What creatures in 5e have no soul?

[HoboKnight]

This. Question arose due to use of Clone spell. So, I'd appreciate a list of creatures in dnd 5e that have no soul. Especially interested in hags.

Thanks!

[Unoriginal]

This. Question arose due to use of Clone spell. So, I'd appreciate a list of creatures in dnd 5e that have no soul. Especially interested in hags.

Thanks!

That's a bit of a complex question, but basically all sapient mortals have souls, and all Outsiders do not.

So that means Elementals, Feys, Celestial and Fiends do not have souls/are the souls.

For the rest it is a bit case-by-case. Vampires don't have souls, but Liches do, for example.

Hags do not have souls because they are Feys.

[Mastikator]

I think the list of creatures that do possess a soul might be shorter.


Mortals (humanoids, giants, monstrosities?, beasts?)
Dragons
Some aberrations
A rare selection of undead (basically liches)
Fey



Plants, undead and constructs don't have souls.

Fiends, celestials and elementals are the physical embodiment of natural/supernatural forces, ideals/beliefs/concepts or the leftover of souls.

Some creatures don't have souls, but rather are souls. Certain fiends and undead come to mind, like ghosts, or lemures.

[Zevox]

To be more specific about the Outsiders thing, they lack what's called body/soul duality. For mortals, their bodies and souls are different things, can exist separately, and the soul departs the body when it dies. For Outsiders - Celestials, Fiends, Elementals, and other beings native to planes besides the Material plane - their bodies and souls are one and the same, and cannot be separated. Destroy one, and you destroy the other - although only if you do it on their home plane, as otherwise they're merely banished back to their home plane.

Though I'm honestly not sure if that applies to all Fey, some of which, like Satyrs, I could see being mortals - Native Outsiders, in older edition terms. For Hags it likely does, though, especially Night Hags, which are fiends native to Hell rather than Fey like other Hags.

[Psyren]

Constructs and mindless undead probably don't. The rest other than humanoids are difficult to say.

Muddying the waters further is the whole mindflayer thing that BG3 introduced to canon.

[Unoriginal]

Constructs and mindless undead probably don't. The rest other than humanoids are difficult to say.

Constructs like Golems are Elemental spirits stuck in the construct, so that kind doesn't have a soul, but some do have a soul, like the autognomes.

There is not really "mindless undead" in 5e, Zombies and Skeletons are corpses animated by sapient Shadowfell spirits.

[Schwann145]

Is this information actually spelled out anywhere or is this all conjecture?

[Zhorn]

Is this information actually spelled out anywhere or is this all conjecture?
In one unified reference; not really.
This stuff is a collective build-up of lore over a few editions and countless writers all putting in differing takes over the decades.

As handy as a unified reference may be, part of my does like the disparate/esoteric nature for some aspects of lore. Ofttimes for my players I tell them they are allowed to bring in their player knowledge from outside the game into their character's knowledge where they feel it is appropriate, so long as it has some qualifier of

"some sages say ..."
"legend has it ..."
"rumours say that ..."
"I read in one of Volo's books that ..."
As a way of explaining that there are sources of information that might not be 100% congruent with the current campaign, and the DM still has final say over what is or is not cannon, but at the same time frees the players up from always having to ask "DM, what does my character know about this?"

[Blatant Beast]

Is this information actually spelled out anywhere or is this all conjecture?

All Conjecture. 5e is the edition of ‘Rulings not rules’.
We can’t get a single answer from JC regarding if the Devil’s Sight Warlock Invocation sees through Dim Light, (JC has given conflicting Social Media responses on this question)…given that example, I doubt WotC is going to come out and say “You Know Treants and that cute white Owlbear we keep using in D&D media/products…both are soulless monstrosities”.

The founding principle for 5e is the rules are vague enough, for you to play the style of game you want. The metaphysics of prior editions are fine if you want to use them, but one is certainly not bound to use them just because 2e Planescape said X on the topic decades ago.

In past editions Demihumans didn’t have souls, at least not in the fashion of human souls, and thus could not benefit from certain Return from Death effects.

Contrast this with 5E’s Revivify which works on any deceased creature that meets the spells criteria, even a Modron or Golem.

D&D has had an audience that is made primarily of Europeans and North Americans. That audience has diversified since the late 1970’s and 1980’s.

There are plenty of real world traditions that consider plants and animals to have souls…..seems a bit short sighted to rule out such an option out in any and all D&D games.

