Raise Dead question - and then some!

[GriffinRider]

Hi all- running an adventure where the group is pitted against an evil party and I've been trying to arrange minor to semi-minor skirmishes between them to build some tension and animosity before the big showdown. Long story short: the paladin made short work of one of my evil heavy-hitters and the group has stripped away all his fancy gear and treasure. I know they're planning to decapitate the body and pitch the head away right after they try a Speak with Dead spell on him. There's a chance they'll resume pursuit of the bad guys right after and I'm wondering if the evil cleric could circle back around and recover both head and body, would a Raise Dead spell work? The spell description says it "closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds"...would it put a head back on there if the two parts were in contact again? I mean, the spell does say missing body parts are still missing after the spell raises the person but in this case the parts aren't missing, just unattached. Am I on solid ground here?

On a related topic, in my head I'm gaming out the pros and cons of the evil cleric doing such a thing. It will cost him some serious coin, and he'll be raising an evil person who may not have any sense of obligation to repay this favor. Even if the fighter swears fealty to the cleric, he's going to be missing all his awesome kit - no weapons, no armor, no rings, no potions, nothing; he'll be a less-than-stellar ally (both groups are out in the willy-wags in pursuit of an artifact I made up, so there's nowhere to re-supply). Can anybody think of some spells that an evil 11th level cleric might have that would obligate some one to him or enchant that person in some way to make him loyal, or equip him so he's useful, or both? The only rational reason I can think of for the cleric to go ahead with this is because the "leader" of the evil group is a wizard with an unflinchingly loyal henchman/bodyguard, and sooner or later-like once the wizard has led them to the artifact- the cleric will want to turn on him and will need some one to help with the coup. Plus it will be fun to see the player's faces when they realize they should have been more thorough disposing of the body.

[Crake]

It does say that the body must be whole. In that context, I believe it means "missing" to mean missing from the body itself, not missing in general. A detatched limb is not reattached in the casting. Remember that it takes a 7th level spell (regenerate) just to reattach/regrow a limb, so a 5th level spell wouldn't be able to achieve the same.

Do keep in mind that speak with dead will give them potentially false, and otherwise generally misleading information due to the fact that the corpse in life would have certainly opposed the party.

As for how an evil cleric would deal with this, well, evil doesn't necessarily mean jerk. These guys could quite possibly be very close to one another and not care about such menial things as lack of gear or the cost of resurrection.

As for options: As an 11th level character, if the evil cleric could get his hand on a candle of invocation (or make one himself if you're using pathfinder rules) he would be able to cast resurrection, which would cost more, but allow him to bring back his friend without issue.
Alternatively, an 11th level cleric could use substitute domain to gain either the demonic or diabolic domains to gain planar binding on their list, then make a scroll of it, and then casting from the scroll (because their alignment would normally restrict them from doing so), they could bind a celestial, such as a ghaele, capable of casting 7th spells, and force it to resurrect his ally. As evil characters, I'm sure they wouldn't have too much of a hard time re-equipping their fighter, though make sure he's under-equipped in their next few scuffles, so the players feel like they actually achieved something (in addition to getting his original gear for themselves in the first place, and reducing his level).

If the players don't engage in sufficient protective measures for their gear, perhaps have one of the evil party's more stealthy members go in and steal his gear back, maybe even stealing a little extra ontop.

[KillianHawkeye]

A Fighter without any gear? As allies/minions go, I'm going to agree with your thought that it isn't worth the Cleric's time or money.

[Celestia]

The cleric could just undeadify him.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

He should be able to make him an undead, he can control undead.

[Mr Adventurer]

As an 11th level Cleric, he has access to 6th level Clerical spells.

The Create Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm) spell is 6th level but, at caster level 11, would only allow him to create a Ghoul out of the corpse (or maybe a Ghast if he has the Evil domain with the caster level boost). Still, if they just want an extra pair of hands, that purpose would still be served by this even if the creature is significantly weaker than an 11th level Fighter. And if it survives, it can go on to start regaining character levels!

If you do decide to raise the Fighter (despite the fact that I don't believe Raise Dead can fix beheading), then another 6th level Cleric spell is Quest (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/geasQuest.htm), which would work very well to force the Fighter into servitude of the Cleric. Note the 10 minute casting time though, make sure the target is tied up so they don't just run off!

Finally, I would say that even amongst evil groups, there would be an expectation of being raised by the party Cleric after falling in battle. That's literally the whole point (mutual support) of partying up in the first place. And this guy literally gave his life for you!

[GriffinRider]

Ah, shoot. Sounds like the consensus is that Raise Dead won't glue his head back on. I didn't think so either, but I thought that would be fun.

I know about the deception inherent in questioning an evil person with Speak with Dead; the real problem for the party is that this guy was strong and tough and skilled in combat, but dumb as a stump and not usually clued in to his group's more intricate plans. They'll learn some things for their trouble, certainly, but he was no rocket scientist.

I think undeadifying him would be great, but yeah, he'll be a much weaker version of himself. The party's cleric mop the floor with him. Even the paladin that killed him the first time around could likely turn him. Still, might be worth it for the effect...

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Can't you try to cast something like make whole to connect his head?

Can't you make him a zombie, grow his head back with spells, kill the zombie and raise him?

[Mr Adventurer]

Can't you try to cast something like make whole to connect his head?

This is genius!

[GriffinRider]

Can't you try to cast something like make whole to connect his head?

