| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Tsucasa_Quilia02-10-08, 02:35 AM | Hey, if warforged are "living constructs" then couldn't they theoretically become undead. Because warforged technically die (inert at -10 hp) couldn't some necromancer come and flood the area where the 'dead" warforged lay with negative energies, unknowingly make the dead wood and metal husk into a shambling undead warrior. Or could a vampire druid with a taste for sap (e.x. warforged blood) take a bite out of our wood and metal friend and tutn him into a warforged vampire with metal fangs that suck the life out of other warforged and local flora? or could ancient civilization drain the life juice of a warforged and warp him up and make a warforged mummy? |
| calronmoonflower02-10-08, 03:09 AM | The only undead template that I can think of that you can add to a warforged is the corpse creature temple. Their immunities and physical makeup makes it hard for them to become undead. |
| Salla02-10-08, 03:14 AM | The only undead template that I can think of that you can add to a warforged is the corpse creature temple. Their immunities and physical makeup makes it hard for them to become undead. Yeah ... they theoretically could, but there's not a lot of undead templates that they qualify for. |
| ff6shadow02-10-08, 04:51 AM | I don't beleive anything prohibits zombie or skeleton warforged either. |
| M-bark02-10-08, 06:12 AM | Well, through the Dread Necromancer class, they could become a Lich, so I don't see why there wouldn't be other ways they could become undead. |
| ff6shadow02-10-08, 07:34 AM | M-bark, I don't think it'll work. Lich specifically calls out humanoids inly. Warforged is a construct, so it can't be applied. |
| M-bark02-10-08, 07:48 AM | M-bark, I don't think it'll work. Lich specifically calls out humanoids inly. Warforged is a construct, so it can't be applied. But if it works via Dread Necromancer, why couldn't the actual template be applied? |
| ff6shadow02-10-08, 08:05 AM | Found my Heros of Horror. It doesn't work there either. The ability specifies that if the character isn't a humanoid, they don't gain any benefit from the Lich Transformation class feature. |
| M-bark02-10-08, 08:26 AM | Hm. Guess there do not exist much ways for Warforged to become undead, or none at all. Skeleton, Zombie and Vampire templates at least do not work. Ghost doesn´t work either, as it specifies on what creatures it can be applied (although plants can become ghosts, wtf?). Perhaps you could create a kind of Undead template that works on creatures that actually couldn´t become Undead in other ways, like Warforged, or Native Outsiders (though I think there are ways for Native Outsiders to become undead). |
| Soulless_Enigma02-10-08, 08:30 AM | I think someone on the Eberron monster board created a template for undead warforged. I may be remerbering completely incorrectly, of course. |
| M-bark02-10-08, 08:42 AM | I've looked a bit around, and on several fora there have been attempts at creating undead warforged: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22552.html http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=969744 http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-775203 |
| Roivas02-10-08, 01:33 PM | Robot ninja zombie pirate! The world is a better place now. |
| Santherus02-10-08, 02:27 PM | Check the Eberron sourcebook 'Forge of War'. I believe that undead warforged ("woeforged") are mentioned in passing there. |
| ff6shadow02-10-08, 03:11 PM | Have warforged been stated to not have a skeletal structure inside? Otherwise Zombie and Skeleton work just fine. |
| ToastedAmphibian02-11-08, 05:57 PM | Draco-Lich Warforged! |
| Legdiwena02-11-08, 08:16 PM | Races of Eberron said that there is no known way to create undead warforged. |
| ToastedAmphibian02-11-08, 08:43 PM | 10 levels of Dragon Disciple ? Hell, i guess you could just start as a half-dragon warforged...... aside from the fact taht it makes absolutly no sense, it is possible RAW wise, Your a Living, Coporeal construct, after all. |
| StruckingFuggle02-11-08, 11:10 PM | Hell, i guess you could just start as a half-dragon warforged...... aside from the fact taht it makes absolutly no sense In the traditional sense of being the child of a dragon, no. But maybe the warforged was made from preserved dragon parts, acquiring various draconic traits and types in the process. |
| riptorian02-12-08, 10:40 AM | I didn't think was a possiblity for a warforged to become a undead creature and I found a line of text in the monster manual 3 under "living construct subtype" on page 215. It states that they cannot be raised or resurrected. Since you have to raise a creature that is becoming a undead subtype, warforged can't become an undead creature. |
| Legdiwena02-12-08, 12:32 PM | They can be raised, just not animated according to other sources. |
| Bull-of-the-Pit02-12-08, 02:37 PM | In the traditional sense of being the child of a dragon, no. But maybe the warforged was made from preserved dragon parts, acquiring various draconic traits and types in the process. I could also see a very old, wise, intelligent dragon that was interested in artificers and their works "augmenting" an existing warforged so as to grant it the same benefits of the half-dragon template. Perhaps even making such a half-dragon warforged from scratch. At first, I considered the idea of an undead warforged kinda silly, but I guess it could be pretty cool if done right. Here's an idea..a necromancer forces a ghost into the repaired body of a dead/destroyed warforged. Perhaps the necromancer was a colleague (and/or murderer) of an artificer that eventually becomes the ghost. Perhaps the undead warforged can learn to temporarily separate the "ghost" from the "shell", allowing the ghost to go off and do ghostly things for a while. I'd assume that the body would be inert during this time, or perhaps act zombie-like. |
| Zookeeper02-12-08, 07:56 PM | I didn't think was a possiblity for a warforged to become a undead creature and I found a line of text in the monster manual 3 under "living construct subtype" on page 215. It states that they cannot be raised or resurrected. Since you have to raise a creature that is becoming a undead subtype, warforged can't become an undead creature. According to Eberron Campaign Setting and Races of Eberron a Warforged can be raised and/or resurected. (ECS pg 23, ROE pg 8). |
