Respectfully, you have yet to show that the dead aren't conscious or moving around per RAW. The onus is on you in this case.
It is? Do I have to prove that you can walk straight up into the sky too, since N0man brought that up?
You can't pick and choose - if you claim that *logically* the dead can't be doing that (i.e. common usage), then I can just as easily claim that there is something called "mass" that makes a halfling barbarian overpowering a gargantuan primordial and forcibly moving the primordial around at least as unlikely as a dead person getting up and dancing after being healed.
Unfortunately I _can_ pick and choose. In the case of someone being dead I can say 'The system says you've died, and you can either roll up a new character or get raised from the dead.' whereas for the other I can say 'the system says he's pushed 1 square and his stat block doesn't say it doesn't work, so there's no exception to the rule'
In either case we are injecting our opinions into RAW rather than reading what is actually written.
No... we're not. In one case, there is a rule "You're dead" that is, perhaps, poorly defined, though it does list that you can either make a new character, get raised, or use some other power to come back from death, so at least there's guidance... and in the other case there's a rule that you're pushed, and a great number of powers and creatures that would stop that push, that you're choosing to break the rule as written on... and breaking that rule is allowable for a DM, but it should be done in advance, such as by altering the monster stat block or power appropriately, or making a generic campaign house rule. At the time you make the campaign house rule, you can also figure out if it applies to things like sun strike and diabolic grasp, and if the size of the caster matters too, since I'd be curious.
Care to provide your interpretation rather than empty snark?
I'm not intending it to be snark. I honestly wish that WotC would do an honest to goodness article about it. Exception-based design means you have a rule, then you have 'class, race, feat, power, and monster in the D&D game lets you break the rules in some way.' (PHB p1). For example, if you don't want a Primordial to be pushed around you give him Immune forced movement or a version of the dwarf Stand Your Ground. If you don't want Pressing Strike to have an unfettered push, you decide to add the line from Tide of Iron to it. If you generically want size to matter for all forced movement, you make a house rule that forced movement is reduced by 1 per size category difference, perhaps with a restriction that has it only apply to weapon attacks. There all kinds of ways to get the result you want by making an exception to the rule.
Deciding based on whim, at the table, however you want, is DM fiat... and DM fiat has its place in the game, but has little to do with interpreting the rules. For example, last night there was a trap in the module that teleported someone in a square that was activated by a lever - and the players pushed an enemy into it thinking it would activate, but by its own rules it wouldn't... so a second of DM fiat later, I let it work, because it was more fun. Similarly, when the very last monster in a fight was perched on a ledge and got critical-ed by the paladin's throwing shield and knocked off that ledge, I ruled he fell and broke his neck even though I don't think it was even bloodied by the attack... DM fiat making the game more fun is all well and good.
But again, I'm not going to argue that the _rule_ is that throwing shield criticals break necks, or that criticals on the last creature in a fight one-shot it or any number of other things. I might say 'Well, the game can get slow by RAW in the cleanup phase of a fight, so I'd suggest letting criticals kill things or starting to treat certain enemies like minions, or really doing anything that helps keep an exciting pace for _your_ game'
I'm done with this conversation. But I would just like to inform you that if someone said this to my face I would probably hit them. I find it extremely offensive.
If true, and I suspect you're exagerrating, you place far too great importance over game discussion (it's never worth hitting someone over it, ever). That aside, perhaps it means something else where you're from but it's a standard colloquialism or turn of phrase, such as 'Cause boy, is it wet out'. A quick glance at google gives pages of results in use such as
any of the following links - you may need to search for "cause boy" to find the reference though. It was not an insult.
So, anyhow - if you want being dead to mean that people can still walk around, talk, do whatever, go ahead and do that for your game. The game is fairly silent on the _precise_ effects of being dead - though I suspect that if a DM allowed enemies who were slain to continue to act unhindered it would have some... profound... effects on the game
It would certainly make creatures with auras that healed a bit more scary.
Similarly, if you want bloodied to mean that it goes from Half hp to 1 hp, go ahead. No police are going to show up at your door to argue about it. Well, I hope. Maybe there are some police _really_ into D&D.
Fwiw, I myself might adopt that practice if I don't think it affects any PC abilities. The trick is I have the nagging suspicion it does... I also wonder if it creates an odd case where a creature has the ability to not fall unconscious while dying, so is still going around acting but doesn't count as bloodied for all those abilities that care.