Nice idea, but I don't think it would work. Make Whole doesn't affect "creatures", and humans are creatures. This guy certainly is a creature, or was.

It may not need to, since they tried to cast Speak With Dead on him but I made his save. They cast Gentle Repose on him and chucked him in the portable hole until the cleric can pray for Speak With Dead again. We've been on a small gaming break, so maybe by the time we're all together again they will have forgotten about the beheading and just toss the body, and then I'm back to plain old Raise Dead. Doesn't help his lack of gear situation though...

[EldritchWeaver]

Nice idea, but I don't think it would work. Make Whole doesn't affect "creatures", and humans are creatures. This guy certainly is a creature, or was.

Pretty sure that a corpse counts as an object.

[Venger]

Pretty sure that a corpse counts as an object.

Corpses do indeed count as objects, so make whole is kosher.

[nintendoh]

Seconded, corpses are object. Clearly stated srd. If your going to undead the dude and make whole is a no go then sovereign glue the head on.

[Yahzi]

Can't you try to cast something like make whole to connect his head?
I think that's perfectly legit. In my book you can even just stitch the head back on. This is why you burn the corpses!

Nothing is more entertaining than watching your players make sure they have all the pieces of their friend, so he can get raised without missing anything. It's worth the ruling for that alone. :smallbiggrin:


Can't you make him a zombie, grow his head back with spells, kill the zombie and raise him?
No, once a body has been used for a zombie, then it can't ever be raised. So zombifying someone is as effective as burning them.

[jmax]

Corpses do indeed count as objects, so make whole is kosher.

I want to disagree with this but can't find any justification to do so. That said, it doesn't feel right. There's a huge difference in complexity with blood vessels and nerves relative to any sort of artificial object that could be made in a typical D&D setting. That said...



Ah, shoot. Sounds like the consensus is that Raise Dead won't glue his head back on. I didn't think so either, but I thought that would be fun.

I'll provide the dissenting opinion here. Raise dead won't glue the head back on, but you could absolutely sew it on first. Or get a buddy to hold it in place.

Let's say they didn't quite decapitate him. Let's say they came very close but left a little flap of skin and muscle connecting the back of the head to the back of the neck. Would you still say that the head was missing, or is that now a mortal wound? If he was alive at the time of almost-decapitation, that seems to me like a very clear instance of "mortal wound" rather than a missing body part. Raise dead explicitly says it closes mortal wounds.

So I'd allow it, although I expect the fighter would have some serious PTSD.



Remember that it takes a 7th level spell (regenerate) just to reattach/regrow a limb, so a 5th level spell wouldn't be able to achieve the same.

True, but regenerate doesn't have any material components. Further, there's a big difference between growing a new limb and reattaching an old one. We can actually do the latter in real life with current technology, albeit with non-trivial loss of function (http://www.assh.org/handcare/procedures-and-treatment/Replantation). The former seems to be a bit harder :-P

A scroll of regenerate also costs a good deal less than the material component for raise dead. That's not really relevant rules-wise, but it makes it feel reasonable.



Do consider the potential gag value of going the undead route, though. You could have a corporeal version of Nearly Headless Nick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_staff#Nearly_Headless_Nick)!

[Jack_Simth]

Seconded, corpses are object. Clearly stated srd. I'm curious: Where did you find that? I'd like to see it, one way or the other.

[Atarax]

As far as why the evil cleric would bother raising him...

The fighter has kept some bit of information secret that's very important to the cleric. Maybe he actually did it for insurance purposes.

[Venger]

I want to disagree with this but can't find any justification to do so. That said, it doesn't feel right. There's a huge difference in complexity with blood vessels and nerves relative to any sort of artificial object that could be made in a typical D&D setting.
Ok. That has nothing to do with actual rules though.


I'll provide the dissenting opinion here. Raise dead won't glue the head back on, but you could absolutely sew it on first. Or get a buddy to hold it in place.

Let's say they didn't quite decapitate him. Let's say they came very close but left a little flap of skin and muscle connecting the back of the head to the back of the neck. Would you still say that the head was missing, or is that now a mortal wound? If he was alive at the time of almost-decapitation, that seems to me like a very clear instance of "mortal wound" rather than a missing body part. Raise dead explicitly says it closes mortal wounds.
If you'll allow that, your party may as well do that.


I'm curious: Where did you find that? I'd like to see it, one way or the other.
right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) among other places:



Target: Corpse touched
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

corpses are objects.

[Jack_Simth]

right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) among other places:

corpses are objects.
You're extrapolating. That's not "Clearly stated". You also find counterexamples in similar places. Speak with Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm) has a target of "One dead creature" and is "Will negates; see text" without the object tag. Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) uses the phrase "dead creatures", and Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) has a target line of "Dead creature touched" (and an SR line of "Yes (harmless)" rather than "Yes (object)"). D&D is not consistent about how they handle things. If you found "the creature is treated as an object while dead" or some such under the Dead Condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead), I'd accept that under "clearly stated" (it's not there). If you can find a place where it's clearly stated, great! Otherwise, it's fuzzy, and you'll get different rulings from different DM's.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You're extrapolating. That's not "Clearly stated". You also find counterexamples in similar places. Speak with Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm) has a target of "One dead creature" and is "Will negates; see text" without the object tag. Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) uses the phrase "dead creatures", and Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) has a target line of "Dead creature touched" (and an SR line of "Yes (harmless)" rather than "Yes (object)"). D&D is not consistent about how they handle things. If you found "the creature is treated as an object while dead" or some such under the Dead Condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead), I'd accept that under "clearly stated" (it's not there). If you can find a place where it's clearly stated, great! Otherwise, it's fuzzy, and you'll get different rulings from different DM's.

