I don't know of a place where "creature" is actually defined in game terms other than the "common terms" where it's stated as an active participant in the story. I know "object" is described in the magic chapter, but not properly defined there. I haven't spent hours looking for this, but it seems like you have it handy. Could you direct me to it?
I was hoping to use the fact that the body doesn't have a soul to show it doesn't qualify for its original creature type and, "Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities" to say that the body doesn't qualify for its old creature type and doesn't have a new one, it's not a creature. But I saw that outsider only points out that it's unlike "living creatures". I believe that's to contrast with constructs and undead creatures, but I admit that the "living" part stops that from being a solid point.
As for your response to my other post, I'm stating the results of my claim that a body is an object. I don't think it continues to be a creature, but the possibility of a thing that's both an object and a creature isn't contradicted by the rules to my knowledge. Graystone brought up results of the body becoming an object and I agreed with those points and doubled down by saying that refusing some of those points leads to difficulties adjudicating how the world interacts with bodies. So that wasn't really a new claim, it was a response to a request for clarification of my claim.
Your entire posts is a series of claims and conjectures with no rules citations whatsoever.
In Pathfinder creatures and objects are separate things. A spell that targets creatures can't target objects and vice versa.
And if the magic left with the soul, wouldn't the magic come back when the soul comes back?
Maybe. I actually have no problem with that. The situation I object to is the long-dead, mostly decayed, hacked-up corpse of some wizard still having a whole bunch of magic on it. Or the zombie created from the wizard's corpse having powerful permanent spells on it that the zombie doesn't actually have access to (different creature, same body).
It could also be that the magic is attached to both body and soul and when the soul leaves the plane, the magic isn't able to be attached to both. I don't believe the rules have a clear answer on this. If the magic is anchored to the body, it stays. If the magic is anchored to the soul, it leaves and possibly comes back. If it's anchored to the body and soul (the whole creature), would probably be able to hang on for some time but eventually dissipate as its structure is wracked across the space and the planes. This is my personal preference, but it being on any part of the creature is consistent with being on the creature itself.
If they don't become objects, then a dead body can never be destroyed.So now, without any evidence whatsoever, you are claiming that when a creature dies its body becomes a new object with its own hit points. Once again I will request a rules citation. Please stop just making stuff up in a rules forum.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
They can never gain the destroyed condition. If a dead body becomes an object and can be given the destroyed condition then the make whole spell should be able to reassemble the body for raise dead. After all it is just an object with the destroyed condition.
See I can play the conjecture game too. I can produce rules text that the dead body is a creature. Can you do the same showing it is an object?
AFAIK broken is a defined condition, but destroyed is not. I think it's at least a semi-open question if make whole can be used on destroyed non-magic items.
In any case I don't really have a problem with the idea of make whole being used to reassemble a corpse to meet raise dead's intact clause.
If they don't become objects, then a dead body can never be destroyed.So now, without any evidence whatsoever, you are claiming that when a creature dies its body becomes a new object with its own hit points. Once again I will request a rules citation. Please stop just making stuff up in a rules forum.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
They can never gain the destroyed condition. If a dead body becomes an object and can be given the destroyed condition then the make whole spell should be able to reassemble the body for raise dead. After all it is just an object with the destroyed condition.
See I can play the conjecture game too. I can produce rules text that the dead body is a creature. Can you do the same showing it is an object?
AFAIK broken is a defined condition, but destroyed is not. I think it's at least a semi-open question if make whole can be used on destroyed non-magic items.
In any case I don't really have a problem with the idea of make whole being used to reassemble a corpse to meet raise dead's intact clause.
Ahhh you are right that destroyed is not a condition so your original point is moot. Since destroyed is not a defined condition so a body can be destroyed without it being an object.
In fact a very quick search through the PRD reveals an entry about the Babau that talks about sacrifices to the demon requiring a living creature that must be destroyed. So destruction is not limited to objects and thus your point is invalid.
With that, I am off to persecute my players in Rise of the Runelords. Everyone have a good weekend and try to play some Pathfinder! :)
I was hoping to use the fact that the body doesn't have a soul to show it doesn't qualify for its original creature type...That's nice and all, but there are absolutely no rules stating that a spell fails/ends when the target's "type" changes. And in fact, there are many spells and abilities that break when you try to add such a rule.