[Unoriginal]

All Conjecture. 5e is the edition of ‘Rulings not rules’.
We can’t get a single answer from JC regarding if the Devil’s Sight Warlock Invocation sees through Dim Light, (JC has given conflicting Social Media responses on this question)…given that example, I doubt WotC is going to come out and say “You Know Treants and that cute white Owlbear we keep using in D&D media/products…both are soulless monstrosities”.

The founding principle for 5e is the rules are vague enough, for you to play the style of game you want. The metaphysics of prior editions are fine if you want to use them, but one is certainly not bound to use them just because 2e Planescape said X on the topic decades ago.

In past editions Demihumans didn’t have souls, at least not in the fashion of human souls, and thus could not benefit from certain Return from Death effects.

Contrast this with 5E’s Revivify which works on any deceased creature that meets the spells criteria, even a Modron or Golem.

D&D has had an audience that is made primarily of Europeans and North Americans. That audience has diversified since the late 1970’s and 1980’s.

There are plenty of real world traditions that consider plants and animals to have souls…..seems a bit short sighted to rule out such an option out in any and all D&D games.

Crawford's words have not been considered official for years precisely because he was unreliable. He admits it's true himself.

Regarding Revivify, it's not a "bring back the soul of the deceased" deal, it's basically a defibrilator from those tv shows that don't know or care about how defibrilators work, able to bring someone back after clinical death if it's within a minute but not more.

Also, in 5e having a soul just means once you die your semf will travel through the Astral Plane until (if not interrupted by harmful agents) you reach the Domain of your main deity or the plane that is the most like you. Not having a soul doesn't make you "less than" or anything.

[Blatant Beast]

If having a soul in 5e is mechanically non-important, then why have Planescape?

Are Petitioners gone? Is Sigil now just D&D Interplanar Casablanca?
(A place where different Factions/Planes etc have an uneasy coexistence and the troubles of two lovers doesn’t amount to a hill of beans)

I am certainly a proponent of groups coming up with their own narratives and metaphysics. The Great Wheel Cosmology and Planescape in 2e sorta tied one’s hands in this regard, but both were easily ignored.

A game that has Galeb Duhr be the living soul of mountains and Treants represent the of Living Soul Collective of great forests is just as playable as a game that determines that neither creature has a soul.

I think people will treat ‘soulless’ entities differently than those with a soul, in a D&D world, just based off observations and reading history from the real world.

[Unoriginal]

If having a soul in 5e is mechanically non-important, then why have Planescape?

It's cosmologically important, does not mean it needs mechanical



Are Petitioners gone?

They very much are not.



I think people will treat ‘soulless’ entities differently than those with a soul, in a D&D world, just based off observations and reading history from the real world.

Well that is not correct, because what "soulless" means is different in the context of D&D.

Discussing what people believe "soulless" means in real life would be against the rules, but to address this point:


A game that has Galeb Duhr be the living soul of mountains and Treants represent the of Living Soul Collective of great forests is just as playable as a game that determines that neither creature has a soul.

Galeb Duhrs are spirits from the Elemental Plane of Earth, either summoned from there intentionally or naturally starting to imbuing the local stones when there is a strong planar influence.

They don't have a soul because they *are* soul-like beings. Essentially, they exist bodilessly until it is time to incarnate.

Meanwhile, Treants are explicitly awaken trees, meaning that they are sapient mortals (if long-lived ones) and as such they have a soul.

Beings who don't have a soul in D&D are beings who are spirits/souls that are incarnated in a specific shape or stuck in a state.

For example, Boggles are personifications of loneliness, created when the Feywild or a place touched by it are subjected to that feeling. Meanwhile, the Lonely Sorrowsworns are also personifications of loneliness, but created when the Shadowfell is subjected to it.

Both are persons (since it is what "personification" means, after all), but there is no divide between their souls and their bodies. That means that when they die, they don't have a soul that'll travel through the Astral to where fits them the best, they'll just stop existing as a person.

[Psyren]

Souls clearly exist and have mechanical significance in 5e or spells like Magic Jar, Clone, Raise Dead/Resurrection/TR, Reincarnate, and Astral Projection wouldn't function. But as far as which creatures can and cannot use/benefit from those spells (provided they have the spellcasting ability to do so), that's unclear.

[da newt]

Most of the inhabitants of Barovia are soul-less.

[Mastikator]

If having a soul in 5e is mechanically non-important [snip]

Mechanically when your character dies, you don't continue the adventure as a petitioner in the astral plane, you make a new one. However, mechanically, the type of afterlife the soul goes into matters in matters of resurrection. If your PCs soul takes a plunge into the river styx then resurrection will cost a casting of wish rather than just raise dead.