Correct me if I am worng, but under the effect of this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) spell the dead is an object.
All he need to do is to use Make Whole (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/makeWhole.htm) after casting Gentle Repose on the dead guy.

[Jack_Simth]

Correct me if I am worng, but under the effect of this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) spell the dead is an object.
All he need to do is to use Make Whole (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/makeWhole.htm) after casting Gentle Repose on the dead guy.
Again: That's extrapolation. That's not "Clearly stated". The closest that Gentle Repose comes to calling a corpse an object is from the Saving throw and Spell Resistance lines... and later on in the spell, it also mentions that "The spell also works on severed body parts and the like." - and a severed hand might be considered an object, in which case the line makes sense even with a dead creature still being considered a creature. Likewise, you get counterexamples with other spells, such as Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) with an SR line of "Yes (harmless)" instead of "Yes (object)".

So while sure, the lines in Gentle Repose will convince some DM's... it won't others, and there's equally weighty arguments for the other direction. It's not "clearly stated" which is what's needed for consistency across DM's.

Incidentally, Venger linked the exact same spell.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Again: That's extrapolation. That's not "Clearly stated". The closest that Gentle Repose comes to calling a corpse an object is from the Saving throw and Spell Resistance lines... and later on in the spell, it also mentions that "The spell also works on severed body parts and the like." - and a severed hand might be considered an object, in which case the line makes sense even with a dead creature still being considered a creature. Likewise, you get counterexamples with other spells, such as Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) with an SR line of "Yes (harmless)" instead of "Yes (object)".

So while sure, the lines in Gentle Repose will convince some DM's... it won't others, and there's equally weighty arguments for the other direction. It's not "clearly stated" which is what's needed for consistency across DM's.

Incidentally, Venger linked the exact same spell.

I know he linked the same link.

If this spell act like the corpse is an object why wouldn't a corpse will be considered an object under is effect?
If I read it right it change the corpse condition.

Anyway, if severed body parts are objects what stoping him from casting Make Whole on the head?

[Jack_Simth]

I know he linked the same link.

If this spell act like the corpse is an object why wouldn't a corpse will be considered an object under is effect?
If I read it right it change the corpse condition.

Anyway, if severed body parts are objects what stoping him from casting Make Whole on the head?
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that it's not actually clear.

You're taking one spell that says X, and using it as an example to extrapolate a general rule.
Meanwhile, there's other spells that say !X to the same extent, which you're largely ignoring when you're extrapolating to that general rule (I linked a few, you haven't commented on that aspect).

That's perfectly fine for your gaming table (as well as Venger's, presumably). I'm not going to argue with a DM at a gaming table who rolls that way (among other things, it's the DM's job to make a call when things aren't clear). However, It's not the "clearly stated" that nintendoh claimed exists in the SRD. I'd like the "clearly stated" rather than the extrapolation that's been presented.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that it's not actually clear.

You're taking one spell that says X, and using it as an example to extrapolate a general rule.
Meanwhile, there's other spells that say !X to the same extent, which you're largely ignoring when you're extrapolating to that general rule (I linked a few, you haven't commented on that aspect).

That's perfectly fine for your gaming table (as well as Venger's, presumably). I'm not going to argue with a DM at a gaming table who rolls that way (among other things, it's the DM's job to make a call when things aren't clear). However, It's not the "clearly stated" that nintendoh claimed exists in the SRD. I'd like the "clearly stated" rather than the extrapolation that's been presented.
I know that there are another options, but isn't a corpse is an object or not base on the corpse condition?


Edit:
Isn't a spell that change the corpse condition and act as it an object will make it an object all the time the corpse is under it's effect?



Edit2:
Didn't you write that a severed body parts are objects? what can stop someone from casting a spell like Make Whole on the head?

I agree with you but I will like you to answer my questions instead of repeating on the same thing, maybe it will help me to understand it better.

[Jack_Simth]

I know that there are another options, but isn't a corpse is an object or not base on the corpse condition?There is no corpse condition that I'm aware of. There's a dead condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead), but it says nothing about rendering the creature an object (nor, however, does it explicitly say they're still creatures - much is left to DM interpretation, which is fine, but will vary from table to table). The condition continues to refer to critters with the dead condition as characters, but that's not exactly a definitive game term.
I agree with you but I will like you to answer my questions instead of repeating on the same thing, maybe it will help me to understand it better.
I'm having a little trouble parsing your grammar on the questions. Taking a guess...

If this spell act like the corpse is an object why wouldn't a corpse will be considered an object under is effect?There's nothing in Gentle Repose that changes the underlying nature of the target. It's also not clear whether or not the (object) entries are intended to imply that dead critters are objects, or to include the game mechanical notes when you end up using the spell on an object (such as a severed hand when the original creature is still walking around). The spell also notes that it can be used on undead, which are explicitly creatures. You wouldn't expect Shrink Object to work on a Zombie after casting Gentle Repose on it, would you?
Anyway, if severed body parts are objects what stoping him from casting Make Whole on the head?They *might* be considered objects. They might not. There's a lot of things the rules never spell out (for good reason - you wouldn't want the books to be the size of FATAL's book - nobody would ever read it). Even if they are... would you expect someone casting Make Whole on your fingernail trimmings to teleport you to the caster across planes? If not, then by the exact same token, casting Make Whole on a severed head doesn't necessarily put it back on the body if the body is still considered a creature, completely irrespective of whether or not the severed head is an object.

