Open Grave: Constructs were or were not 'alive'?

[Ninja-to]

Page 7, 3rd paragraph "(This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead)"

Page 9, 3rd paragraph "All undead were once living beings, in that they had a soul. Soulless constructs do not and cannot become undead."

So... yeah. Anyone care to explain this to me? These seem to contradict each other. It's a shame because I think this is a new concept to D&D I haven't seen before and found it really interesting. I feel like I'm missing something obvious here but can't see it.

Also, I'm only on page 9, but is there more information on which undead have souls and which don't? There's a brief mention of 'examples' (liches do, deathknights do, wraiths don't etc) but was hoping to find something on each undead.

As a side note, I remember reading Knight of the Black Rose (the Ravenloft Lord Soth novel) and he comes up against some being that eats souls, and laughs at it because he says that Takhisis has his. So I suppose Soth is just special... haha

 

[DracoSuave]

Page 7, 3rd paragraph "(This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead)"

Page 9, 3rd paragraph "All undead were once living beings, in that they had a soul. Soulless constructs do not and cannot become undead."

I hate rules lawyering what is obstensibly fluff.

But---

Soulless constructs cannot become undead.

It is possible for some constructs to become undead.

Therefore, if this possibility exists, such an undead construct must not be soulless.

Therefore, said construct must have had a soul.

No contradiction.

Now an example of such a being:

A warforged revenant.

 

[Amaroq]

Seriously, if you're the DM, and planning on running any sort of campaign with an extended undead presence, I'd suggest using Open Grave only for "crunch", and working through your own idea of the fluff.

 

[Ninja-to]

I hate rules lawyering what is obstensibly fluff.

But---

Soulless constructs cannot become undead.

It is possible for some constructs to become undead.

Therefore, if this possibility exists, such an undead construct must not be soulless.

Therefore, said construct must have had a soul.

No contradiction.

Now an example of such a being:

A warforged revenant.

Hmm I wasn't 'rules lawyering' I was trying to figure out, as a DM, why there's this contradiction in the first 10 pages of the book. As I said I think it's a cool concept, even if it's just 'fluff' it's *STORY* worthy which is for me a pretty important part of the game. I think rules lawyerign is when you're looking how best to min max, this is the complete opposite. I'm trying to understand lore here. I'm not familiar with Eberron enough to know much about Warforged. I'm still not really clear how that explains how my quotes from the pages aren't contradictory.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, both look like fluff to me, so do whatever works for your campaign world.

Make one of them true, or the other, or try to reconcile them. If you try the later, perhaps only creatures with souls can be undead - no reason, however, that objects can't acquire souls, either by exposure (so, a golem in the centre of a holocaust becoming the home of angry soul(s)), or on purpose (there are many stories with demons, or others, having their souls bound in swords - why couldn't one do the same in a golem, for example?)

That said, I thought Open Grave did have a Grave Golem or something of the like - basically, a golem made out of the corrupted, defiled earth from a graveyard? Or maybe it was made of tombstones. Or both. Or I'm thinking of 3.5... I've only read Open Grave once, and it was a while ago.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Warforged are living constructs, so they could become undead.

 

[MrMyth]

Page 7, 3rd paragraph "(This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead)"

Page 9, 3rd paragraph "All undead were once living beings, in that they had a soul. Soulless constructs do not and cannot become undead."

Wait... what is the context of the first quote? What is the phenomenon being discussed? I'm wondering if the lines may make more sense in context.

Or, as others point out, it may simply be saying that sentient constructs can become undead but simple automatons - soulless constructs - cannot. Which would seem a reasonable answer that doesn't contradict either line.

 

[DracoSuave]

Hmm I wasn't 'rules lawyering' I was trying to figure out, as a DM, why there's this contradiction in the first 10 pages of the book. As I said I think it's a cool concept, even if it's just 'fluff' it's *STORY* worthy which is for me a pretty important part of the game. I think rules lawyerign is when you're looking how best to min max, this is the complete opposite. I'm trying to understand lore here. I'm not familiar with Eberron enough to know much about Warforged. I'm still not really clear how that explains how my quotes from the pages aren't contradictory.

I'll explain it again.

Not all constructs are soulless.

The ones with souls can become undead.

The first sentance is saying that anything has the potential to become an undead. The second is saying that anything without a soul has the potential to become and undead.

The fact it's using souless constructs as an example is just that; an example. It is not saying that all constructs are souless.

See how that is not a contradiction?

 

[Wolfwood2]

As a side note, I remember reading Knight of the Black Rose (the Ravenloft Lord Soth novel) and he comes up against some being that eats souls, and laughs at it because he says that Takhisis has his. So I suppose Soth is just special... haha

I guess Soth was bluffing. Note: Don't play poker with that death knight!

 

[AndrewDB]

Context does help. DracoSuave's thought experiment may be true in and of itself, but not within the context of Open Grave.

The first quote given by Ninja-to comes from a section titled The Nature of the Undead, which is divided into undead with souls and undead without souls. This section explains in brief that the soul is the consciousness of a living entity, but does not animate a living body and likewise does not animate the undead.

The second quote comes from a section titled Physiology. This section explains in more detail the relationship between body and soul. It explains that something called the animus governs the functions of the body, and that it acts as a conduit for the desires of the soul to influence those functions. (Might I suggest body is like hardware, animus like firmware, and soul like software and user?)

Think of the undead this way. With or without a soul, all undead are creatures that have had the animus restored. That force can be restored to no body at all (ghosts), to the same body (zombie or vampire), or to some other physical thing (helmed horror). Think of the undead as a disembodied or reembodied animus.

This explains how things that were never alive can become undead. A thing that was never alive can be classified as an undead construct if it is governed by the animus of a formerly living body. Hopefully, it also clarifies why magically animated constructs cannot be restored as undead, but physical things can become undead constructs when animated by the reembodied animus.