If it's a soulless humanoid (like probably maybe perhaps warforged) then there's no soul to imprison/corrupt/wipe clean. There are so few cases where anything will interact with a PCs soul, and they happen so rarely, that mechanically having a soul really is non-important.

[Nagog]

Muddying the waters further is the whole mindflayer thing that BG3 introduced to canon.

Yeah that whole bit felt more like a "Plot point" than it did "Worldbuilding Element" to me. The story would have been essentially the same without that, with the exception of Withers and a few books here and there that mentioned Bane's plan to starve other gods/soul-consuming entities. Either way, it's canon now.


That's a bit of a complex question, but basically all sapient mortals have souls, and all Outsiders do not.


I'm not so sure on this one. In fact, I'm fairly certain that is not the case.

Mostly because of Vlaakith, the lich queen of the Githyanki: As a lich, she definitely has a Soul. But as a Githyanki (and therefore Outsider native to the Astral Plane), she would not (by this rule). Not to mention the fact that she sustains herself with the souls of Githyanki warriors who are "Ascended", meaning they innately have souls too.

[Unoriginal]

Githyanki are not Outsiders, they are all Humanoids, nor are they native to the Astral Plane.

It's impossible for humanoids to be native in the Astral Plane, as you don't physically age there. Which is why the Githyanki usually go a world of the Material Plane to give birth (well, make the egg and lay it, since they're ovipare) and to let the kid grow up.

[Psyren]

Githyanki definitely have souls, or nothing regarding Vlaakith would make any sense.

[Unoriginal]

Githyanki are sapient, mortal beings who just happens to have built their main city on a dead god floating in the Astral, there is nothing that would indicate they don't have souls.

[Psyren]

Githyanki are sapient, mortal beings who just happens to have built their main city on a dead god floating in the Astral, there is nothing that would indicate they don't have souls.

Agreed, I was replying more to Nagog than to you.

[JackPhoenix]

I think good rule of thumb would be "If it doesn't reproduce naturally, it probably doesn't have a soul". There are some exceptions, mostly stuff transformed from en-souled creatures (note: liches don't have a soul, that's the entire point. They keep it around, but it's not really a part of them anymore).

[Sigreid]

That would be the DM and the "It's what my character would do guy". 😉

[Unoriginal]

(note: liches don't have a soul, that's the entire point. They keep it around, but it's not really a part of them anymore).

Well, it's still their soul, and they still have it. But fair, it's not in their body.

[Muad'dib]

I think the list of creatures that do possess a soul might be shorter.


Mortals (humanoids, giants, monstrosities?, beasts?)
Dragons
Some aberrations
A rare selection of undead (basically liches)
Fey



Plants, undead and constructs don't have souls.

Fiends, celestials and elementals are the physical embodiment of natural/supernatural forces, ideals/beliefs/concepts or the leftover of souls.

Some creatures don't have souls, but rather are souls. Certain fiends and undead come to mind, like ghosts, or lemures.

I'm still upset that they classified warforged as humanoids instead of constructs in this edition. Constructs with souls should still be a thing. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER WOTC.

[Blatant Beast]

Either way, it's canon now.

The entire notion of D&D canon is what I find a bit constrained.
D&D has always encouraged homebrewing.

As I said before, if the Great Wheel is your jam, if ‘traditional’ D&D representations are what you prefer, cool.

It certainly isn’t the only way to play, and in my opinion after decades of the same old, same old…it might be nice to emphasize a different paradigm, but to each their own.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm still upset that they classified warforged as humanoids instead of constructs in this edition. Constructs with souls should still be a thing. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER WOTC.

Warforged had the misfortune of being released before WotC started breaking their own unwritten rule that all PC races must be humanoid.

[Damon_Tor]

Mechanically when your character dies, you don't continue the adventure as a petitioner in the astral plane, you make a new one. However, mechanically, the type of afterlife the soul goes into matters in matters of resurrection. If your PCs soul takes a plunge into the river styx then resurrection will cost a casting of wish rather than just raise dead.

If it's a soulless humanoid (like probably maybe perhaps warforged) then there's no soul to imprison/corrupt/wipe clean. There are so few cases where anything will interact with a PCs soul, and they happen so rarely, that mechanically having a soul really is non-important.

Warforged do have souls. It's a plot point.

[Schwann145]

Githyanki are not Outsiders, they are all Humanoids, nor are they native to the Astral Plane.