| 1 ton ghost02-13-08, 11:53 AM | it isn't the big a stretch of the imagination (or DM's license) to simply change their polarity given the Living component. that is, they are expressed as "living" which, correct me if i'm wrong, kinda' denotes life energy, Positive Energy in short. and what is it's antithesis? sure someone, somewhere considered their initial construction or "re-engineering" w/ Negative Energy. shouldn't be that hard really. i wouldn't go messing around w/ templates, but i suppose you could imply a bare bones, if you will, exoskeleton or normal one and treat them as metalline skeletons. apply said template that is. envision a terminator opearating on Negative Energy. all metal skeleton i guess. conjures up images of "Necrons" (Warhammer 40k i'm thinking). plain vanilla ones i would basically treat as Necropolitans. keep physical properties and all the obvious stuff, capable of being Turned i guess, and Inflicts (that would normally "cure") should be 1/2 stength as per Warforged mechanics and healing. ie)Repair Dmg isn't contingent on pos/neag.evergy and shoudl be unchanged i guess. |
| ToastedAmphibian02-13-08, 04:59 PM | In the traditional sense of being the child of a dragon, no. But maybe the warforged was made from preserved dragon parts, acquiring various draconic traits and types in the process. Wouldnt that be more of a "Half-Flesh-Golem" Hi! Im jimmy the Half-dragon-Half-flesh-Golem Warforged! |
| Zookeeper02-14-08, 03:55 PM | it isn't the big a stretch of the imagination (or DM's license) to simply change their polarity given the Living component. that is, they are expressed as "living" which, correct me if i'm wrong, kinda' denotes life energy, Positive Energy in short. and what is it's antithesis? That is exactly the LONG and SHORT of it. Living Construct subtype. A warforged is listed as a TYPE Construct SUBTYPE Living Construct The definition of Construct Type is an animated object or artificially created creature. (Monster Manual pg 307 under Construct Type) The definition of Undead Type is a once-living creature animated by spiritual or supernatural forces (Monster Manual pg 317 under Undead Type) Because of the CONSTRUCT TYPE and other text that suggest warforged are artificially created (Built) there should be no reason to think a warforged could be undead. Created in the Cannith creation forges, designed for the Last War, Introduced near-sentience into the created warriors, Arron made the breakthrough that resulted in the warforged becoming living constructs. (All from The Nature of the Warforged - Eberron Campaign Setting pg 22) To look upon one is to see an instrument of destruction, a heartless killing machine, a siege engine in the shape of a man. Despite the purpose for which House Cannith built them, warforged can choose to be peaceful. When given thinking minds they can surpass the limited uses for which they were designed. (All from Races of Eberron pg 7) These things seem to point to a Warforged can not be Undead. IMHO |
| ToastedAmphibian02-14-08, 03:59 PM | Also as previously stated a human can be raised or resurected. An Undead can not be effected by "Raise Dead" or "Reincarnate", but can (possibly, not always) be effected by "Ressurection" and "True Ressurection" Monster Manual pg 317 under Undead Type. These things seem to point to a human can not be Undead. IMHO You didnt really prove anything there. But yes, the problem is their type. You have to apply another template, ANY other template that changes their type to something that has an undead template for it. Then your golden. |
| defender_of_odintyr02-14-08, 04:17 PM | I don't think it would. I don't know, this sounds like it crosses into serious spiritual discussion. A flower, like a Warforged is also "alive", but does it have a soul? You can't make zombie, skeleton or vampire dandelions now can you. Now sure a Warforged is more than a stem and pedals but when it dies it becomes an inanimate object, wood and metal, but then again we also become inanimate objects so... never mind, you know how to ask em man. I would just say no, cause they're Warforged. |
| Zookeeper02-14-08, 04:26 PM | You didnt really prove anything there. Sorry, My Previous Post was edited to be clearer on my jumbled thoughts. |
| Zookeeper02-14-08, 04:30 PM | But yes, the problem is their type. You have to apply another template, ANY other template that changes their type to something that has an undead template for it. Then your golden. I do not know for sure, but how do you take a "Non-Living" Type and give it a "Living" type. I can not see how to take my desk and make it anything other that possibly "Living Construct" type. |
| Zookeeper02-14-08, 04:34 PM | I don't think it would. I don't know, this sounds like it crosses into serious spiritual discussion. A flower, like a Warforged is also "alive", but does it have a soul? You can't make zombie, skeleton or vampire dandelions now can you. Now sure a Warforged is more than a stem and pedals but when it dies it becomes an inanimate object, wood and metal, but then again we also become inanimate objects so... never mind, you know how to ask em man. I would just say no, cause they're Warforged. I don't want to get into a spiritual debate about souls, a warforged is a construct first and formost and as such is NOT able to become undead. |
| Legdiwena02-14-08, 04:34 PM | If you animate the desk, it's a non-living construct. |
| Yadot02-14-08, 09:09 PM | If you'll check the source books, a Warforged is alive, and can gain any template, such as an Undead one, if it is available to Constructs or living creatures. |
| PigFiend02-14-08, 09:27 PM | I'm running Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, and one of the PCs is a warforged. =) It's come up in conversation, the oddity, that a warforged could have its blood drained and become a vampire but could not become a vampire spawn through energy drain. Funny, eh? Now, I know most artist conceptions don't have bleeding warforged, but once you start rationalizing new immunities for warforged, you add to an already exhaustive DM-foiling list! |