I agree, although depending on the thing, it might not have an effect. My reason for a spell ending would be because part of what it's tied to is gone. Imagine a web where one of the anchor points is destroyed. For the most part, I figure the spell would remain, but be suppressed. Actually, that raises an interesting note about permanency where it makes the "spells permanent with regard to yourself." The spell is permanent with regard to you, so when the body stops being entirely you, the permanency may be suppressed. The spell's duration runs out normally and when the permanency comes back after the raising, there's nothing left to make permanent... I'll have to think about that and it's not really fully developed yet.
This object/creature discussion is a tangent.
So now, without any evidence whatsoever, you are claiming that when a creature dies its body becomes a new object with its own hit points. Once again I will request a rules citation. Please stop just making stuff up in a rules forum.
Bodies absolutely can get the broken condition, but it's not clear when that would relevant since they're not really used for anything.New object hit points would be based on what the body is made of and its size. You can definitely sunder it.
I claim that it is no longer a creature because it is not a valid member of any creature type since its soul has left its body. Therefore it is an object. Because it no longer is a creature with hit dice and the like, its hit points come from a different source - its size and composition.
If you disagree, please tell me what it means to be a creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are creatures that exist without a soul. Most notable are native Fey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A dead creature is a specific type of object where the relevant feature for the spell is the creature it used to be.No - a dead creature is just a creature with the dead condition.
I'm going to blow your mind. <Grin>
I'd go so far as to say that the dead creature is a creature with the dead condition, and that its dead body is an object.
Whoa.
I'd (under all conditions I can currently imagine) let someone cast a spell on said body as long as that spell worked on either objects or dead creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are creatures that exist without a soul. Most notable are native Fey.
There definitely are. Certain types of constructs (e.g. animated object) are another example. Golems depend on how you think they're powered, I think.
I hadn't heard that about native fey. That's an interesting wrinkle since they'd be the only "living" example I know. Can you point me to where that's revealed so I can learn more. I admit, there's part of my curiosity that's from wondering about more context and how this affects my interpretation of the mechanics of creatures dying. That's not the only part, though.
(under all conditions I can currently imagine)
:-) I like this.
I also agree with the content of the post. But mostly felt compelled to comment on the scoping like a huge dork.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anguish was taking someone else's interpretation and proving it wrong by pointing out spells it would break. I was saying that just because they didn't define that interpretation in exhausting detail, doesn't mean it can't be understood in a reasonable way that avoids those pitfalls. I believe it was a form of straw-manning without intent to do so and deserved pointing out.
I hear you, and I hear you in the spirit you intend it.
Problem is that as things stand, there are rules that break if spells end on death, and no rules that break if they don't. So while I absolutely agree with your principle that (my) few examples could be exceptions rather than the norm, so far there's no actual examples showing that.
I'd totally buy into the "exception" theory if there was a hint of that being the case. Instead, the arguments along the object/creature dichotomy line are so far coming off more of "if it were so that spells ended upon death, here is how I would explain WHY it happens". There aren't yet rules that say that it DOES, only those that support that it COULD, while I've produced a few that demonstrate that (in their cases) it DOESN'T.
In short, the score (as I interpret it) is...
DOES - 0
COULD - more than 0
DOESN'T - more than 0
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where someone says Pathfinder SRD never defines a corpse as an object..
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzsw?What-spells-end-when-the-caster-dies#11
If you put on a shameful marionette show with an enlarged corpse, it still does not shrink back down. The point about objects is moot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I believe individual spells are vulnerable to weird corner cases and so they can't be real proof of a general principle, they can sometimes give a glimpse into designer intent and are reasonable as data points. I put that as a buffer against being called a hypocrite for pointing out that spell descriptions like gentle repose and decompose corpse list the save and SR fields as (object) despite only being able to affect corpses, i.e. dead creatures.
I don't want to give the wrong impression. Even if this proved corpses were objects, it does not say anything about the disposition of spells on creatures as they die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your entire posts is a series of claims and conjectures with no rules citations whatsoever.
In Pathfinder creatures and objects are separate things. A spell that targets creatures can't target objects and vice versa.
In an earlier post, you said creature and object are defined and mutually exclusive. I tried to find those definitions. Can you provide them?
I agree spells that target creatures can't target objects that aren't creatures. I don't believe corpses are still creatures (the ones that target dead creatures also involve their souls). But I'm not making a claim that they're mutually exclusive. My claims don't depend on it either way. But if there's a well-defined definition, we can easily see whether there can be any intersection.