"Outsider" just means "not native to the prime material plane," yes? So if your race calls it's home on another plane, then you would, by definition, be an Outsider, it seems.
As far as lore goes, the only lore I can find on Githyanki that speaks about what their native plane is says that it's the Astral Plane.
If you successfully cast Banishment on a Gith, they go to the Astral Plane.

[Anonymouswizard]

Muddying the waters further is the whole mindflayer thing that BG3 introduced to canon.

Simplifying the question of illiteracy d souls by taking the boring option of D) none of the above.

I'm still going for 'they only have the tadpole's soul'. The original's could be destroyed, or it could just be so mind wiped it basically becomes useless. The souls are useless to god's because 1) they don't worship any deity to the point they'd go to their domains and 2) I prefer the future transhumans backstory, so their souls are weird by modern standards.


Well, it's still their soul, and they still have it. But fair, it's not in their body.

I thought it was most of the time, and only went to their artefact when their body got destroyed? Liches IIRC don't have how this soul trapping worked properly spelt out, including the 'manifesting a new body' big, so it's kind of hard to discuss the actual mechanics of the liche soul.

I'm also somewhat suspicious at vampires not having souls, I'd assume they'd still have them but they're damaged and torn and don't really 'feel' like real souls anymore. But that might be just me liking the White Wolf Vampire games where vampires either have a soul, or at least something that acts as one. It's just a bit less quiet than a mortal's...

[Psyren]

"Outsider" just means "not native to the prime material plane," yes? So if your race calls it's home on another plane, then you would, by definition, be an Outsider, it seems.

No, that's not what Outsider means - that's what Extraplanar means*. Outsiders were extraplanar creatures that are composed of the substance of another (usually Outer) plane. A celestial boar isn't an Outsider, even if it's from Celestia; it's not an Archon or an Angel. Similarly, Fey are from the Feywild, but they're not made of planestuff.

*Having said all that, the Outsider creature type appears to no longer exist in 5e anyway.


As far as lore goes, the only lore I can find on Githyanki that speaks about what their native plane is says that it's the Astral Plane.
If you successfully cast Banishment on a Gith, they go to the Astral Plane.

They live in the Astral but they're still Humanoids; just like Githzerai are humanoids that live in Limbo.


Simplifying the question of illiteracy d souls by taking the boring option of D) none of the above.

I'm still going for 'they only have the tadpole's soul'. The original's could be destroyed, or it could just be so mind wiped it basically becomes useless. The souls are useless to god's because 1) they don't worship any deity to the point they'd go to their domains and 2) I prefer the future transhumans backstory, so their souls are weird by modern standards.

This is exactly the interpretation I took away from it, and that Greenwood cosigned? I'm not seeing the issue.

[Schwann145]

They live in the Astral but they're still Humanoids; just like Githzerai are humanoids that live in Limbo.
And yet, the only lore that touches on it (that I can find anyhow) says that their "homeland" is the Astral Plane. So, mechanically, a Banishment returns them to the Astral Plane instead of a pocket plane on the prime material.
Just like Banishing a Githzerai or Slaad would return them to Limbo.

[Psyren]

And yet, the only lore that touches on it (that I can find anyhow) says that their "homeland" is the Astral Plane. So, mechanically, a Banishment returns them to the Astral Plane instead of a pocket plane on the prime material.
Just like Banishing a Githzerai or Slaad would return them to Limbo.

Yes, because they're Extraplanar Humanoids - as I explained in the part you didn't quote.

[Schwann145]

No, that's not what Outsider means - that's what Extraplanar means*. Outsiders were extraplanar creatures that are composed of the substance of another (usually Outer) plane. A celestial boar isn't an Outsider, even if it's from Celestia; it's not an Archon or an Angel. Similarly, Fey are from the Feywild, but they're not made of planestuff.
I didn't quote this before because I didn't want to argue the point, but... citation needed.


Yes, because they're Extraplanar Humanoids - as I explained in the part you didn't quote.

Even granting this, that doesn't address the underlying issue that was raised: the claim that outsiders have no souls. With "outsider" no longer being a creature type (not that it ever was one?... a Demon was always both a Fiend and an Outsider prior to 5e; now it's just an Fiend? I'm not sure any of this was well-defined, tbh), then the statement is simply no longer worth consideration.

[Psyren]

I didn't quote this before because I didn't want to argue the point, but... citation needed.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#extraplanarSubtype

To reiterate, neither term made it to 5e anyway - but back when they existed they were not synonyms. You could be Extraplanar without being an Outsider, and even the reverse depending on the plane you were on.