| Zookeeper02-15-08, 01:47 AM | If you'll check the source books, a Warforged is alive, and can gain any template, such as an Undead one, if it is available to Constructs or living creatures. I have checked the sources and this is what I find. Warforged Racial Traits • Living Construct Subtype (Ex): Warforged are Constructs with the living construct subtype. A living construct is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enchantment. Warforged are living constructs that combine aspects of both constructs and living creatures, as detailed below. That statement alone states warforged are constructs, they are created, and combine aspects from both constructs and living creatures. This does not say it is a living creature but rather that it is a living construct. Weather the construct is a living construct or not, a construct is not a living creature and therefore can not become an undead by definition (Undead are once-living creatures). BTW nowhere did I see anything about a warforged being able to even take on a template, let alone an undead one. If you can tell me a source for this I would love to know where it is. |
| calronmoonflower02-15-08, 02:36 AM | I don't think it would. I don't know, this sounds like it crosses into serious spiritual discussion. A flower, like a Warforged is also "alive", but does it have a soul? I know of a few references in regards to mechanical effects and a soul. 1. Raise Dead and similar spells not working. True Resurrection works however. 2. A creature from Faerun that cannot cast divine spell as it doesn't have a soul. I don't remember the name, but they formed from the deaths of some evil Deities. 3. The ability to use incarnum. None refer to the possibility of becoming undead and none apply to warforged. |
| Lazaro02-15-08, 03:23 AM | The Warforged do qualify for the Favored Spawn of Kyuss: Can be applied to any Living Corporeal Creature |
| 1 ton ghost02-15-08, 12:08 PM | yeah, technically it shouldn't be done rules and flavor-wise, but given they are Living, playing on that "lifespark" as it were, it's open to interpretation, but then again, so is most everything on the forums. i suppose my proposal is that instead of initial activation, the Living component, as it were, denoting Positive Energy, to change the polarity to Negative. i guess, they wouldn't be truly undead, you'd just flip flop a few mechanical aspects post creation. namely, the 1/2 Positive/Curing HP discrepancy into Negative really. probably any "non good" too. not sure what else would change really. i just like the idea being "available", the whole Necron-esque thing; these undying machines that feed/thrive on death energy. you could make entropy generators and all related pseudo-magic tech. endless possibilities. you're just finding a new powersource if that doesn't sound too simplified. i mean, keeping w/ the game's dynamic, it would seem for every race their is a counter foil. elves/drow, dwarves/duergar, celestials/fiends, etc. for use in Faerun, you could argue the implementation of Shadow Weave magics vs. traditional means. many threads have been spawned wishing to institute warforged through Lantanese magics, a divine gift of life from Gond, leftover Rauthamar constructs, etc. you're not really changing much rules wise, so much as character development fluff and filler. again, DM's license is called into play... |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-15-08, 01:03 PM | I have checked the sources and this is what I find. That statement alone states warforged are constructs, they are created, and combine aspects from both constructs and living creatures. This does not say it is a living creature but rather that it is a living construct. Weather the construct is a living construct or not, a construct is not a living creature and therefore can not become an undead by definition (Undead are once-living creatures). 'Creature' is a generic term as far as D&D is concerned. Constructs are creatures, dragons are creatures, undead are creatures. To be specific, those three are all 'creature types'. Thus, a living construct is a living creature. BTW nowhere did I see anything about a warforged being able to even take on a template, let alone an undead one. If you can tell me a source for this I would love to know where it is. All the rules for which creatures can take a template are in the template itself, not in the race description. It doesn't explicitly say humans can take templates, but we all know they can. So long as warforged meet the template criteria, they can take the template. Some templates require more justification than others, of course. Most inherited templates, like half-dragon, are difficult to rationalise, but not impossible (eg dragonblood in the creation forge). Undead templates are acquired, so we don't have that problem. The problem we do have is that most undead templates can't be applied to undead. Nothing stops you from creating a template that does allow living constructs to take it, though. The flavour rationale being simply that because warforged have souls, that can remain after death even if the body is no different. My own warforged undead template: http://www.dragon-above.com/3emonsters/soulforgedreanimate.html |
| Lord_Zzyzx02-15-08, 03:59 PM | plain vanilla ones i would basically treat as Necropolitans. keep physical properties and all the obvious stuff, capable of being Turned i guess, and Inflicts (that would normally "cure") should be 1/2 stength as per Warforged mechanics and healing. ie)Repair Dmg isn't contingent on pos/neag.evergy and shoudl be unchanged i guess. I have a few adjunct questions that might shed some light on this debate. Are warforged effected by negative energy in the same manner as they are positive energy? If so, when a warforged fighter goes the route of WF Juggernaut, and can no longer be aided by healing spells based on positive energy, can they no longer be harmed by negative energy? I am assuming that positive energy is the equal opposite of negative energy. If the WF cannot be affected by negative energy doesn't that preclude them from being/becoming undead? |
| Zookeeper02-15-08, 04:58 PM | 'Creature' is a generic term as far as D&D is concerned. Constructs are creatures, dragons are creatures, undead are creatures. To be specific, those three are all 'creature types'. Thus, a living construct is a living creature. The definition of the construct type clearly states "Animated Object or ARTIFICALLY CREATED CREATURE" The Living Construct Subtype clearly states "Warforged are Constructs". It continues to explain how they gain the living construct subtype "They are given sentience and free will through magic" Where does either of those even imply a living creature except in the name of the subtype. If it was the Rock Wall subtype with the same description would you think it was a living creature - probably not. Warforged Type Construct Subtype Rock Wall In fact try reading the subtype description replacing "Living Construct" with "Rock Wall" Rock Wall subtype: Warforged are Constructs with the Rock Wall subtype. A Rock Wall is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enchantments. Warforged are RockWalls that combine aspects of Constructs and Living Creatures. Anyway: Undead Type clearly states "Once-Living Creatures" Constructs do not fall into that catagory, and Warforged are constructs. |
