antilife shell vs bacteria

[ross]

Would casting antilife shell shunt all of the bacteria (good and bad) out of your body? Or would the spell become forced against them as soon as it is cast, ending it immediately? Unlike other area spells, this one has no restriction against casting it an a location where other creatures already exist.

[Silly Name]

Since casting the spell doesn't kill you, we can assume it doesn't kill every bacteria in your body. In any case, the barrier doesn't kill stuff inside of it, it simple keeps living things out, and the description even states clearly it cannot be used aggressively, otherwise the shell collapses immediately.

[ross]

Yes, it doesn't kill anything, and it can't force living things to move, and forcing it against living things collapses it; therefore, since it is necessarily forced against bacteria upon casting, it must immediately collapse.

[Maat Mons]

The spell only hedges out living creatures. In D&D terminology, not every living thing is a creature. Notably, most plants aren't.

Also, you seem to be assuming that the spell starts as a point, and then expands into the 10-foot sphere. I see no reason it couldn't instantly appear at its full size, meaning it wouldn't move at all, and thus wouldn't push against anything.

[Metastachydium]

not every (…) thing is a creature. Notably, most plants aren't.


(Which annoys me to no end. I mean, a shield guardian (a mindless, soulless heap of wood and metal) is explicitly a cretaure while, say, trees are objects? Come on!)

[Tzardok]

(Which annoys me to no end. I mean, a shield guardian (a mindless, soulless heap of wood and metal) is explicitly a cretaure while, say, trees are objects? Come on!)

Well, of course. Object and creature are game terms, used for discerning how rules interact with things. A creature is animate and (most often) mobile, an object not. Would you want your spell for keeping attackers away to break because you forced it against a blade of grass? Of course not.

[Metastachydium]

Well, of course. Object and creature are game terms, used for discerning how rules interact with things. A creature is animate and (most often) mobile, an object not.

Animate is essentially a fancy word for 'living'. Trees are animate, while shield guardians (or, in a strict sense, undead) are not.


Would you want your spell for keeping attackers away to break because you forced it against a blade of grass? Of course not.

Arthropods are treated as creatures rather than objects and somehow no one seems to argue that they should be considered objects to prevent antilife shells from collapsing when they hit, say, a fly.

[Tzardok]

Animate is essentially a fancy word for 'living'. Trees are animate, while shield guardians (or, in a strict sense, undead) are not.
.

Animate, the way it is used in D&D and I see it used most often in fiction, means "able to move on its own volition". A zombie is animate, a corpse is inanimate. A robot is animate, a computer is inanimate. Neither is living.

[Metastachydium]

Animate, the way it is used in D&D and I see it used most often in fiction, means "able to move on its own volition". A zombie is animate, a corpse is inanimate. A robot is animate, a computer is inanimate. Neither is living.

Most dictionaries that I know of beg to disagree (also, you differentiated between animate and mobile yourself) and this reading of the term has no etymological basis to speak of either.
(Not to mention that zombies and robots arguably don't move on their own volition.)

[Tzardok]

Most dictionaries that I know of beg to disagree (also, you differentiated between animate and mobile yourself) and this reading of the term has no etymological basis to speak of either.
(Not to mention that zombies and robots arguably don't move on their own volition.)

Most dictionaries also don't mention outsider in the meaning of "creature from another plane that is made of that plane's essence", do they? Terms can be redefined. And D&D uses "animate" the way I said. The spell to create zombies is called Animate Dead. The spell to create animate objects is called Animate Object. Neither zombies nor animate objects are alive, so animate and alive aren't the same. QED.

And of course I differentiated between animate and mobile. Something that is animate can move and act on its own. Something that is mobile can move around. There are creatures that are animate, but not mobile; Formian Queens for example.

[Darg]

Life is also a contentious term. We don't know how to define it in a way that encompasses all life and leave out everything we perceive as not being a living thing. Are viruses alive just because they fulfill enough conditions of common understanding of life? What about our planet?

Also, what makes something alive? Pinocchio is considered to have come to life once it becomes an animated puppet yet not a "real boy."

[Silly Name]

Also, what makes something alive? Pinocchio is considered to have come to life once it becomes an animated puppet yet not a "real boy."

Pinocchio, once awakened by the Blue Fairy, is clearly a Living Construct, and would be kept out by the Antilife Shell. A golem, however, being a simple construct, could get in.

[Metastachydium]

Most dictionaries also don't mention outsider in the meaning of "creature from another plane that is made of that plane's essence", do they? Terms can be redefined. And D&D uses "animate" the way I said. The spell to create zombies is called Animate Dead. The spell to create animate objects is called Animate Object. Neither zombies nor animate objects are alive, so animate and alive aren't the same. QED.

Hardly. That's the verb animate which does have a dictionary meaning of 'to make or design in such a way as to create apparently spontaneous lifelike movement'. Animate Object creates animated objects (rather than animate objects), so neither of your examples actually demonstrates anything. In fact, I can't seem to find animate (the adjective) defined anywhere with the meaning you assign to it.


And of course I differentiated between animate and mobile. Something that is animate can move and act on its own. Something that is mobile can move around. There are creatures that are animate, but not mobile; Formian Queens for example.

That strikes me as a largely meaningless distinction which is also irrelevant to the discussion. While most plants are not motile, they can move and act on their own, even if their movements are more subdued than those of most animals.
Also, shrieker fungus is actually neither and yet it is defined as a creature.

[mattie_p]

Creatures in 3.5 are defined by having a WIS and CHA score of at least 1. In the SRD under nonabilities:


Wisdom
Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

Charisma
Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.

[Metastachydium]

Creatures in 3.5 are defined by having a WIS and CHA score of at least 1. In the SRD under nonabilities:

Almost forgot the term has an actual definition! Thanks!
Unfortunately, this makes WotC's decision that normal plants (and no other living entity) are objects no less arbitrary. Normal plants are capable of perceiving their environment and should have no more difficulty distinguishing themselves from it than a shrieker fungus, a mindless construct or a mindless undead creature.

[SangoProduction]

Almost forgot the term has an actual definition! Thanks!
Unfortunately, this makes WotC's decision that normal plants (and no other living entity) are objects no less arbitrary. Normal plants are capable of perceiving their environment and should have no more difficulty distinguishing themselves from it than a shrieker fungus, a mindless construct or a mindless undead creature.

While I believe the thread has ended, this does seem like quite a derail, and should be its own thread.

[Jay R]

Just to add a little amusement, I will point out that bacteria in our world are killed by antibiotics, a name which literally means "anti-life".

[Of course, etymology is not definition, or "digital computing" would mean counting on your fingers.]