animate objects and dead creatures

[mvincent]

Nope - they are, in fact, piggles, and are ridiculously cute, especially when they purr.

That's all we need - lolpiggles:
"Oh hai"
"I haz a purr"
"Im in ur compound werd, antitheticalizin ur lexeme"
"I can has animatd cheezburger?!"

 

[Hypersmurf]

If it's dead, it doesn't qualify (at least, that's the argument I'm hearing from the people who believe a corpse is an object); ergo, there's no such thing as a dead creature.

There is such a thing as a dead creature; it is not a dead [creature], it is a [dead creature], and no longer a member of the set of creatures. As such, it is an object.

Here's the crux of my dilemma. Either a creature stays a creature after it has died (in which case it's an invalid target for spells like grease or shatter), or a creature becomes an object after it has died (in which case it's an invalid target for raise dead and its derivative spells).

It becomes a [dead creature], and therefore an object; it is, as an object, a valid target for Grease and Shatter; it is, as a dead creature, a valid target for Raise Dead. It is not a valid target for, say, Mage Armor, as it is no longer a creature.

-Hyp.

 

[Voadam]

I'd be inclined to agree with you if 'dead creature' had a specific game definition like both 'monstrous humanoid' or 'natural armor bonus' do. Since it doesn't, we have to assume they're referring to a creature that is dead. Unfortunately, that's a contradiction in terms. According to the definition, something must be "living or otherwise active" to be considered a creature. If it's dead, it doesn't qualify (at least, that's the argument I'm hearing from the people who believe a corpse is an object); ergo, there's no such thing as a dead creature. It's like a sharp marble or a bright shadow.

Not quite. The ergo would be that a "dead creature" for purposes of rules are not creatures but objects.

It would be like a sharpened blunt object. Sharpening the blunt object turns it into a non-blunt object.

Apply the dead condition to the creature and it no longer qualifies as a creature for purposes of rules effects.

Sharpen a blunt object and it is no longer a blunt object.

Implications are that animate objects and shatter affect corpses. This is odd for shatter as you don't think of shatter affecting mushy things, but it works against any object so cloaks and corpses make the list. Animate objects treats them as inert matter that can be animated by magic. Animate dead uses dark magic to turn corpses into animated undead.

Raise dead specifically targets a dead creature so it still works. It does not affect other objects because the target is specifically dead creatures. This still makes sense.

You can shrink object a corpse.

Wood products are treated as objects and not tree creatures.

You can not do creature spells on corpses so no bull's strength on the dead then raise them.

 

[TYPO5478]

Your dilemma is something you manufactured. "Dead creatures" do exist, are referenced many times in the rules, and are not, as you correctly concluded, creatures. It's what my english teacher would have called an open compound word with antithetical lexeme.

In other news, French Fries are not French, pineapples are not apples, guinea pigs are not pigs, and peanuts are not nuts. OTOH, I do have a sharp marble. I call it a d4.

The problem is that all of those items you mention have specific definitions in the English lexicon. The etymology of their names isn't relevant, but their definitions are. If I used the phrase "coffee hangar," would you assume it had anything to do with coffee and/or hangars? Probably, since both of those words by themselves have specific definitions in English, but the combined phrase is nonsense.

Now, in this case, we're dealing with a much smaller context than the English language (specifically, the D&D ruleset) which has its own set of definitions. As Hyp pointed out, a Monstrous Humanoid is different than a Humanoid. The reason is the definitions provided for each type. If there were no definition for Monstrous Humanoid, we wouldn't assume that it's some distinct yet undefined type of being. We'd assume that "monstrous" was simply an adjective used to describe a member of the Humanoid type.

Now assume that the word "Monstrous" in and of itself had its own definition (maybe like a template). If the definition for the Humanoid type specifically required exclusion from the Monstrous template, then the term Monstrous Humanoid would make no sense. It's something that can't exist within the context of the rules.

We've got the same situation here. The term "dead creature" has no formal definition, but the individual terms "dead" and "creature" do. The definition for "creature" precludes anything so described from being dead. The phrase "dead creature" loses its meaning.

There is such a thing as a dead creature; it is not a dead [creature], it is a [dead creature], and no longer a member of the set of creatures. As such, it is an object.

It becomes a [dead creature], and therefore an object; it is, as an object, a valid target for Grease and Shatter; it is, as a dead creature, a valid target for Raise Dead. It is not a valid target for, say, Mage Armor, as it is no longer a creature.