| Legdiwena02-15-08, 05:17 PM | Does it state in non-Eberron source books they can't become undead or is that provision unique to Eberron? |
| Nirid02-15-08, 07:27 PM | Undead Type clearly states "Once-Living Creatures" Constructs do not fall into that catagory, and Warforged are constructs. From the Eberron source book. As living constructs, warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as by those that target constructs. By D&D terms they are creatures. Even the definition you posted uses that terminology, and by the name of their own subtype they declared to be living. Therefore if I kill it, it was a once living creature. The line I posted also shows that they are affected by things that affect living creatures as well as constructs. The only immunities they have are listed in their stat block, and necromancy is called out as being something to which they are explicitly not immune. So if they qualify for the templates other requirements there is nothing specific denying them taking a template. |
| Legdiwena02-16-08, 11:49 AM | Except by using Eberron rules, you are also explicitly forbidden from making them any form of undead. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-16-08, 11:54 AM | The definition of the construct type clearly states "Animated Object or ARTIFICALLY CREATED CREATURE" Being artificially created does not stop something from being alive. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is fantasy, remember, creating life is entirely possible using magic. The Living Construct Subtype clearly states "Warforged are Constructs". It continues to explain how they gain the living construct subtype "They are given sentience and free will through magic" Where does either of those even imply a living creature except in the name of the subtype. Why do you need anything else? I could use the same argument: it says they're living right there in the name of the subtype. The goblinoid subtype doesn't say in its description that goblinoid creatures are goblinoids, because that's what they're called. Likewise, the living construct subtype doesn't explicitly say in its description that they're living. If it was the Rock Wall subtype with the same description would you think it was a living creature - probably not. Warforged Type Construct Subtype Rock Wall In fact try reading the subtype description replacing "Living Construct" with "Rock Wall" Rock Wall subtype: Warforged are Constructs with the Rock Wall subtype. A Rock Wall is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enchantments. Warforged are RockWalls that combine aspects of Constructs and Living Creatures. But then the word 'living' isn't in the name, so the designers would probably be more explicit about whether rockwalls are alive. Anyway: Undead Type clearly states "Once-Living Creatures" Constructs do not fall into that catagory, and Warforged are constructs. Normal constructs do not fall into that category. Warforged are different, that's what the living construct type is for. Does it state in non-Eberron source books they can't become undead or is that provision unique to Eberron? It's not even a provision of Eberron. Read the quote carefully: it says there are no known ways to make warforged undead. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't or can't exist, just that no one knows. If there are no known ways to create undead, that doesn't prohibit spontaneous generation, either. |
| Zookeeper02-16-08, 12:54 PM | By D&D terms they are creatures. Even the definition you posted uses that terminology, and by the name of their own subtype they declared to be living. So basically what you are saying here is that you can take a stone statue (Construct), animate it (now is a creature), give it sentience and free will (Escentially Living Construct subtype), and it is now ALIVE? I can not see that connection, it is nothing but non-living parts animated and granted, given, magically enhanced, or any other way you want to say it, thinking. You can make your computer a robotic body, give it programs to think and decide (and even movement), does that make your computer alive - NO. To continue can you turn a Golem into an undead - NO - Construct Can you turn a Shield Guardian into an undead - NO - Construct This list goes on and on. Even if you grant them them "Living Construct" they are still CONSTRUCTS and as such are NON-LIVING parts that are animated. Even the name Living CONSTRUCT, it is a construct and has a semblience of life (Hence Living). The line I posted also shows that they are affected by things that affect living creatures as well as constructs. The only immunities they have are listed in their stat block, and necromancy is called out as being something to which they are explicitly not immune. That is because they combine aspects of both Living Creatures and Constructs - Not because they are living creatures. There are many instances where things function like other things. Such as a race or class having an Aura of Courage that functions like a Bards Inspire Courage Ability, does that make this race or class a Bard - NO. Using your logic here LIVING Creatures are not effected by RUST and a warforged is especially subseptible to RUST so therefore it must be a NON-LIVING CREATURE. As I stated you can combine things like a horse and a donkey to get a mule - is a mule a horse - NO or a donkey - NO it is a totally different animal. You combine a human with an elf - you get neither a human or elf but a half-elf, combine a human with a dragon neither human or dragon but half-dragon. Or how about an elf (Drow) with 8 levels in cleric (8HD total) having Ki Strike as a monk (MM4). My point here is simple - just because things effect it as a living creature and as a construct has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of weather a wargorged is alive or not. Therefore if I kill it, it was a once living creature. This applies only if the creature in question was alive to begin with. If you kill an animated object - it was never actually alive so it can never be a once-living creature. |