[KillianHawkeye]

No, once a body has been used for a zombie, then it can't ever be raised. So zombifying someone is as effective as burning them.

This is only true for raise dead. Resurrection and true resurrection can indeed bring somebody back to life who has been turned into undead, although you have to destroy their undead form first.

[Jack_Simth]

This is only true for raise dead. Resurrection and true resurrection can indeed bring somebody back to life who has been turned into undead, although you have to destroy their undead form first.
It also works if you apply it directly to the undead (mentioned in the undead type entry). It's funny. True Resurrection, which requires not one piece of the corpse, fails if the body is shambling around in someone's zombie horde. Destroy the zombie, and True Resurrection brings the deceased back. Apply True Resurrection directly to the zombie, and you get the deceased back. What does that suggest?

[John Longarrow]

Hmm... if the evil Cleric is 11th level, instead of just a meat shield with limited gear, why not have him use planar ally to grab a Barbed Devil? They work really well as meat shields, especially when they get something like Greater Mage armor tossed on top of their decent AC. Personally i'd swap out the Alertness, Cleave, and Iron will feats for more useful ones though, maybe play with the skills a bit.

Compare it to your existing 11th level fighter. Work out the gear it would have from its treasure. See if it will be a more fun enemy (especially since it can teleport at will).

Course you can still bring the party fighter back as a Mummy using Create Undead. Can make for a very fun couple buffs for the bad guys.

[KillianHawkeye]

It also works if you apply it directly to the undead (mentioned in the undead type entry). It's funny. True Resurrection, which requires not one piece of the corpse, fails if the body is shambling around in someone's zombie horde. Destroy the zombie, and True Resurrection brings the deceased back. Apply True Resurrection directly to the zombie, and you get the deceased back. What does that suggest?

That's actually not right. The resurrection spells target a "dead creature." Not undead, dead. The line in the type traits is just paraphrasing the differences between raise dead and resurrection. You still need to read the actual spell descriptions for specific details, and they say that the undead needs to be destroyed first.

[Jack_Simth]

That's actually not right. The resurrection spells target a "dead creature." Not undead, dead. The line in the type traits is just paraphrasing the differences between raise dead and resurrection. You still need to read the actual spell descriptions for specific details, and they say that the undead needs to be destroyed first.
Seems more like a "specific trumps general" thing to me. Consider: Transmute Mud to Rock can't target a stone golem, yet there's a specific interaction specified there on the golem's side.

[Mordaedil]

There's a lot of things the rules never spell out (for good reason - you wouldn't want the books to be the size of FATAL's book - nobody would ever read it). Even if they are... would you expect someone casting Make Whole on your fingernail trimmings to teleport you to the caster across planes? If not, then by the exact same token, casting Make Whole on a severed head doesn't necessarily put it back on the body if the body is still considered a creature, completely irrespective of whether or not the severed head is an object.
I reckon I would rule it as you'd need to hold the pieces you want re-attached together on casting Make Whole for purposes of "fixing" up a corpse. If a piece is missing or not attached, then it will be missing on the casting of Raise Dead. Additionally, one casting of Make Whole would not be enough to attach every part in my ruling, you'd need to do it per limb dismembered.

This isn't RAW or even RAI, but it would be my compromise to a situation I believe is kinda bad for everyone involved and my olive branch to fix their predicament.

[Jack_Simth]

I reckon I would rule it as you'd need to hold the pieces you want re-attached together on casting Make Whole for purposes of "fixing" up a corpse. If a piece is missing or not attached, then it will be missing on the casting of Raise Dead. Additionally, one casting of Make Whole would not be enough to attach every part in my ruling, you'd need to do it per limb dismembered.

This isn't RAW or even RAI, but it would be my compromise to a situation I believe is kinda bad for everyone involved and my olive branch to fix their predicament.
Which is perfectly fine. All I've been saying is that I've yet to see what I'd call a "Clearly stated" segment of the rules saying a dead creature is an object... or that a corpse is still a creature. Anything fuzzy is up to the DM if it becomes relevant (the not-fuzzy stuff is too, but then you call it a house rule, campaign variant, or similar).

[Mordaedil]

Which is perfectly fine. All I've been saying is that I've yet to see what I'd call a "Clearly stated" segment of the rules saying a dead creature is an object... or that a corpse is still a creature. Anything fuzzy is up to the DM if it becomes relevant (the not-fuzzy stuff is too, but then you call it a house rule, campaign variant, or similar).

Yeah, I'm in complete agreement with this.

[Psyren]

@ the folks who were looking for the more explicit "corpses are objects" ruling, see Unguent of Timelessness: (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/unguent-of-timelessness/)


When applied to any matter that was once alive, such as wood, paper, or a dead body, this ointment allows that substance to resist the passage of time. Each year of actual time affects the substance as if only a day had passed. The coated object gains a +1 resistance bonus on all saving throws. The unguent never wears off, although it can be magically removed (by dispelling the effect, for instance). One flask contains enough material to coat eight Medium or smaller objects. A Large object counts as two Medium objects, and a Huge object counts as four Medium objects.

