thinking myself, but as said, all you got to go on is opinion. Also since there's no save... :/

[Jack_Simth]

I'm partial to the "Revive Kills Zombies" line of thinking myself, but as said, all you got to go on is opinion. Also since there's no save... :/
Oh, with a D&D standard Zombie (any living critter with the zombie template) the D&D answer is quite straightforward: Not only does it get rid of the pesky undead, but it gives you back the living creature.

It's when you get nonstandard undead that there's an issue - things that never were alive, or things that are made of multiple other critters.

[The Viscount]

Both Resurrection and True Resurrection have the same clause in their text, "You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." On top of that they refer to raise dead for most stats, including the target of "dead creature." As such, if you cast either on an undead that is up and about, nothing happens.

[TuggyNE]

Both Resurrection and True Resurrection have the same clause in their text, "You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." On top of that they refer to raise dead for most stats, including the target of "dead creature." As such, if you cast either on an undead that is up and about, nothing happens.

Undead are dead creatures. That's why the rules take pains to describe bringing them down to 0 HP as "destruction", not "re-killing" or anything similar.

As far as the clauses within (true) resurrection, I think comparison to the Undead type description is necessary to get the full rules on this (as mentioned earlier in the thread).

[The Viscount]

I'll give you the counting as dead, but the spells themselves still require the undead to be destroyed, regardless of the vagueness of the undead type entry. Specific trumps general here.

[Jack_Simth]

I'll give you the counting as dead, but the spells themselves still require the undead to be destroyed, regardless of the vagueness of the undead type entry. Specific trumps general here.
Specific does trump general. True Resurrection requires no piece of the corpse. If the corpse is walking around a mile away, the text in True Resurrection is quite clear; the spell fails.

If you apply the spell directly to the walking corpse, however, the text in the undead type entry is quite clear: The corpse comes back to life.

Besides: The text of Resurrection does not explicitly state it cannot bring an undead back to true life.

[hamishspence]

Nightshades don't seem to ever have been living beings once. They might resemble some corporeal living creature (nightwalker being like a giant, nightwing being a bat, nightcrawler being a purple worm, and the nightgaunt being like a gargoyle), but that's just a form, it seems.

Dragon Magazine 336 (October 2005, Birth of the Dead article) said that they are created when an evil subtype outsider's body is continually subjected to negative energy long after death, and the type of nightshade is dependant on the HD of the fiend.

[Steward]

Specific does trump general. True Resurrection requires no piece of the corpse. If the corpse is walking around a mile away, the text in True Resurrection is quite clear; the spell fails.

If you apply the spell directly to the walking corpse, however, the text in the undead type entry is quite clear: The corpse comes back to life.

Besides: The text of Resurrection does not explicitly state it cannot bring an undead back to true life.

Wait, I don't really understand what that means then. If spell doesn't require a piece of the corpse, then why does it matter if the undead creature is nearby or a mile away? Shouldn't it work (or not work) the same?

[The Viscount]

I am similarly confused. By specific trumps general, I meant that the specific spells resurrection and true resurrection require you to destroy an undead before you can bring it back to true life. It's right in the text. The general undead type mentions the spells. At best there is conflicting information, in which case the spells win. You cannot use resurrection to turn a non-destroyed undead into a living being.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm told one can simply hold the charge on True Res, then run up and slap the target, discharging the spell into him.

[TuggyNE]

Wait, I don't really understand what that means then. If spell doesn't require a piece of the corpse, then why does it matter if the undead creature is nearby or a mile away? Shouldn't it work (or not work) the same?

It would, except that the existence of an undead creature spawned from a given person's corpse locks their soul down, and they can't be resurrected without destroying that.


I am similarly confused. By specific trumps general, I meant that the specific spells resurrection and true resurrection require you to destroy an undead before you can bring it back to true life. It's right in the text. The general undead type mentions the spells. At best there is conflicting information, in which case the spells win. You cannot use resurrection to turn a non-destroyed undead into a living being.

Well, you can interpret it as meaning that casting (true) resurrection on an undead destroys it and then resurrects it. That seems perfectly logical.

[Steward]

It would, except that the existence of an undead creature spawned from a given person's corpse locks their soul down, and they can't be resurrected without destroying that.

I get that, except I still can't make heads or tails of what that post was supposed to say then. Why would 'applying' the spell directly to it have a different effect than simply targeting an undead creature with the spell? The way I see it, because the spell does not require any part of the creature to work, it either works on undead creatures or it doesn't. It doesn't matter if the undead creature is standing right next to you or in the next town over -- the effect (or non-effect) should be the same.

I get the feeling that I'm just misreading or misunderstanding this but I don't understand why the actual location of the undead creature should matter.

[The Viscount]

Well, you can interpret it as meaning that casting (true) resurrection on an undead destroys it and then resurrects it. That seems perfectly logical.

How? I'm not understanding.

[Jack_Simth]

Wait, I don't really understand what that means then. If spell doesn't require a piece of the corpse, then why does it matter if the undead creature is nearby or a mile away? Shouldn't it work (or not work) the same?
The why is not stated in RAW. The series of conditions is. We have to guess at the why's.

A (True) Resurrection spell applied directly to an undead turns it back into the living creature it once was (per the undead type).
A (True) Resurrection spell fails if the corpse is walking around elsewhere (resurrection needs only a tiny fragment, True Resurrection doesn't even need that) (per the spell descriptions).
If the walking corpse that's elsewhere falls down a ravine and is destroyed at the bottom, a (True) Resurrection spell now works.

The why is not stated in RAW. An undead trapping the soul of the prior occupant of the body and using that to power the mockery of life is a theory that fits better than most on the why (Undead walking around elsewhere: Soul unavailable. Applied directly to the undead: Soul is right there for raising. Destroy the undead: Soul goes to the afterlife, and can then be pulled back), but doesn't fully fit all aspects of RAW (there's some things with the clone spell you can do, for instance, that violate this theory... but since when has RAW been consistent anyway? Best we can hope for is a reasonable match).