| Zookeeper02-16-08, 01:43 PM | I have a few adjunct questions that might shed some light on this debate. Are warforged effected by negative energy in the same manner as they are positive energy? If so, when a warforged fighter goes the route of WF Juggernaut, and can no longer be aided by healing spells based on positive energy, can they no longer be harmed by negative energy? I am assuming that positive energy is the equal opposite of negative energy. If the WF cannot be affected by negative energy doesn't that preclude them from being/becoming undead? To be honest I am not sure about negitive energy, your assessment of being equal opposites would lend to believe that it effects them in the same manner as positive energy. A warforged is immune to Energy Drain, and if the drain were from a negitive energy effect the warforged would be immune to it. A Warforged Juggernaut eventually becomes immune to Ability Damage and Drain, Necromancy Effects, and Death Effects, as well as Positive Energy Healing (which might also include negitive energy as the opposite equal). The whole discussion here though is weather a warforged is a living creature, which a construct is not. |
| starkreality02-16-08, 01:58 PM | Just for fun, I broke the rules a little and made a warforged vampire one. It was a result of Whispers of the Vampire's Blade gone HORRIBLY wrong! Eventually the vampire -what's his name?- fled to Xen'drik, because he was being hunted more than ever, and the party persued. I must say, warforged immunities+undead traits=great DM fun! Not to mention, the fun you can have in a giant ziggurat with drow vampire spawn lead by an evil warforged vampire with a scythe! muahaha! |
| Zookeeper02-16-08, 02:12 PM | Being artificially created does not stop something from being alive. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is fantasy, remember, creating life is entirely possible using magic. I have to agree with this - it is possible, but then it should be stated as such. Why do you need anything else? I could use the same argument: it says they're living right there in the name of the subtype. The goblinoid subtype doesn't say in its description that goblinoid creatures are goblinoids, because that's what they're called. Likewise, the living construct subtype doesn't explicitly say in its description that they're living. This ends up being an Oxy-moron like Military Intelligence - it just does not belong together. Two words with opposite meanings Living Construct. I've said it before and here it is again Living CONSTRUCT (Even the name says CONSTRUCT - which is non-living). This obviously needs a better definition, or a new name. But then the word 'living' isn't in the name, so the designers would probably be more explicit about whether rockwalls are alive. Normal constructs do not fall into that category. Warforged are different, that's what the living construct type is for. If the only proof of being alive is in the name only, how can it be justified with everything else pointing toward NON-LIVING. Remember Living Construct is a SUBtype, the TYPE should have precidence over the SUBtype. Sub - meaning secondary. It's not even a provision of Eberron. Read the quote carefully: it says there are no known ways to make warforged undead. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't or can't exist, just that no one knows. If there are no known ways to create undead, that doesn't prohibit spontaneous generation, either. I have to give you this one also, but it may be possible that there are no known ways because the warforged are constructs and not truely alive, just thought of that way. Other creatures that are made from NON-LIVING substances - such as stone - are given Types that are alive, Monsterous Humanoids, Magical Beasts, etc. Just a little side note - Other creature types that are alive, such as an elemental, are compared to a living creature. (Ex. Unlike other living creatures, Elementals do not have dual nature ...) The warforged is compared to constructs (Ex. Unlike other constructs, warforged have CON scores) |
| 1 ton ghost02-16-08, 02:14 PM | Are warforged effected by negative energy in the same manner as they are positive energy? not sure, i don't dig Eberron, i just cannibalize them for Faerun. if the 1/2 heal maxim is applicable in the same capacity, then 1/2 dmg on an Inflict i guess. If so, when a warforged fighter goes the route of WF Juggernaut, and can no longer be aided by healing spells based on positive energy, can they no longer be harmed by negative energy? tricky ruling there. you're gearing them up for more combat mechanics, but this might upset game balance giving them additional immunities. i'd need to peruse the book again to give you an accurate answer, i don't want to steer anyone the wrong way. I am assuming that positive energy is the equal opposite of negative energy. If the WF cannot be affected by negative energy doesn't that preclude them from being/becoming undead? well, Juggernauts are subject to debate, normal WF aren't. that is, they are suseptible to Inflicts and the like, just ability/energy drain etc. isn't in play i thought. the Living component in machines like them, just as it is in us can be perverted/messed w/ i would think. i mean, w/ plain vanilla cadavres and skeletons, you're just shoving in an evil spirit into the host body via Animate Dead. perhaps a higher CL spell for this as they'd be more armored and the like, but applicable nonetheless. given the fluff of Shade Steel Golems and the good ole' magic wild card, i would say it's possible, just highly unlikely. my proposal previously was just to change their battery from pos to neg. as it were. not purely undead, just using the dynamic opposite rulings is all. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-16-08, 02:19 PM | So basically what you are saying here is that you can take a stone statue (Construct), animate it (now is a creature), give it sentience and free will (Escentially Living Construct subtype), and it is now ALIVE? I can not see that connection, it is nothing but non-living parts animated and granted, given, magically enhanced, or any other way you want to say it, thinking. You can make your computer a robotic body, give it programs to think and decide (and even movement), does that make your computer alive - NO. To continue can you turn a Golem into an undead - NO - Construct Can you turn a Shield Guardian into an undead - NO - Construct This list goes on and on. Even if you grant them them "Living Construct" they are still CONSTRUCTS and as such are NON-LIVING parts that are animated. Even the name Living CONSTRUCT, it is a construct and has a semblience of life (Hence Living). You're misunderstanding the living construct subtype. 