[KillianHawkeye]

Seems more like a "specific trumps general" thing to me. Consider: Transmute Mud to Rock can't target a stone golem, yet there's a specific interaction specified there on the golem's side.

The general type traits of undead creatures aren't more specific than the specific text of a spell. The special qualities of a specific creature like a Stone Golem are.

I see no problem here.

[Jack_Simth]

@ the folks who were looking for the more explicit "corpses are objects" ruling, see Unguent of Timelessness: (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/unguent-of-timelessness/)
You're still extrapolating. Just because it doesn't say "object or creature" doesn't necessarily mean that everything in the list is an object, just like DoytHaban's orders don't mean that Shv'uu is a girl (https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2002-01-07). That sort of thing is quite common.
The general type traits of undead creatures aren't more specific than the specific text of a spell. The special qualities of a specific creature like a Stone Golem are.

I see no problem here.The Resurrection spell never specifies what it does when applied directly to an undead creature. The Undead type does. There's no contradiction. Everything is specific enough, and so there is no problem.

[Ettina]

I think undeadifying him would be great, but yeah, he'll be a much weaker version of himself. The party's cleric mop the floor with him. Even the paladin that killed him the first time around could likely turn him. Still, might be worth it for the effect...

Depending on what you turn him into, many intelligent undead keep their class levels. For example, Create Undead can make him into a ghoul, and the ghoul template says he'll keep his number of hit dice (they'd become d12 instead of d10), attacks, weapon and armor proficiencies and special attacks. So he'd be an 11th level ghoul fighter, which I'd say is stronger than a living fighter.

[KillianHawkeye]

The Resurrection spell never specifies what it does when applied directly to an undead creature. The Undead type does. There's no contradiction. Everything is specific enough, and so there is no problem.

It doesn't specify it because its own targeting rules prohibit that usage. That's a contradiction. And there is no such thing as "specific enough". The traits and features of the various creature types are, by definition, general rules. They cannot override the text of the resurrection spell.

[Psyren]

You're still extrapolating. Just because it doesn't say "object or creature" doesn't necessarily mean that everything in the list is an object, just like DoytHaban's orders don't mean that Shv'uu is a girl (https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2002-01-07).

It's not extrapolation, it's simple deduction. It says the following:

(1) It functions only on "coated objects" (because it has no listed function on anything that isn't.)
(2) It specifically lists corpses as an intended example of a legal target.

Therefore corpses must be objects, at least by intent. You therefore have to provide some kind of evidence that they aren't.

[Mordaedil]

If you whack a horses corpse enough times, does it become an ex-horse?

[Jack_Simth]

It's not extrapolation, it's simple deduction. It says the following:

(1) It functions only on "coated objects" (because it has no listed function on anything that isn't.)
(2) It specifically lists corpses as an intended example of a legal target.

Therefore corpses must be objects, at least by intent. You therefore have to provide some kind of evidence that they aren't.
I have. Post 19 in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799631&postcount=19) for instance. The people arguing for it being absolute and clear keep switching out, not reading the stuff I've previously listed, arguing anyway and raising "new" arguments that really aren't new. Yeah, sure, you're the first person in this thread to bring up the Ungent of Timelessness. It shows up in that direction in other spots, too. However: The use of corpse, object, and creature are not consistent across various things. It shows up in the exact opposite direction in additional spots. Yes, you can look at one or two spots and draw a conclusion... but someone else can look at one or two different spots and draw the opposite one. Without something that very specifically addresses it (e.g., an entry in the glossary for "Corpse" that specifies, or a note about the creature being treated as an object under the dead condition, or something similar... none of which exist to my knowledge) the inconsistency means that it's not actually clear, and is DM call.

Hmm. The repetition has sucked the fun out of it. Oh well.

[Psyren]

I have. Post 19 in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799631&postcount=19) for instance. The people arguing for it being absolute and clear keep switching out, not reading the stuff I've previously listed, arguing anyway and raising "new" arguments that really aren't new. Yeah, sure, you're the first person in this thread to bring up the Ungent of Timelessness. It shows up in that direction in other spots, too. However: The use of corpse, object, and creature are not consistent across various things. It shows up in the exact opposite direction in additional spots. Yes, you can look at one or two spots and draw a conclusion... but someone else can look at one or two different spots and draw the opposite one. Without something that very specifically addresses it (e.g., an entry in the glossary for "Corpse" that specifies, or a note about the creature being treated as an object under the dead condition, or something similar... none of which exist to my knowledge) the inconsistency means that it's not actually clear, and is DM call.

Hmm. The repetition has sucked the fun out of it. Oh well.

It's simple transitive property: Unguent only has an effect on objects, corpses are an example of something the Unguent is meant to work on, therefore corpses must be objects.

"The (object) tag is used inconsistently" is not a counterargument. Inconsistencies don't change what the rules are; if they did, statblocks would be invalidating RAW all over the system. You're the one extrapolating here: I've pointed to something that says corpses are objects , you need to point to something that says they're not.

[Segev]

Under Aiming a Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/#TOC-Aiming-a-Spell), it specifies that spells with targets target creatures or objects. Under Common Terms (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary/#Creature), a "creature" is defined as "an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters."

A corpse is not an active participant in the world. It can be targeted by certain spells. And not just spells which call out a corpse as the target - nobody is going to argue that telekinesis cannot target a corpse to haul it around.

Per spell targeting, then, a corpse must be a creature or an object. It is not a creature. Therefore, it is an object.