A log pushed up against a wall is a chair because you can sit on it and it provides back support. It is also firewood, but it is still a chair.
This is why I consider a corpse both a dead person, or dead whatever, and also an object. You need a homebrewed spell to rewrite history, and this is not the place for it.
If the past has not been changed, if dispelling magic has not been cast, then the body does not shrink back down. This is philosophy, and it's a GM decision.
Did your GM take philosophy? My mom had to to become a reading teacher. She came home and talked about "chairness". I'll be doing internet searches.
Did your GM take philosophy? My mom had to to become a reading teacher. She came home and talked about "chairness". I'll be doing internet searches.
In this venue, the more applicable question would be "Did your GM study law?"
Socrates the Troll,"Ask your GM if they are a mammal or a Human. If they say both, they just defeated their own ruling." :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did your GM take philosophy?
Every RPG is a book on philosophy. It comes from trying to define reality with rules.
Did your GM study law?
And reading RPG books with nerds that nit-pick rules makes reading law books feel very familiar.
Every pen & paper RPG gamer is a student of philosophy and law just waiting to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a question come up in a game that is relevant to this discussion.
If spells persist after death, does that mean a shield other spell does? Can you kill somebody by butchering the corpse of the person they were bonded with, even though they are already dead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a question come up in a game that is relevant to this discussion.
If spells persist after death, does that mean a shield other spell does? Can you kill somebody by butchering the corpse of the person they were bonded with, even though they are already dead?
Oh-oh.
I'd go with yes, personally, for consistency's sake. The caveat being that dead body likely can only take a certain amount of damage before it is "destroyed", much a like a table or a chair. It might be reasonable to look at basic zombies to judge how much punishment a standard dead body can take.
I had a question come up in a game that is relevant to this discussion.
If spells persist after death, does that mean a shield other spell does? Can you kill somebody by butchering the corpse of the person they were bonded with, even though they are already dead?
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that you can no longer do hit point damage to dead creatures - it's one of the silly arguments used for trying to get the 'dead template' applied.
However, the caster can still dismiss the spell or just move out of range.
You can't do damage to dead creatures? What happens when you drop them in a vat of acid?
Yes I realize it's not the hardest spells to end, but for those that interpret the rules that spells persist on dead creatures, some major shenanigans can happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the last 5 pages but the rules support spells persisting more than spells not in my opinion as a a corpse == a dead creature == a creature. Also the dead condition doesn't inhibit any magic except healing.
After looking at spells that usually target dead things:
It looks like a corpse == a dead creature == a creature
- Reincarnate : Target dead creature touched
- Sculpt Corpse : Target one dead creature touched
- Decompose corpse : Target one corpse or corporeal undead
- Gentle Repose : Target corpse touched
- Animate Dead : Targets one or more corpses touched
- Raise Dead : Target dead creature touched
- Breath of Life : Target creature touched
The only thing the dead condition inhibits is normal magical healing
[spoiler=Dead]The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.[/dead]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what about those tricky situations, like when a body is cut in half? Which half keeps the spell effects? Both? Largest mass? The piece with the head?
I also see this hilarious situation in my head where a cleric buffs the hell out of their dead ally and then raises them.
That's one way of dealing with a Barbarian's superstition!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's probably mmo logic, where all your buffs fall off when you die.
Unless you play EQII, then your permanent buffs stay up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't do damage to dead creatures? What happens when you drop them in a vat of acid?
Yes I realize it's not the hardest spells to end, but for those that interpret the rules that spells persist on dead creatures, some major shenanigans can happen.
I didn't say that you can't damage a dead body: I said that I think that you can't do hit point damage. It's not the same thing.
And either ruling can result in odd effects, I personally think that allowing spells to persist is better than ending them on death.
But what about those tricky situations, like when a body is cut in half? Which half keeps the spell effects? Both? Largest mass? The piece with the head?
I also see this hilarious situation in my head where a cleric buffs the hell out of their dead ally and then raises them.
Generally, that would be the point where I start to make stuff up on the fly...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that you can't damage a dead body: I said that I think that you can't do hit point damage. It's not the same thing.
Man that is really splitting hairs.
I didn't say that you can't damage a dead body: I said that I think that you can't do hit point damage. It's not the same thing.Man that is really splitting hairs.
Really?
Living (and undead, constructs, etc) take hit point damage.