'Sentience and free will' isn't what defines a living construct - nimblewrights and maugs are both of those things, but neither are living constructs. A living construct is a step beyond that. Warforged are made of living parts: the livewood in their bodies is still very much alive. They have alchemical fluids running through their bodies which sustain them - essentially blood. They are not simply animated stone and metal. The key point of living constructs is that they are alive. That is because they combine aspects of both Living Creatures and Constructs - Not because they are living creatures. There are many instances where things function like other things. Such as a race or class having an Aura of Courage that functions like a Bards Inspire Courage Ability, does that make this race or class a Bard - NO. Using your logic here LIVING Creatures are not effected by RUST and a warforged is especially subseptible to RUST so therefore it must be a NON-LIVING CREATURE. Humans are affected by rust attacks too...it damages their armour. The only difference for a warforged is that that armour is a part of its body, and so it takes the hit point damage. As I stated you can combine things like a horse and a donkey to get a mule - is a mule a horse - NO or a donkey - NO it is a totally different animal. You combine a human with an elf - you get neither a human or elf but a half-elf, combine a human with a dragon neither human or dragon but half-dragon. Or how about an elf (Drow) with 8 levels in cleric (8HD total) having Ki Strike as a monk (MM4). But we're not talking about race here, we're talking about being alive. Those analogies don't fit, because you can't be half-alive. You either are, or you aren't. In game terms, that's represented by having a Constitution score, which warforged have. My point here is simple - just because things effect it as a living creature and as a construct has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of weather a wargorged is alive or not. My point is just as simple: it says warforged are alive right in the name of their type. As far as the rules are concerned, why isn't it enough that everything that affects living creatures affects warforged too? What more evidence do you need? |
| starkreality02-16-08, 02:25 PM | In game terms, that's represented by having a Constitution score, which warforged have. I must agree. I believe, if you look under "Nonabilities" in MM1, creatures with a con score are alive, and those without simply arent. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-16-08, 02:25 PM | I have to agree with this - it is possible, but then it should be stated as such. This ends up being an Oxy-moron like Military Intelligence - it just does not belong together. Two words with opposite meanings Living Construct. I've said it before and here it is again Living CONSTRUCT (Even the name says CONSTRUCT - which is non-living). This obviously needs a better definition, or a new name. You just conceded my previous point that constructed beings could be alive. Construct does not necessarily imply non-living. If the only proof of being alive is in the name only, how can it be justified with everything else pointing toward NON-LIVING. Remember Living Construct is a SUBtype, the TYPE should have precidence over the SUBtype. Sub - meaning secondary. But everything else isn't point to non-living. The Subtype in this case explicitly overrides the features of the type, that's what it's fore. Just a little side note - Other creature types that are alive, such as an elemental, are compared to a living creature. (Ex. Unlike other living creatures, Elementals do not have dual nature ...) The warforged is compared to constructs (Ex. Unlike other constructs, warforged have CON scores) That's because they're being compared to constructs, whereas elementals are being compared to living creatures. Two entirely separate, unlinked phrases. |
| Zookeeper02-17-08, 05:20 PM | You're misunderstanding the living construct subtype. 'Sentience and free will' isn't what defines a living construct - nimblewrights and maugs are both of those things, but neither are living constructs. I am reading directly from the source books that say: "Warforged are Constructs with the living construct subtype. A living construct is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enhancements." This to me sounds like a definition: A living construct is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enhancements. Not sure where you got the info about a Maug having free will or sentience, but the description states they serve any master meeting thier price. The master give them thier orders and the Maug follows orders without question. I did not check the Nimblewright, so I'm not sure about them. A living construct is a step beyond that. Warforged are made of living parts: the livewood in their bodies is still very much alive. They have alchemical fluids running through their bodies which sustain them - essentially blood. They are not simply animated stone and metal. Quoted from ECS pg 20 - Warforged appear as massive humanoids molded from a composite of materials - Obsidian, Iron, Stone, Darkwook, Silver, and Organic Material - though they move with a surprising grace and flexibility. Sorry - I do not see livewood, and even if it were there once cut and twisted into the body of a warforged it would not be alive. The same goes for the darkwood, and since we do not know what the organic materials are we can not say either way with them. They may be vines cut from a jungle to make the fibrous mussle masses - in which case once cut would die. My point seems to still be valid - they are a collection of non-living parts. They are constructs. Humans are affected by rust attacks too...it damages their armour. The only difference for a warforged is that that armour is a part of its body, and so it takes the hit point damage. This statement is not correct - An unarmored human is unaffected by a rust spell. An unarmored warfgorged is still affected by the same rust spell. A warforged can be unarmored via a feat at first level. But we're not