Even granting this, that doesn't address the underlying issue that was raised: the claim that outsiders have no souls. With "outsider" no longer being a creature type (not that it ever was one?... a Demon was always both a Fiend and an Outsider prior to 5e; now it's just an Fiend? I'm not sure any of this was well-defined, tbh), then the statement is simply no longer worth consideration.

I'm not the one who brought up Outsiders and their souls. All I was saying is that Gith aren't Outsiders (and never were.)

[Schwann145]

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#extraplanarSubtype

To reiterate, neither term made it to 5e anyway - but back when they existed they were not synonyms. You could be Extraplanar without being an Outsider, and even the reverse depending on the plane you were on.
So... out-dated/irrelevant lore. Stuff you can use in 5e if you want but stuff that isn't presumed anywhere in 5e.
(Edit to add: Also, even back then there were exceptions. A level 20 Monk, for example, was an Outsider, despite being native to the Prime Material Plane.)


I'm not the one who brought up Outsiders and their souls. All I was saying is that Gith aren't Outsiders (and never were.)
No, you're not the one who brought that up. But it was relevant in reestablishing the purpose of the line of thought.

[Zevox]

To touch on the Gith: they differ from most other creatures of the planes in that they are not native to the plane they live on. They set up a home in the Astral after escaping Illithid slavery, so you could consider that their home plane now, that's true; but they were originally a humanoid race from the Prime Material Plane before the Illithids enslaved them. And just living on another plane, no matter how long they do it, will not change them into Outsiders.

[Psyren]

So... out-dated/irrelevant lore.

You're the one using an out-dated/irrelevant term.


No, you're not the one who brought that up. But it was relevant in reestablishing the purpose of the line of thought.

Glad to have cleared it up.

[Schwann145]

Unfortunately, 5e cosmology still has problematic quirks.
•Limbo is part of the wheel (right between Ysgard and Pandemonium), but it's the native plane for Slaad, which are Aberrations, and Aberrations come from the Far Realms outside of the wheel (which is what makes them Aberrations).
•Modrons are now Constructs, even though they were Outsiders before; they only appeared as Constructs but were still living, non-constructed beings like Celestials, Slaadi, or Fiends. Some had a mix of biological and mechanical aspects, but none were full-on Constructs.
•There seems to be no name for any creatures native to the Positive or Negative Planes, nor for creatures native to the Shadowfell.

[Envyus]

Constructs and mindless undead probably don't. The rest other than humanoids are difficult to say.

Muddying the waters further is the whole mindflayer thing that BG3 introduced to canon.
That was not introduced by BG III. It was stated decades ago that Mind Flayers don’t have souls.

[Unoriginal]

"Outsider" just means "not native to the prime material plane," yes?

Nope.

"Outsider" means "creature made out of a Plane or infused with a Plane so much there is no real difference".

Most Githzerai are born, live and die in Limbo, but they're not Outsiders, they are mortal Humanoids who just happens to live in Limbo. Slaad are Outsiders, because they are made out of Limbo's chaotic neutrality and neutral chaoticness.

Githyanki aren't even born in the Astral, nor do they grow to adulthood there.


Unfortunately, 5e cosmology still has problematic quirks.
•Limbo is part of the wheel (right between Ysgard and Pandemonium), but it's the native plane for Slaad, which are Aberrations, and Aberrations come from the Far Realms outside of the wheel (which is what makes them Aberrations).
•Modrons are now Constructs, even though they were Outsiders before; they only appeared as Constructs but were still living, non-constructed beings like Celestials, Slaadi, or Fiends. Some had a mix of biological and mechanical aspects, but none were full-on Constructs.
•There seems to be no name for any creatures native to the Positive or Negative Planes, nor for creatures native to the Shadowfell.

None of those are problematic (and only some are quirks):

- Not all Aberrations come from the Far Realms, and "coming from the Far Realms" isn't what makes them Aberrations. For example, Aboleths are Aberrations because they come from waaaay back in the past, before the gods started their little "mortals in the Material Plane" business, when the rules of reality were different, and Mind Flayers are Aberrations because they come from the future.

- There is nothing stopping Constructs from having a mix of biological and mechanical aspects. What matters is that all Modrons are made out of Mechanus's essence.

- In 5e, there are not enough contact with the Positive or Negative Planes to call any beings living there anything. There are several types of creatures native to the Shadowfell, notably the Sorrowsworns.