Objects can be cut up eg by craftsmen using tools without actually needing to have hit point damage dealt...
As I said above, I'm vaguely remembering a rule about this rather than being definite. It might not exist.
Shield other. Target one creature. Well a dead creature doesn't have ac or saves, but you would take half the damage it takes. If the subject is somehow reanimated before the spell ends, it once again benefits from the +1 AC and saves. If the party necromancer makes the subject a bloody skeleton(gee thanks Mort) they can possibly get full benefit from the magic, they can reenter combat, and can pretty much ignore death effects that killed them before.
I think the shield other might be coming from a set of magic rings, not a paladin in this case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw this thread yesterday and had to think on it for a while. I've skimmed most of the arguments, and I initially leaned toward saying that Permanencied spells would go away on death. However, death is a rare occurrence in my games, and this sort of situation hasn't often come up, and I assumed (wrongly) that being raised from the dead cleared pretty much all conditions from you. I was willing to go the other way, though, and assume that almost all effects, positive and negative, stayed through raise dead and similar.
However, after my wife and I reviewed raise dead, it all but settled the question for me.
A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current
HD. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal
poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the
subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While
the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of
most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole.
Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is
brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or
possessions are affected in any way by this spell.
Emphasis mine. For me, this settled the question. It mentions that magical diseases and curses persist. Thus, to me at least, that means that other similar spells or effects would persist, good or bad. Neither resurrection or true resurrection appear to modify this aspect of raise dead either.
Now, that being said, I as a GM would probably make the permanent spells begin to fade once the caster was dead if there isn't some sort of item/structure maintaining it. However, if I were to rule, I'd probably let permanent spells stay at full power for 10 years per caster level, then start fading 1 CL per decade after that. And let them regain a CL a day if the caster comes back to life.
But that's a major house rule, so not applicable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that you can't damage a dead body: I said that I think that you can't do hit point damage. It's not the same thing.Man that is really splitting hairs.
It's actually a good point, as our damage system in built around how much damage to kill/destroy something, but when they are already lifeless corpses, the damage rules really don't apply very well.
I suppose as GM, you could attempt to sunder/damage the bones in a corpse as per damage against objects (bone primative material). Providing they beat the hardness, the bones would break. The flesh itself would be damaged by anything that deals lethal damage (no hardness).
Mind you, this assumes you feel the need for rules to mutilate a corpse...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they suspect an enemy will have access to raise dead, yes, destroying the corpse is an issue. Also if there is animate dead and create undead in the mix. A corpse can be a ticking time bomb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't do damage to dead creatures? What happens when you drop them in a vat of acid?
You change the requirements of what's needed to raise them from a raise dead to a resurrection or wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are magical effects that are only ended by Miracle or Wish.
It seems a cheat to allow death to end these effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned, you've cast magical enchantments upon your physical body, much in the way that you would enchant a weapon. You've made them permanent, just as you would a weapon or any other object. Your enchantments remain upon the body even as the soul leaves the body, because it's not the soul that is enchanted, just the vessel.
If you are polymorphed permanently and then die, does your soul travel to the appropriate Plane looking like an Elf, a women (if you were male) or a frog? No. You go back looking as you did when you were created. Reincarnation? That's a whole different discussion that could be argued either way.
Anyways, does a broken weapon lose its enchantments when broken? No. (unless I've blatantly missed a rule) Destroyed? Yes, there's nothing left to physically hold the magic so it dissipates. Why are we applying different logic to a body?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned, you've cast magical enchantments upon your physical body, much in the way that you would enchant a weapon. You've made them permanent, just as you would a weapon or any other object. Your enchantments remain upon the body even as the soul leaves the body, because it's not the soul that is enchanted, just the vessel.
If you are polymorphed permanently and then die, does your soul travel to the appropriate Plane looking like an Elf, a women (if you were male) or a frog? No. You go back looking as you did when you were created. Reincarnation? That's a whole different discussion that could be argued either way.
Anyways, does a broken weapon lose its enchantments when broken? No. (unless I've blatantly missed a rule) Destroyed? Yes, there's nothing left to physically hold the magic so it dissipates. Why are we applying different logic to a body?
And you can even recover the magic in a destroyed magic item is you have make whole and your level is high enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really sure why this is even still an issue.