That theory of 'why' on the interaction would also explain why the spells that create undead all have the [Evil] descriptor....

[TuggyNE]

How? I'm not understanding.

How which?


A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised.
This spell functions like raise dead, except that you are able to restore life and complete strength to any deceased creature.
[…]
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.
Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.

So, putting those all together, we see that resurrection can resurrect a living creature that was turned undead, but only if that undead has been destroyed, and further that casting resurrection directly on an undead creature resurrects the living creature it used to be. Logically, the only way that can be is if the undead is first destroyed by the spell itself.

[Steward]

A (True) Resurrection spell applied directly to an undead turns it back into the living creature it once was (per the undead type).
A (True) Resurrection spell fails if the corpse is walking around elsewhere (resurrection needs only a tiny fragment, True Resurrection doesn't even need that) (per the spell descriptions).
If the walking corpse that's elsewhere falls down a ravine and is destroyed at the bottom, a (True) Resurrection spell now works.

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I think I have a clearer picture of what you mean now. I'm just confused as to this part of it though; what does it mean to "apply" True Resurrection directly to the undead creature? Because the spell does not require any part of the creature in order to work, doesn't that mean that the spell should have the same effect regardless of whether or not the corpse (either as an undead or as an ordinary body) is near the caster?

The way I always understood it, the creature's body is completely irrelevant to the caster of True Resurrection. It can be disintegrated, at the bottom of a lake, lying on top of his bed in a bikini, whatever. But if I understand you correctly, True Resurrection does require the original corpse if it's available, and only doesn't require it if the corpse is no longer extant.


The why is not stated in RAW. An undead trapping the soul of the prior occupant of the body and using that to power the mockery of life is a theory that fits better than most on the why (Undead walking around elsewhere: Soul unavailable. Applied directly to the undead: Soul is right there for raising. Destroy the undead: Soul goes to the afterlife, and can then be pulled back),

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I liked your point about the [Evil] descriptor. Trapping someone's soul in a nonliving, rotting shell sounds pretty sadistic to me.

Does this mean, though, that it's not possible for someone's body to become a physical undead like a zombie while his soul becomes an incorporeal undead such as a quell or a shadow?

[The Viscount]

So, putting those all together, we see that resurrection can resurrect a living creature that was turned undead, but only if that undead has been destroyed, and further that casting resurrection directly on an undead creature resurrects the living creature it used to be. Logically, the only way that can be is if the undead is first destroyed by the spell itself.

That seems a rather large logical jump. Were that true, wouldn't resurrection say "this spell destroys an undead" instead of "this spell needs the undead to be destroyed"? Isn't it more likely that the undead type summary was simply written by a different person than the spells, and written more carelessly?

It seems to me we have a fundamental rules disagreement here.

[TuggyNE]

That seems a rather large logical jump. Were that true, wouldn't resurrection say "this spell destroys an undead" instead of "this spell needs the undead to be destroyed"?

It would be nice, but there's a meaningful distinction to be made here: (true) resurrection can't resurrect someone at all if the undead formed from them is still wandering around randomly somewhere. There is no action at a distance that the spell allows; you have to actually have the undead right there. (This is relevant with true resurrection, obviously, but even resurrection has cases, such as with shadows or wraiths or whatever, where you have bits of the body available, but there's still an undead up that you haven't corralled.)


Isn't it more likely that the undead type summary was simply written by a different person than the spells, and written more carelessly?

It's certainly possible, but I don't think it's necessary to throw out RAW here; it can be made to make sense, and I think even its current form has reasons for being written that way.

Exactly what RAI is, I don't know for sure, but it seems not unreasonable to go with an interpretation substantially like what I've outlined.

[Jack_Simth]

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I think I have a clearer picture of what you mean now. I'm just confused as to this part of it though; what does it mean to "apply" True Resurrection directly to the undead creature? Because the spell does not require any part of the creature in order to work, doesn't that mean that the spell should have the same effect regardless of whether or not the corpse (either as an undead or as an ordinary body) is near the caster?
You'd think. (True) Resurrection is a touch spell, which means you can cast it directly on a corpse (walking or not) if you have one available. Resurrection requires only a tiny fragment of the corpse - condition is irrelevant, so the dust from disintegrate works - but True Resurrection merely requires you identify the deceased in some unambiguous manner.

Unless the corpse is an undead that is elsewhere, of course.



The way I always understood it, the creature's body is completely irrelevant to the caster of True Resurrection. It can be disintegrated, at the bottom of a lake, lying on top of his bed in a bikini, whatever. But if I understand you correctly, True Resurrection does require the original corpse if it's available, and only doesn't require it if the corpse is no longer extant.
No, True Resurrection doesn't require the original corpse. Nor does it require it be available if it still exists.

But if the dead guy is currently an undead guy, you need to either have, or destroy, the undead before you can make the dead guy a live guy.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I liked your point about the [Evil] descriptor. Trapping someone's soul in a nonliving, rotting shell sounds pretty sadistic to me.

Does this mean, though, that it's not possible for someone's body to become a physical undead like a zombie while his soul becomes an incorporeal undead such as a quell or a shadow?
As I mentioned: The theory is not completely consistent with RAW. In RAW, as far as I'm aware, nothing stops you from animating a corpse that got raised and is walking around elsewhere by way of the Clone spell (even though that requires the soul), nor animating a corpse as an incorporeal undead and animating it again as a corporeal one. Of course, if you permit doing that sort of thing, then we have a RAW way of duplicating people (raise them as two types of undead, then apply resurrection to both).