[Dead creature] does not have a specific game definition, so we have to assume it's a combination of two separately defined terms (a [dead] [creature]). For something to be a longsword, it must fit the description of a longsword. For something to be a creature, it must fit the description of a creature. Anything dead doesn't fit the description of a creature.

It would be like a sharpened blunt object. Sharpening the blunt object turns it into a non-blunt object.

Sharpen a blunt object and it is no longer a blunt object.

Yes, sharpening a club (for instance) means that it is no longer a club. But that doesn't mean it becomes a longsword (or any other sharp instrument). At best, it would be an improvised weapon. At worst, you've ruined your club.

Wood products are treated as objects and not tree creatures.

You know, it's interesting that you mention that.

Plant Type

This type comprises vegetable creatures. 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.

Living items can be objects. Why can't dead items be creatures?

 

[Hypersmurf]

[Dead creature] does not have a specific game definition, so we have to assume it's a combination of two separately defined terms (a [dead] [creature]). For something to be a longsword, it must fit the description of a longsword. For something to be a creature, it must fit the description of a creature. Anything dead doesn't fit the description of a creature.

It seems to me that there's an implicit game definition, since to assume otherwise yields absurdity.

Why can't dead items be creatures?

They can, if they're 'otherwise active'. The corpse isn't a creature; it's not living, and it's not otherwise active. If you cast Animate Objects on it, it's still not living, but it's otherwise active; it is now a creature, specifically a Construct.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

[Dead creature] does not have a specific game definition, so we have to assume it's a combination of two separately defined terms (a [dead] [creature]).

Why exactly do we have to assume that? Especially when you have already proved the two separately defined terms are mutually exclusive.

 

[TYPO5478]

Why exactly do we have to assume that? Especially when you have already proved the two separately defined terms are mutually exclusive.

I was operating under the general assumption that whenever the rules use a term that has been explicitly defined, it always means the same thing. Granted, this is a tenuous assumption in a few cases (c.f. "enchantment"); I just really didn't think that "dead creatures" would be one of those cases.

The thing is, if you assume that [dead] [creatures] are still [creatures], the terms aren't mutually exclusive. They only become nonsensical if you assume dead creatures are objects.

They can, if they're 'otherwise active'. The corpse isn't a creature; it's not living, and it's not otherwise active. If you cast Animate Objects on it, it's still not living, but it's otherwise active; it is now a creature, specifically a Construct.

So would true resurrection work on a creature thus created and then subsequently destroyed?

 

[mvincent]

Living items can be objects. Why can't dead items be creatures?

From the RotG article I gave you earlier:
"It's worth noting that in the D&D game, some objects are alive and some creatures are not. A tree, for example, is a living thing. It lacks a Charisma and a Wisdom score, however, and is an object. The D&D game teems with unliving creatures, including undead and constructs."

 

[Hypersmurf]

The thing is, if you assume that [dead] [creatures] are still [creatures], the terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Certainly they are - since we know that creatures are 'living or otherwise active'. A dead creature is neither living nor otherwise active, so if we assume it's still a creature, there's a contradiction.

So would true resurrection work on a creature thus created and then subsequently destroyed?

It depends. Note that constructs don't die; they are destroyed. The result of destroying a construct is not inherently a dead creature. If the construct were initially a dead creature that was animated, then it would revert to being a dead creature (which is not a creature, as opposed to a non-living creature, which is a creature) when it ceased to be a construct upon destruction. Resurrecting that dead creature would return it to its state as a living creature, however, not to its interim state as a construct. If it were a table that were animated, however, it would not become a dead creature upon ceasing to be a construct; it would just be a broken table. (An object, but not a valid target for Resurrection.)

True Resurrection specifies "but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures"; however, it can resurrect a creature who has been an undead creature in the intervening period.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

Certainly they are - since we know that creatures are 'living or otherwise active'.

Yes, but as mvincent pointed out, "some creatures are not." I contend that a creature that has died doesn't stop being a creature.

It depends. Note that constructs don't die; they are destroyed.

Exactly my point, although you seem to interpret "destroyed" as simply "rendered inoperable" rather than "obliterated". If the corpse is still intact after destruction as a Construct, isn't it still a legal target for animate objects? Can you simply reanimate a destroyed animated object over and over?

True Resurrection specifies "but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures"; however, it can resurrect a creature who has been an undead creature in the intervening period.

But nothing about one that has been a Construct in the intervening period. Are we to assume that Constructs are implicitly included?