[JackPhoenix]

To touch on the Gith: they differ from most other creatures of the planes in that they are not native to the plane they live on. They set up a home in the Astral after escaping Illithid slavery, so you could consider that their home plane now, that's true; but they were originally a humanoid race from the Prime Material Plane before the Illithids enslaved them. And just living on another plane, no matter how long they do it, will not change them into Outsiders.

Considering they have to go elsewhere to reproduce, I wouldn't even go so far as to call Astral their home plane... it's where they live, but they are still hatched and grown on Material.


Unfortunately, 5e cosmology still has problematic quirks.
•Limbo is part of the wheel (right between Ysgard and Pandemonium), but it's the native plane for Slaad, which are Aberrations, and Aberrations come from the Far Realms outside of the wheel (which is what makes them Aberrations).
•Modrons are now Constructs, even though they were Outsiders before; they only appeared as Constructs but were still living, non-constructed beings like Celestials, Slaadi, or Fiends. Some had a mix of biological and mechanical aspects, but none were full-on Constructs.
•There seems to be no name for any creatures native to the Positive or Negative Planes, nor for creatures native to the Shadowfell.

That's the result of outsider type no longer being a thing. Neither celestial or a fiend would fit Slaad or Modron, and there's no reason to have a creature type pretty much exclusively for them, when fey, aberration and construct suffice. NEP only has Nightwalkers mentioned as inhabitants, as far as I can tell, and there's only about a sentence on PEP in all of 5e.

[HoboKnight]

So if I get this right... pretty much all soul-related spells are useless for hags? No Ressurection, Clone, etc...?

[JNAProductions]

So if I get this right... pretty much all soul-related spells are useless for hags? No Ressurection, Clone, etc...?

Are you the DM?

If yes, then decide what works better for the game. There's not a ton of hag lore in default 5E, certainly not enough to definitely state they do or do not have souls.
If no, then ask your DM what your character would know.

I would personally say, as a DM, that hags DO have souls. But other DMs can rule differently without breaking any rules.

[Anonymouswizard]

So if I get this right... pretty much all soul-related spells are useless for hags? No Ressurection, Clone, etc...?

So hags can resurrect themselves in 5e lore, but IIRC they use methods other than PC magic. Similarly outsiders (celestials/fiends/elementals/other 'made from planes' beings, not Goth or planar humans) might have methods to ensure their soul/essence reforms with their memories intact after death, but they don't have the separate soul needed for the Raise Dead line. All subject to house ruling of course,in fact I suspect the entire 'no soul' deal might technically be a house rule in 5e, I don't have the spell descriptions to hand.

[Psyren]

That was not introduced by BG III. It was stated decades ago that Mind Flayers don’t have souls.

Do you have a specific quote? Both LoM and the Illithiad are inconclusive for me. Yes, the original creature's soul getting eradicated or subsumed is there, but I haven't found anything definitive about the final creature.

[Unoriginal]

So if I get this right... pretty much all soul-related spells are useless for hags? No Ressurection, Clone, etc...?



I would personally say, as a DM, that hags DO have souls. But other DMs can rule differently without breaking any rules.

All I can say is that I've re-read the Volo's and the Wilds Beyond the Witchlight module, and at no moment the possibility of an hag being brought back from the dead is discussed.

And by this I mean, both books discuss how Hags will avoid death at length, but there is no mention of them using spells to come back once they're dead, or to have another hag bring them back.

Especially notable because WBtW mentions that if all the members of the Hourglass Coven are dead, they're no longer a threat even in the future, while if there are survivors there is nothing said about bringing the rest back from the dead, even when the book states that should their plans be foiled the Coven members know they need each other to survive the consequences.

Furthermore, one of the Hags forsaw her death, and is just working to prevent the circumstances of her vision from happening rather than having a plan to come back. And another of the Hags has at least one secret she set up things to have it revealed if she dies.

All in all it seems pretty conclusive evidence that the default D&D lore is that a dead Hag stays dead.

[JNAProductions]

Fair enough.

I would still say to give them souls and make them ressurectable if that's better for your game, but the default appears to be a big ol' no.

[Envyus]

Do you have a specific quote? Both LoM and the Illithiad are inconclusive for me. Yes, the original creature's soul getting eradicated or subsumed is there, but I haven't found anything definitive about the final creature.

I was wrong about decades misremembered the source quote which is from Volo’s which much BG III mind flayer lore comes from.