talking about race here, we're talking about being alive. Those analogies don't fit, because you can't be half-alive. You either are, or you aren't. In game terms, that's represented by having a Constitution score, which warforged have. My point is just as simple: it says warforged are alive right in the name of their type. I used those analogies to prove a point of "Whats in a name" - If you want there are millions of things I can use. If there were a pile of dog crap and someone named it a STEAK would you eat it just because of the name? I still say you can not tell anything by a name alone. As far as the rules are concerned, why isn't it enough that everything that affects living creatures affects warforged too? What more evidence do you need? There are several spells that affect living creatures that do not affect the warforged, such as cloudkill, disseminating bubble, and this one may be up for debate but I'll throw it out there anyway - Trap the Soul. There are probably more but I'm not going spell by spell to find more. So there you see that not everything that affect living creatures affect warforged. You just conceded my previous point that constructed beings could be alive. Construct does not necessarily imply non-living. Your point was that it was possible using magic - I agree - But also stated that it should be better defined. But everything else isn't point to non-living. The Subtype in this case explicitly overrides the features of the type, that's what it's fore. You say everything else is not pointing to NON-Living. What other than the name of the subtype points to Living Creature. We have discussed warforged combine aspects from both living and constructs, and because of that combination many things that affect each portion does affect the warforged. What specificcally points to LIVING that can't also apply to a CONSTRUCT? |
| MadPrak_Mark202-17-08, 06:05 PM | Found my Heros of Horror. It doesn't work there either. The ability specifies that if the character isn't a humanoid, they don't gain any benefit from the Lich Transformation class feature. Which is bull. It's a kinda sh@**y class feature anyway(in a broken sense rather than a not good way) because it's "Hey look Guys! I just went up four levels!" But to say that non-humanoid dread nec.s don't get it is stupid. Especially since there is precedent for aberration, dragon and outsider liches. Extend it to anything that wants to become one, I say. To look upon one is to see an instrument of destruction, a heartless killing machine, a siege engine in the shape of a man. I'll have to remember this next time I play a warforged. |
| Zookeeper02-17-08, 08:46 PM | Which is bull. It's a kinda sh@**y class feature anyway(in a broken sense rather than a not good way) because it's "Hey look Guys! I just went up four levels!" But to say that non-humanoid dread nec.s don't get it is stupid. Especially since there is precedent for aberration, dragon and outsider liches. Extend it to anything that wants to become one, I say. I'll have to remember this next time I play a warforged. If you want to house rule it that way, then you could. As for the line about looking on a warforged. it is in the books that way. |
| drakir_nosslin02-18-08, 08:58 AM | I don't really see the problem, flavour-wise warforged really should be able to become undead. This is because they are, as earlier stated Living Constructs. Also as Trolls pointed out, sub-types overrides types, wich means that warforged are 1:st living, and then constructs. Of course, if you take a piece of wood and name it a steak, it's not a steak, but when the name really describes what the creature really is, then we get to a wholly different point. Warforged are living creatures, as far as I can understand. To be a living creature, you need to contain positive energy, that's a vital part of living beeings in D&D, if it can be a container for positive energy, then it can also be a container for negative energy, making it an undead. Though of course it's hard to find any templates that can be applied to a construct, but the concept of making a undead warforged is definately possible. Before anyone starts to argue about golems created with positive energy, no, that would not make it a living creature, since it would still lack a CON-score... But that's just my :twocents: |
| Zookeeper02-18-08, 12:42 PM | I don't really see the problem, flavour-wise warforged really should be able to become undead. This is because they are, as earlier stated Living Constructs. Also as Trolls pointed out, sub-types overrides types, wich means that warforged are 1:st living, and then constructs. Once again you are just quoteing the name. Using that logic is irrational. I suppose that next your going to say that a "Living Spell" is alive. You CAN NOT tell anything by a name alone. (Living Spell is in MM3) Of course, if you take a piece of wood and name it a steak, it's not a steak, but when the name really describes what the creature really is, then we get to a wholly different point. Warforged are living creatures, as far as I can understand. This was meant as if you did not know what something was (like the warforged), can you tell by the name. To be a living creature, you need to contain positive energy, that's a vital part of living beeings in D&D, if it can be a container for positive energy, then it can also be a container for negative energy, making it an undead. Though of course it's hard to find any templates that can be applied to a construct, but the concept of making a undead warforged is definately possible. This is mostly true, but there is one major exception that I know of. There is a template for a GOOD LICH which is undead creature that uses positive energy, as an evil one uses negitive energy. I do not remember off hand where it is but I will look for it if you want this info. Also if you note the traits for a warforged they are only partially affected by positive energy, so logically it could only be partially affected by negitive energy. |
