10
\$\begingroup\$

We know they are. But are they, by RAW? There are many spells and effects, especially "cure" series, that works or not depending on creature being living one or not. This question shows that in many cases it is a fuzzy thing.

Is there any actual definition that makes human living creature? Or it was left to common sense to decide?

I'm not proposing that they are not alive, we all know that they are. However I would like to see where the rules state this implicitly, because it potentially invalidates a point I made about RAW earlier if they do.

\$\endgroup\$
35
\$\begingroup\$

3.5
The defintiion of "living" according to the WOTC website D&D glossary and Monster Manual III's glossary on page 215.

Living

Any creature with a Constitution score is a living creature. Constructs and undead are not living creatures.

Pathfinder (With thanks to Louis Huppenbauer)
Jacob James:

More or less... a "living creature" is any creature with a Constitution score. This would imply that constructs are immune to channeled energy though... which I might be okay with.

Summary
3.5 says yes, unconditionally.
PF: Jacob James says yes. (Though it depends on if you believe him, it is not in the FAQ)

\$\endgroup\$
13
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, they are.

Actually, there is a definition of living creature.

The following excerpt from 3.5 Monster Manual p312 here (page number courtesy of @HeyICanChan, emphasis mine):

Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).

Unfortunately, it cannot be inferred that since humans are of humanoid creature type and the humanoid entry does not explicitly state the lack of Constitution score, humans are living beings, though that is what one would intuitively suppose.

Courtesy of Moudros, there is a clarification in 3.5 Monster Manual 3 p215:

Living

Any creature with a Constitution score is a living creature. Constructs and undead are not living creatures.

\$\endgroup\$
9
\$\begingroup\$

A rule has now been found that says that Humans are Living, see the other answers for discussion of that.

This answer specifically addresses the contention that the following rule says that humans are living:

Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).

While at first glance this rule does seem to cover it there is a rather large hole in the logic. The rule says that all living creatures have a point of constitution.

That means that if humans had no constitution score we would know they are not living. However humans do have a constitution score. Does that mean we know they are living?

Unfortunate it does not.

To give an example lets say you had your friends blindfold you and then everyone puts their mobile phones on the table. A friend tells you "All the iPhones are black". He hands you a phone and says "this phone is black". Can you tell if it is an iPhone?

You can't. If he told you it was an iPhone you would be able to tell him the colour, but from the colour on its own you have no idea because there is also a black Samsung, and a black Sony in amongst the other colours and brands of phone on the table.

This is the exact same situation. The lack of a con score means something is not living but by a strict reading of the rules the presence of a con score does not mean the opposite.

Clearly humans are intended to be living, and in fact the intention seems to be that anything without constitution is not living while anything with a constitution score is living. However that is not what this particular Rule As Written says.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

In researching another question, I just stumbled on this quote, originally from the Magic chapter of the Core rulebook, under the Creatures area of effect.

Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead.

So, yes, it would appear that they definitely are!

\$\endgroup\$
-3
\$\begingroup\$

Every rule was made to be broken

I would say that the general official answers have been given. I would like to point out a few oddballs that draw the rules into question.

First, Deathless. This is a type that appears in BoED as well as Eberron, and works like "inverse undead." They're all positive energy and goody two-shoes, so you actually can heal them most normal effects...but this doesn't necessarily mean they are living, which is just odd.

Secondly, Undead Druids. So, when wild-shaping, your HP is based off of your own con score, but you gain the con score of whatever form you take. Undead Druids can take the form of living creatures...so the question then becomes whether they should be affected according to their wild shape or their real form. With the right PrC or Sub levels, you can even turn into the human. A human with a normal con score. Except you're undead. Except you have a con score...

Thirdly, Shapechage. Shapechange is a totally ridiculously awesome/totally borked spell. Either way, you can be a living creature and become things without a con score, or be a non-living creature and become things with a con score. So this goes back to point two...do you act like the person is the base creature (which the spell explicitly makes them not) or the new creature (which doesn't quite make sense either). Congrats, you're a construct that has organs and blood...or a living human that's a fleshless skeleton with no con score.

The point of these exceptions is to make the case that the rules are not cut-and-dry because there are cases where they are flat out wrong. Non-living creatures can have CON scores, and living ones can ditch them.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Not sure what the deathless have to do with anything; they’re explicitly not alive, and they explicitly lack a Constitution score. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 9 '18 at 3:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I'm making the point that spells that typically only affect living creatures (such as positive energy-based healing) affect them as well. Since that was mentioned in the OP, I referenced it. Also, in my posts I typically move from "least related" to "main point" in my thoughts, so Deathless are the most loose example (lifeless beings able to benefit from what is usually limited to living beings), more of an aside than the main point, which is summarized with the more limited middle case and the rather broad last case. \$\endgroup\$ – Alphaeus Mar 9 '18 at 4:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.