3
\$\begingroup\$

I have a character turned to stone by a medusa. The mage in the party has a polymorph other spell in her repertoire. Can that be used to restore to flesh (in a different body, I suppose) a person turned to stone?

I guess one of the fundamental questions that needs to be answered is, is a person dead when turned into stone, or merely in some kind of stasis (paleogenics instead of cryogenics, I guess)?

In the real world I would say someone is dead when turned to stone, but what about in a magical world? If I recall correctly, Monster Manual I referred to medusa victims as "living stone"- whatever that is. Of course, I could be wrong about MMI - I can't find a copy. But even if I did find that phrase - would it matter? "Living stone" is not alive in the real world. I'm confused.

\$\endgroup\$

closed as unclear what you're asking by SevenSidedDie Dec 25 '18 at 17:37

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Are you actually playing Dungeons & Dragons 3e? (That's not, like, me being snide or anything! It's just that there's no polymorph other spell in 3.5; instead, there's baleful polymorph and polymorph.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Dec 25 '18 at 11:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rogem See this FAQ for why your comments were removed. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 25 '18 at 17:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ Based on the removed discussion in comments, I’m concerned that this might actually be a 5th edition question. Could you clarify which D&D edition you’re playing? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 25 '18 at 17:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I am fully aware of that answers should be kept to answers. However, I also do not want to answer a 3.5e question, as I would be unable to reference rules. A better cause for removal would've been extended discussion :) \$\endgroup\$ – user24827 Dec 25 '18 at 18:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rogem Nah, there was definitely answering — what the answer might be was the subject of the discussion. We’re more lenient on discussion, since it can be productive. Answering is always damaging to site function though and we don’t extend any tolerance for it. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 25 '18 at 19:04