Even leaving the spell targeting rules out of it, however, a corpse is definitely not a creature. If it is not, then, an object, what IS it?

I will note that, if it is not an object, it cannot be damaged, burned, altered, or otherwise interacted with by any mechanics which require an object as their target. I therefore assert that it needlessly leads to nonsense to insist that a corpse is not an object.

[Jack_Simth]

Under Aiming a Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/#TOC-Aiming-a-Spell), it specifies that spells with targets target creatures or objects. Under Common Terms (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary/#Creature), a "creature" is defined as "an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters."
By that logic, I can use Shrink Item on someone who has had their Intelligence damaged down to 0. Such a character is no longer an active participant in exactly the same sense that a creature with the "dead" condition is no longer an active participant. Are you sure you want to go down that rabbit hole?


It's simple transitive property: Unguent only has an effect on objects, corpses are an example of something the Unguent is meant to work on, therefore corpses must be objects.
What do you think I mean when I use the term "extrapolation"?

You're taking an example list from a random magic item, and switching around to say that's intended to have rules weight for things not related to the item. That's just yet another example of the game not handling the term consistently.


... oh, hey: PHB page 306 (the golossary), we have:

character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fan-tasy game setting. The words "character" and "creature" are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).(emphasis added)
- Creature has similar wording.

Then we get to Dead on page 307... but copying from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) for ease.

The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies. (emphasis added)

Even while dead, under the dead condition, a character is still refered to as a character. Character and creature are explicitly used interchangeably. Ergo, a dead creature is still a creature.

Guess it's not fuzzy.

[Psyren]

You're taking an example list from a random magic item, and switching around to say that's intended to have rules weight for things not related to the item. That's just yet another example of the game not handling the term consistently.

And? General rules are contained in specific entries all the time. Magic Jar has the rule that undead are powered by negative energy (and the intelligent ones have souls), Ethereal Jaunt has the rule that abjurations extend onto the ethereal plane, Magic Vestment has the rule about regular clothing being AC 0, Enlarge Person has the rule about projectiles dealing damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them, etc.

And no, it's not a "random magic item" - it's one designed specifically to preserve objects that can decay over time (like corpses.) So its presence there is perfectly logical.

[Jack_Simth]

And? General rules are contained in specific entries all the time. Magic Jar has the rule that undead are powered by negative energy (and the intelligent ones have souls), Ethereal Jaunt has the rule that abjurations extend onto the ethereal plane, Magic Vestment has the rule about regular clothing being AC 0, Enlarge Person has the rule about projectiles dealing damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them, etc.
Those are a different kettle of fish, because they're handled consistently (for as much as they're handled). Good luck finding text saying that undead are powered by something other than negative energy (that doesn't have clear context limiting it to some specific undead, anyway). As to Ethereal Jaunt, you'll also find mention of that in The Ethereal Plane Entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#theEtherealPlane).

The object/creature status of a corpse, though, you'll get different results depending on where you look.

And no, it's not a "random magic item" - it's one designed specifically to preserve objects that can decay over time (like corpses.) So its presence there is perfectly logical.For certain values of random.

Meanwhile, Raise Dead has a target line of "Dead creature touched". Not "once living object touched", but "Dead creature touched". Likewise, in the spell description, the very first sentence is "You restore life to a deceased creature." - not an object, a creature. This is a spell specifically about dead things.

Why should the magic item about nonliving matter have any more rules weight than the spell that explicitly manipulates corpses?

...

And my post has no edit mark, yet you completely skipped over the segment of my post on the glossary without comment. Interesting.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

By that logic, I can use Shrink Item on someone who has had their Intelligence damaged down to 0. Such a character is no longer an active participant in exactly the same sense that a creature with the "dead" condition is no longer an active participant. Are you sure you want to go down that rabbit hole?


What do you think I mean when I use the term "extrapolation"?

You're taking an example list from a random magic item, and switching around to say that's intended to have rules weight for things not related to the item. That's just yet another example of the game not handling the term consistently.


... oh, hey: PHB page 306 (the golossary), we have:
(emphasis added)
- Creature has similar wording.

Then we get to Dead on page 307... but copying from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) for ease.
(emphasis added)

Even while dead, under the dead condition, a character is still refered to as a character. Character and creature are explicitly used interchangeably. Ergo, a dead creature is still a creature.

Guess it's not fuzzy.
About the information you gave from page 307:
In there they write that a body is not a dead creature.

[Keral]

I think it's reasonable to assume that dead creatures, or corpses, could be considered objects.

To my knowledge, in d&d a thing is either a creature or an object.

There is however, ample evidence of rules referring to living creatures or corpses or dead creatures. So my opinion is that a dead creature is to be considered as a creature when doing so is relevant, and as an object when doing that is relevant. Death is, after all an altered condition of a creature. If we are to follow RAW a dead creature never ceases to be a creature.

That said, let me elaborate on my previous statement. I mean to say that a corpse should be considered a creature for all the effects that depend on it being a creature.
Actually, I'm not sure I can explain to my satisfaction, I blame the language barrier. I'll try with a practical example.


I shouldn't be allowed to treat a corpse like an object if I do so with the intent of circumventing another rule. Like using make whole to fix a body to have reanimated.
But, on the other hand, I should treat them as objects when I have to dig through a pile of bodies. Like applying hardness, for example.


I hope my reasoning is somewhat clear.