“Illithids don’t believe they possess souls whose eternal fate is governed by the gods. Instead, when a mind flayer’s brain is returned to the elder brain to be consumed, the creature’s intelligence lives on. Only if an illithid’s brain isn’t retrieved after death would its consciousness be cast into oblivion.“

[Psyren]

I was wrong about decades misremembered the source quote which is from Volo’s which much BG III mind flayer lore comes from.

“Illithids don’t believe they possess souls whose eternal fate is governed by the gods. Instead, when a mind flayer’s brain is returned to the elder brain to be consumed, the creature’s intelligence lives on. Only if an illithid’s brain isn’t retrieved after death would its consciousness be cast into oblivion.“

Thanks - but that quote is loaded with qualifiers ("don't believe", "souls whose") so I'm comfortable in continuing to believe BG3 added to the canon in this respect.

[Schwann145]

...

And by this I mean, both books discuss how Hags will avoid death at length, but there is no mention of them using spells to come back once they're dead, or to have another hag bring them back.

...

All in all it seems pretty conclusive evidence that the default D&D lore is that a dead Hag stays dead.

Which creature type doesn't avoid death at length, soul or no soul? :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

Which creature type doesn't avoid death at length, soul or no soul? :smalltongue:

That it's noted they avoid death isn't an indicator they don't have a soul.

That it's noted they avoid death and that there is no mention of them going as far as coming back from it, when the context would make sense to say it if they came back, is the indicator.

[JackPhoenix]

All in all it seems pretty conclusive evidence that the default D&D lore is that a dead Hag stays dead.

Most creatures stay dead by default. Resurrection magic isn't exactly widely available, and hags have no easier access to it than anyone else. Their weird magic tricks are mentioned as being impossible or very hard to replace when used, so even if an individual (i.e. not every hag ever) hag has an ability to resurrect someone, she'll try to avoid using that ability, she probably can't use it on herself anyway, and hags don't like each other very much, and likely have no desire to owe a massive debt to the hag that brought them back.

If we're for some reason taking BG3 as canon for the rest of D&D, as Psyren does, there's a hag that does mention she was brought back from the dead before, and will be again after you kill her.

[Psyren]

If we're for some reason taking BG3 as canon for the rest of D&D, as Psyren does,

I'm only talking about Illithids in the Forgotten Realms, not "the rest of D&D."

[tokek]

This. Question arose due to use of Clone spell. So, I'd appreciate a list of creatures in dnd 5e that have no soul. Especially interested in hags.

Thanks!

From Curse of Strahd we know that humans don’t always have souls.

So I would say the only statement we can firmly make is that player characters have souls by default and everything else is a bit uncertain and open to DM decisions that fit with their worldbuilding and storytelling needs.

[JackPhoenix]

From Curse of Strahd we know that humans don’t always have souls.

So I would say the only statement we can firmly make is that player characters have souls by default and everything else is a bit uncertain and open to DM decisions that fit with their worldbuilding and storytelling needs.

I think that's less "humans don't always have souls" and more "most of Ravenloft's population isn't real". Despite appearances, they aren't real people, but essentially realistic illusions or simulacra created by Dark Powers as a background characters in the great stage play that is the Domains of Dread (they get reabsorbed into the Mists if they try to enter them, for example). The entire setting is like that, at least in 5e, in the original (expanded) Ravenloft material, Barovia was much larger... isolated as it is, Barovia as presented shouldn't be able to support its population and the level of developemnt, and yet it does... I suspect Dark Powers have a continual direct hand in maintaining things as they are, and making sure nobody questions it.

[Unoriginal]

I think that's less "humans don't always have souls" and more "most of Ravenloft's population isn't real". Despite appearances, they aren't real people, but essentially realistic illusions or simulacra created by Dark Powers as a background characters in the great stage play that is the Domains of Dread (they get reabsorbed into the Mists if they try to enter them, for example). The entire setting is like that, at least in 5e, in the original (expanded) Ravenloft material, Barovia was much larger... isolated as it is, Barovia as presented shouldn't be able to support its population and the level of developemnt, and yet it does... I suspect Dark Powers have a continual direct hand in maintaining things as they are, and making sure nobody questions it.

That is my reading as well.

A Domain of Dread is basically like a holodeck set on "torture this one person and also anyone else who shows up"



Most creatures stay dead by default. Resurrection magic isn't exactly widely available, and hags have no easier access to it than anyone else. Their weird magic tricks are mentioned as being impossible or very hard to replace when used, so even if an individual (i.e. not every hag ever) hag has an ability to resurrect someone, she'll try to avoid using that ability, she probably can't use it on herself anyway, and hags don't like each other very much, and likely have no desire to owe a massive debt to the hag that brought them back.