Permanency changes the spells' duration to "permanent". Permanent means it lasts literally forever. There isn't any rule (or even a hint) anywhere that states spells end before their duration, outside of certain exceptions (Dispel Magic/Antimagic/specific, spelled-out cases).
There's isn't any support for any view that holds that Permanent spells ever expire.
Houseruling otherwise is fine, but as this is the rules forum, those are the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really sure why this is even still an issue.
Permanency changes the spells' duration to "permanent". Permanent means it lasts literally forever. There isn't any rule (or even a hint) anywhere that states spells end before their duration, outside of certain exceptions (Dispel Magic/Antimagic/specific, spelled-out cases).
There's isn't any support for any view that holds that Permanent spells ever expire.
Houseruling otherwise is fine, but as this is the rules forum, those are the rules.
Magic items that get sufficient damage lose their magical properties.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Magic items that take damage in excess of half their total hit points, but not more than their total hit points, gain the broken condition, and might not function properly.
If a destroyed item is no longer a valid vessel for magic, it's not unreasonable to think the same might be true for other things. Because (I claim) the rules for being dead don't spell out all of that condition's consequences, there is room for questions about whether something like this lives in those gaps, as well.
To Diego Rossi's point, it's possible something would have a shortcut to restoring those abilities, but that's a feature of (in this case) make whole, not of the magic item. You can tell this because you can fully restore the item's physical form with spells like mending.
Great. Now you have too many rulings.
I'm going with an object or body can have permanent magic suspended by certain kinds of damage, or negated by total destruction. By chopping something in half you suspend most magic until the halves are reattached to each other.
For example, if you bring all of Vlad's bones back together and dump lots of blood on them, Drac. is back!
Magic items that get sufficient damage lose their magical properties.Not really sure why this is even still an issue.
Permanency changes the spells' duration to "permanent". Permanent means it lasts literally forever. There isn't any rule (or even a hint) anywhere that states spells end before their duration, outside of certain exceptions (Dispel Magic/Antimagic/specific, spelled-out cases).
There's isn't any support for any view that holds that Permanent spells ever expire.
Houseruling otherwise is fine, but as this is the rules forum, those are the rules.
This is relevant because....?
There are actual rules on what happens to a destroyed magic item's properties.
You even quoted them, right there.
Now, where are those same rules for what happens to permanent spells on dead bodies?
If you rule that death ends permanent spells, then it has to end all of them...
Curses, petrification, and so forth. :D
If you rule that death ends permanent spells, then it has to end all of them...
Curses, petrification, and so forth. :D
Things that affect the creature holistically, yes. Petrification typically only relies on it being flesh, not it being a creature. Curses you may have a point, although they explicitly persist through raise dead. The fact that it's used in a statement contrasting normal and magical disease makes me reluctant to use it as precedent.
Bigrig - you said there isn't a hint that death affects permanent spells on the creature. I pointed to a similar circumstance of a thing getting damaged to the point of losing its regular function and it losing its permanent magic and the place it would go in the rules that is already relying on interpretation to flesh out more basic aspects of it.
In the end, the correct answer is also the simplest.
It doesn't say anywhere that death ends permanent spell effects, so the effects persist.
Most arguments center around whether a dead character remains a valid target.
But these arguments were already covered in the first 150 posts.
Flesh to stone is very explicit on happens on a failed save, and it isn't death. Would a character with permanent arcane sight that got turned to stone still have blue radiating eyes?
How does permanency and magic jar interact, does permanency enlarge person travel with the soul or remain on the body, what if the new body is or isn't a valid target, does the soul jarred king suddenly enlarge?
People who pretend there are rules for everything don't seem to know the rules very well.
*Sigh* this is my point. There is not evidence on either side. Each side is trying to put burden of proof on the other, and there is no proof on either side. This is a rules argument where the rules are ambiguous. You cannot win by saying "If you can't produce rules that prove your point, then I am correct". That is a logical fallacy.
Well said! For what it's worth, this wouldn't be an issue at the table where I play. Spell effects that have been made permanent via Permanency are just that - permanent, until suppressed by Dispel Magic or a no-magic area or similar effect. Fighter had enlarge person cast on him & made permanent, then dies? Still enlarged while dead, and remains enlarged when resurrected, unless the enlarge person had somehow been removed from him through break enchantment, disjunction, or similar effect.
I want to add that only blood curse/enchantments will last through clone or true resurrection. In other words, if it's in their DNA and can be passed on to their children.