[Jack_Simth]

About the information you gave from page 307:
In there they write that a body is not a dead creature.
Right. It calls them "characters". However, when you look up what a "character" is, it quite clearly states that the book uses character and creature interchangeably. Ergo, they're still creatures.

[Psyren]

Meanwhile, Raise Dead has a target line of "Dead creature touched". Not "once living object touched", but "Dead creature touched". Likewise, in the spell description, the very first sentence is "You restore life to a deceased creature." - not an object, a creature. This is a spell specifically about dead things.

Why should the magic item about nonliving matter have any more rules weight than the spell that explicitly manipulates corpses?

...

And my post has no edit mark, yet you completely skipped over the segment of my post on the glossary without comment. Interesting.

Why is that interesting? I wasn't the one discussing characters and creatures, so your glossary cite has no relevance to me. I'm talking solely about Unguent of Timelessness, which specifically only has an effect on objects.

But since you ask, *I* never said objects can't be creatures. Indeed, the presence of Animated Objects and golems proves otherwise.

[ben-zayb]

But since you ask, *I* never said objects can't be creatures. Indeed, the presence of Animated Objects and golems proves otherwise.I know crafted constructs (like golems) are items, but is there RAW that also supports them being objects?:smallconfused:

[Segev]

By that logic, I can use Shrink Item on someone who has had their Intelligence damaged down to 0. Such a character is no longer an active participant in exactly the same sense that a creature with the "dead" condition is no longer an active participant. Are you sure you want to go down that rabbit hole?I'm not going down that rabbit hole; you're attempting to invoke a slippery slope fallacy. If you want to try to claim that "a corpse" is really "a creature with the 'dead' condition," we also have to acknowledge that the 'dead' condition doesn't actually prevent you from being an active participant in the setting. After all, nowhere does it say you don't get to act normally while dead!

Which is, of course, a blatantly silly way to read the rules, but people argue it nonetheless, if only in internet arguments.

Alternatively, if you want to argue that corpses are not objects, then they must still be creatures, and thus you can target them with any spell you can target on a creature. Since it's "a creature with the dead condition," it must even have the same type it did before! So clearly, I can cast charm person on a corpse of a humanoid and then use create undead to animate it as a wight and it will still be charmed, since it wasn't immune to that when I cast it, right?

And is a "destroyed" undead creature's corpse an undead creature or a creature of its original type?

Sorry, your rabbit hole is both easily dodged ("it's still a creature because it's still alive") - and thus a slippery slope fallacy - and is not nearly as deep as the rabbit hole your insistence leads down.

[Psyren]

I know crafted constructs (like golems) are items, but is there RAW that also supports them being objects?:smallconfused:

Rusting Grasp :smalltongue:

Kidding aside, I was basically considering "item" and "object" to be synonyms, yeah. Multiple spells support this, like Locate Object, so I'm not sure if there was a specific cite you wanted.

[Segev]

Regardless, if the real reason that "corpses are not objects" is being argued is that make whole being used to repair a corpse is an "exploit" because regenerate is higher level...consider that you have to kill the target and then use, at a minimum, raise dead (with all its attendant costs) to recover the "cheating regenerated" person's now-whole body. You can do this before you can cast regenerate, but not cheaply. A higher-level spell to better achieve something that can be done for more expense and inconvenience with a couple of lower-level spells seems reasonable. I'm not really seeing a problem here.

[Jack_Simth]

Why is that interesting? I wasn't the one discussing characters and creatures, so your glossary cite has no relevance to me. I'm talking solely about Unguent of Timelessness, which specifically only has an effect on objects.
Because you're discussing the object vs. creature state of the dead, which the glossary reasonably clearly answers as "creature" without being in an odd place. There's multiple spells, items, et cetera that all deal with the dead as objects or creatures (which way depending on which item), so picking one to run with is arbitrary - essentially random.

The glossary, on the other hand, is specifically intended for answering definitions of things, and fundamentally we're dealing with a question of definitions.

But since you ask, *I* never said objects can't be creatures. Indeed, the presence of Animated Objects and golems proves otherwise.Neither an animated object nor a golem is still an object. Sure, they pick up a quirky immunity based off of objects (and hardness, in the case of an animated object), but they're definitely creatures. They don't, for instance, take half-damage from most attack forms like objects do.

Also, the glossary entry in the 3.5 PHB for "Creature" (page 306), includes the phrase "not an object" in the definition. So yes, object and creature status are explicitly mutually exclusive.

I'm not going down that rabbit hole; you're attempting to invoke a slippery slope fallacy. If you want to try to claim that "a corpse" is really "a creature with the 'dead' condition," we also have to acknowledge that the 'dead' condition doesn't actually prevent you from being an active participant in the setting. After all, nowhere does it say you don't get to act normally while dead!
It does, indirectly: While you're at negative HP, your nonlethal damage (0, unless you're of the stance that nonlethal damage is a non-number when you don't currently have any, in which case you can never take nonlethal damage because - + anything = -) exceeds your current HP total.

As to slippery slope:
We're talking about game function, not formal logic.
If A-> B, and you like B, then it seems fine to run with A.
However, when A -> C as well, and C is not something you want, then A is not something you want in your game function.

If not being an "active participant" right at that moment turns a game piece into an object (death is quite reversible in D&D), then unless you're doing something odd, anything that prevents a character from being an active participant turns them into an object.