I meant more that hags are known to have people owing them big time, which would likely include beings capable of bringing them back to life as repayment.



If we're for some reason taking BG3 as canon for the rest of D&D, as Psyren does, there's a hag that does mention she was brought back from the dead before, and will be again after you kill her.

More than fair, I wasn't aware of that part of the game.

[JackPhoenix]

I meant more that hags are known to have people owing them big time, which would likely include beings capable of bringing them back to life as repayment.

Well, if the hag is dead, they (probably) don't have to worry about repaying the debt, do they? It's more of a consideration for those the hag owes favors to and who would like to have THEIR debts repaid.
Still: Revivify is not really an option, with the 1-minute time limit. Reincarnate only works on humanoids. Raise Dead puts a 10-day limit on learning about the hag's death, finding and potentially convincing someone to cast it on her behalf and getting to the hag's (still intact at this point) corpse. Resurrection doesn't need intact corpse and the 100-years limit is more than generous, but it's level 7 spell. The list of people both able and willing to cast it on the hag's behalf is likely very short.

By the way, death coven from VGtM does have Raise Dead as a coven spell, but it's kind of a Catch 22 situation: Coven only has 3 hags, no more and no less, so if you kill one, the other two can't raise her, and if they find a replacement, they have little reason to.

[Unoriginal]

Well, if the hag is dead, they (probably) don't have to worry about repaying the debt, do they? It's more of a consideration for those the hag owes favors to and who would like to have THEIR debts repaid.
Still: Revivify is not really an option, with the 1-minute time limit. Reincarnate only works on humanoids. Raise Dead puts a 10-day limit on learning about the hag's death, finding and potentially convincing someone to cast it on her behalf and getting to the hag's (still intact at this point) corpse. Resurrection doesn't need intact corpse and the 100-years limit is more than generous, but it's level 7 spell. The list of people both able and willing to cast it on the hag's behalf is likely very short.

True, just saying that while the list is very short, the Venn Diagrams of "people who owe a Hag" and "people capable of casting 7th lvl spells or make others cast 7th lvl spells" can be made to intersect, especially if the Hag deliberately seek that.

As for not worrying about repaying the debt if the Hag is dead... well, I think "I do X thing, and in repayment the only thing you have to do is resurrect me if I die during your lifetime. If I don't die during your lifetime, you get X for free, but if I do die and you don't bring me back you'll be cursed as hell" sounds like the kind of deal a Hag would make.

Of course if someone agreed to such a deal, the Hag would probably not worry about being dead that much and get more reckless than typical for Hags, with the person who agreed to having to resurrect her every time it results in her death (since the deal is "resurrect me if I die during your lifetime", not "resurrect me one time if I die during your lifetime").

That could make a fun antagonist for a campaign.



By the way, death coven from VGtM does has Raise Dead as a coven spell, but it's kind of a Catch 22 situation: Coven only has 3 hags, no more and no less, so if you kill one, the other two can't raise her, and if they find a replacement, they have little reason to.

That does create an interesting situation where an Hag Grandmother or Auntie could have three weaker Hags form a death coven specifically for the purpose of bringing them back, with the coven knowing they lose a lot of power and prestige if the elder hag dies for good.

[Zevox]

If we're for some reason taking BG3 as canon for the rest of D&D, as Psyren does, there's a hag that does mention she was brought back from the dead before, and will be again after you kill her.
Yes, but that's explained in-game, and is an odd one.
She's somehow bound to some magic mushrooms in a hideaway beneath Baldur's Gate; until they're all destroyed, she regenerates there shortly after being killed. It's vaguely reminiscent of a Lich's phylactery, or an Outsider regenerating on their home plane after being killed elsewhere, but the exact way it works isn't gone into detail over.
So, doesn't really conclusively clear up the "do they have a soul that Resurrection could work on?" question.

[Luccan]

Well, if we're gonna take older editions canon into account, Hags used to be classified as Giants and I'd be hard pressed to not consider Giants as valid options for most spells that involve souls. Also, I kind of like hags operating by their own rules. Even if Fey in general can't be Cloned, maybe a hag figured out how to do it

[Unoriginal]

Well, if we're gonna take older editions canon into account, Hags used to be classified as Giants and I'd be hard pressed to not consider Giants as valid options for most spells that involve souls.

Giants do have souls in 5e, but which character type Hags used to be shouldn't be taken into account, IMO.