Inert body: creature or object?

[Zhorn]

Specifically this is about the bodies of creature who are alive BUT the soul is currently not inhabiting the body.
Does the inert body classify as a creature, an object, or both?
Looking for the more RAW-like answer possible.

A body that has died classes as an object by implication of the rules for improvised weapons.

"An Improvised Weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead Goblin."
and confirmed to be treated as such by the devs for the purposes of rule interactions

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/752915549294891008
"A corpse is an object. An unconscious creature is a creature."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/597077875049635840
"A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object."

Now Raise Dead, Revivify, Resurrection, and True Resurrection do potential make a case for dead creatures to still classify as creatures...

"You return a dead creature to..."

"You touch a creature that has died within the last..."

"You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than..."

"You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than..."
... though that could just be common English usage of the word and not meant as technical language. Not the subject of the question, just included for background context.

back to the question

Say for example a creature casts Magic Jar and their soul leaves their body. The body is not dead by this function, just in a catatonic state, and the caster can return to their "living body" and function as a living creature without needing to be revived so long as they are within range.
While the caster's soul is in the vessel used for the spell, or another creatures body, does their original body still classify as a creature? has it instead been reclassified as an object? or is it now functionally both for the purposes of rules interactions?
If another caster were to attempt to Magic Jar themselves into the body, or a Ghost were to attempt to use Possession on it, would that be possible? Strict ruling would imply 'yes' as they just need the target to be humanoid, and not under the Protection From Evil And Good spell, with the effect ending if the host body dies ('creature' is implied, but not strictly required by strict RAW, but for the follow up we'll assume 'creature' is needed).
So (yes this was just about establishing a precedence) now we get onto Clone.

"This spell grows an inert duplicate of a living creature..."
This is the prime target of this question. Is this inert duplicate a creature or an object?
Specifically in regards to being a viable candidate for body snatching.
If it is a creature, one should be able to Magic Jar their way in.
If it is an object (a second caster would need to assist) but it should be viable to Animate Object to set it up as a creature to in turn Magic Jar posses it.

And finally for bonus points: an inert living body without a soul, or an animated object body under control commanded to allow it, should those condition allow a bypass of the saving throw to possess?

[Unoriginal]

"Dead creature" is a specific kind of object.

A creature which is unconscious, inert, or otherwise soulless is still a creature and not an object, unless specified otherwise.

So you can use Animate Object on a corpse, but not on a living body created without a soul.

[Xetheral]

"Dead creature" is a specific kind of object.

A creature which is unconscious, inert, or otherwise soulless is still a creature and not an object, unless specified otherwise.

So you can use Animate Object on a corpse, but not on a living body created without a soul.

I would tend to agree, although that produces the oddity that inert clones and such can't be teleported, just as unconscious creatures can't be teleported. It makes the logistics of the clone and magic jar spells more difficult than if inert bodies counted as objects.

[Unoriginal]

It makes the logistics of the clone and magic jar spells more difficult than if inert bodies counted as objects.

I don't see the issue with that.

[Xetheral]

I don't see the issue with that.

I'm just pointing out a follow-on consequence of the decision on whether to treat inert bodies as creatures or objects. I personally would find that consequence to be an oddity, but I can definitely see how others would consider it a non-issue, or even a benefit.

[Devils_Advocate]

If living but inanimate plants are considered to be objects rather than creatures, then I don't see why living but inanimate animals should be treated differently, within this specific absurd context where words' normal meanings are ignored. The division, to my understanding, is between monsters ("creatures") and inanimate objects ("objects"). An inanimate body is, well, inanimate, and thus clearly falls into the latter category.

Admittedly, I haven't checked, but I assume normal non-monster plants aren't counted as creatures...

(Incidentally, how did I think that it was "inatimate" instead of "inanimate"? It's the opposite of "animate", so of course it's that preceded by "in"! Thanks for repeatedly correcting me, spellcheck.)

[kazaryu]

so, i wouldnt make a blanket ruling first of all. I wouldnt say, for example, that an inert body is always one or the other.

For example: id probably allow a person to use locate object in order to find their clone. However, id also allow things like magic jar and possession to posses the body. The difference is that when they do it, theyd not vet all the benfits (specifically magic jar) provided. The body itself would be treated as basically a commoner with pc level ability scores. (At least in the case of a clone.)

Basically...id play it by ear.

[cutlery]

I'd simply treat it this way:

Creature, until it fails it's third death save, then object.

That said, some things that require creatures, like scrying, might work on the body, or fail.

[follacchioso]

Another school of thought is to consider the dead creature as a character with the Dead condition. Thus, still not an object.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Seems like a classic case of "case by case, up to the DM".