You're looking at an A-> B, and then object when I point out that A -> C, too? Seems odd.

Alternatively, if you want to argue that corpses are not objects, then they must still be creatures, and thus you can target them with any spell you can target on a creature. Since it's "a creature with the dead condition," it must even have the same type it did before! So clearly, I can cast charm person on a corpse of a humanoid and then use create undead to animate it as a wight and it will still be charmed, since it wasn't immune to that when I cast it, right?
For a few hours, sure. Keep in mind, it's still getting it's will save as a corpse, and you could also have used Command Undead post-animation and gotten the beast for days/level just as readily.

And is a "destroyed" undead creature's corpse an undead creature or a creature of its original type?
That I'd have to look at a lot more. Don't have an answer for you... although that might explain the funny entry in the undead type about applying Resurrection directly to the beast. Hmm. Interesting... hadn't thought of it that way before.

Sorry, your rabbit hole is both easily dodged ("it's still a creature because it's still alive") - and thus a slippery slope fallacy - and is not nearly as deep as the rabbit hole your insistence leads down.
Curious: Where did I claim that a creature with the dead condition is still alive?

[Psyren]

The glossary, on the other hand, is specifically intended for answering definitions of things, and fundamentally we're dealing with a question of definitions.
Neither an animated object nor a golem is still an object. Sure, they pick up a quirky immunity based off of objects (and hardness, in the case of an animated object), but they're definitely creatures. They don't, for instance, take half-damage from most attack forms like objects do.

That rule explicitly depends on the object in question. Paper and wood don't take half damage from fire. So please stop trying to lump me in with the other person you're arguing with when that isn't my position.

[Segev]

If not being an "active participant" right at that moment turns a game piece into an object (death is quite reversible in D&D), then unless you're doing something odd, anything that prevents a character from being an active participant turns them into an object. Actually, this brings a better point to focus: 0 int is going to recover on its own. It's something you have to track for ability healing. Death requires an active participant to alleviate.

I'd even go so far as to say that the corpse of a dead creature is no longer a creature because the dead creature is not its corpse, as evidenced by the fact that you can target a dead creature with true resurrection without any corpse at all. So the "creature with the dead condition" and "the creature's corpse" are two distinct things. The corpse is not, in fact, that (nor any other) creature. Therefore, it is an object.


Curious: Where did I claim that a creature with the dead condition is still alive?You didn't. That was in response to the comment about 0-int creatures not being active participants.

I do think the "corpse is not the dead creature, but rather something it left behind when it gained the dead condition" is probably the more convincing argument, though.

[Jack_Simth]

That rule explicitly depends on the object in question. Paper and wood don't take half damage from fire. So please stop trying to lump me in with the other person you're arguing with when that isn't my position.
I'm not. Well, unless you want to claim that:
I've pointed to something that says corpses are objects , you need to point to something that says they're not.
Wasn't you. In which case, you may wish to report the hacking of your account, and change your password.


Actually, this brings a better point to focus: 0 int is going to recover on its own. It's something you have to track for ability healing. Death requires an active participant to alleviate.
Contingency is a thing. There's also things like the Lich or Ghost ability to self-revive (and before you ask, there's ways to get those on non-undead, it's just requires funny rules interactions). Death can be undone by the deceased.

I'd even go so far as to say that the corpse of a dead creature is no longer a creature because the dead creature is not its corpse, as evidenced by the fact that you can target a dead creature with true resurrection without any corpse at all. So the "creature with the dead condition" and "the creature's corpse" are two distinct things. The corpse is not, in fact, that (nor any other) creature. Therefore, it is an object.
That is an interesting way to think of it, and one I can't find a direct contradiction for. Nifty! As far as I'm aware, you're in conflict with 0 rules when running it that way at your table.

You didn't. That was in response to the comment about 0-int creatures not being active participants.
Oh. If that was the intent, then check out the Plant Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#plantType). It's got a note: "Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive." Being alive does not necessitate creature status. You have supporting evidence in the "trees" section of Forest Terrain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#forestTerrain) that speaks of them in terms of object rules. Awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm) also treats trees as not having HD prior to the awakening, but has very little "definitive" interaction.

I do think the "corpse is not the dead creature, but rather something it left behind when it gained the dead condition" is probably the more convincing argument, though.Seems a valid way to play it at your table.

[GriffinRider]

Wow. This is why I come here - everyone is about as thorough as humanly possible. Not to be anti-climactic, but ultimately the evil cleric, the monk/assassin and the druid mounted a midnight raid on my PCs, and stole the portable hole with the corpse in it before the group could cast Speak with Dead and decapitate him. Not only did they get all his gear back (as this was in the portable hole with him) they also got a bunch of other stuff the party has been collecting in there as well, including a sentient +4 heavy shield. So, once again, we see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

[Dagroth]

If "Dead" is a condition, I just Iron Heart Surge it away.

[Segev]

If "Dead" is a condition, I just Iron Heart Surge it away.
Don't be silly. Everybody knows that IHS can't ever actually be used when you'd want to, because you can't take the action required.

[Zanos]

If you pop open BoVD, the cleric could still animate the fighter as a bone creature or corpse creature with create undead, which will make him stronger and stupider. So basically all around better.

[Psyren]

If you pop open BoVD, the cleric could still animate the fighter as a bone creature or corpse creature with create undead, which will make him stronger and stupider. So basically all around better.

:xykon: Just as strong, but eats less. Problem solved!