| StruckingFuggle02-18-08, 02:39 PM | Also if you note the traits for a warforged they are only partially affected by positive energy, so logically it could only be partially affected by negitive energy. Ergo, you need a lot of negative energy to animate the remains of a Warforged. :P ... In general, dang, I'm amazed at how ... heated ... this debate turns. o.o. It's not like it's a katana thread or something. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-18-08, 03:30 PM | I am reading directly from the source books that say: "Warforged are Constructs with the living construct subtype. A living construct is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enhancements." This to me sounds like a definition: A living construct is a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enhancements. The sentence does come first, so it is of obvious important to living constructs, but I still don't believe it entirely defines the subtype. Rather than just picking the first sentence, read the whole thing. Not sure where you got the info about a Maug having free will or sentience, but the description states they serve any master meeting thier price. The master give them thier orders and the Maug follows orders without question. I did not check the Nimblewright, so I'm not sure about them. Of course Maugs have free will and sentience, they have an intelligence score. That's what that represents. Creatures without the ability to make decisions for themselves, like zombies, vermin and most constructs, do not have intelligence scores. Yes, it says that maugs follow orders from their masters without question, but that's by their choice and by their philosophy. A maug does not refuse an order if the master pays the right price. If a maug isn't being paid enough, it won't do what its master tells it to. Hence, it has free will. A devout cleric of some god would always do what their god told them to do without question, but he still has free will and sentience. Quoted from ECS pg 20 - Warforged appear as massive humanoids molded from a composite of materials - Obsidian, Iron, Stone, Darkwook, Silver, and Organic Material - though they move with a surprising grace and flexibility. Sorry - I do not see livewood, and even if it were there once cut and twisted into the body of a warforged it would not be alive. The same goes for the darkwood, and since we do not know what the organic materials are we can not say either way with them. They may be vines cut from a jungle to make the fibrous mussle masses - in which case once cut would die. Livewood is defined by its ability to keep living even after being cut up and reshaped. But I think I'll have to concede that point, because I can't find any references to livewood in warforged bodies. It's possible its a common extrapolation of the fluff by fans that I'm mistaking for canon. My point seems to still be valid - they are a collection of non-living parts. They are constructs. They are a collection of mostly non-living parts, which as a whole form a living creature. They are living constructs. This statement is not correct - An unarmored human is unaffected by a rust spell. An unarmored warfgorged is still affected by the same rust spell. A warforged can be unarmored via a feat at first level. An armoured warforged is built without the normal layer of armour, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has no metallic parts at all. I used those analogies to prove a point of "Whats in a name" - If you want there are millions of things I can use. If there were a pile of dog crap and someone named it a STEAK would you eat it just because of the name? I still say you can not tell anything by a name alone. drakir_nosslin dealt with this one, but I'll see if I can expand on this. The case of naming something incorrectly (crap as steak) has no bearing here, because we have to assume that warforged are named correctly, since they were name by a designer. A designer would not give a creature a name which has no relation to what it is. So you have to accept that warforged are living constructs or that the designer was deliberately misleading the players. There are several spells that affect living creatures that do not affect the warforged, such as cloudkill, disseminating bubble, and this one may be up for debate but I'll throw it out there anyway - Trap the Soul. There are probably more but I'm not going spell by spell to find more. So there you see that not everything that affect living creatures affect warforged. Yes, but those things don't affect warforged because they have immunities to those things, not because they aren't alive! For example, warforged are immune to cloudkill because they are immune to poison, no because they aren't alive (in fact, the are specifically stated to be alive for those purposes). Devils are immune to poison too, but you can't seriously claim they aren't alive. Where do you get the idea that warforged are immune to trap the soul? Remember the spell doesn't just trap the soul, but the material body as well. Even if you argued that warforged don't have souls, their material body is still affected. Normal constructs are not immune to the spell either. You say everything else is not pointing to NON-Living. What other than the name of the subtype points to Living Creature. We have discussed warforged combine aspects from both living and constructs, and because of that combination many things that affect each portion does affect the warforged. What specificcally points to LIVING that can't also apply to a CONSTRUCT? I'll summarise all the evidence at the end of this post. Once again you are just quoteing the name. Using that logic is irrational. I suppose that next your going to say that a "Living Spell" is alive. You CAN NOT tell anything by a name alone. (Living Spell is in MM3) ...living spells are alive. Oozes as a creature type are living creatures (gelatinous cubes, black puddings...they're all alive), and living spells have a Con score. This is mostly true, but there is one major exception that I know of. There is a template for a GOOD LICH which is undead creature that uses positive energy, as an evil one uses negitive energy. I do not remember off hand where it is but I will look for it if you want this info. Baelnorns (good liches) are in Monsters of Faerun, and are still undead AFAIK, and still use negative energy to support them. You're probably thinking of deathless in the ECS and BoED, which are supported by positive energy. I'll grant you from that deathless type that being healed by positive energy does not necessarily mean a creature is alive. So, now to the summary: Evidence that Warforged are Alive: -It says so in their name. If they aren't supposed to be alive, the designers are deliberately misleading the players, which seems very unlikely. -They are affected by spells and abilities as if they were living creatures. If they weren't living creatures, they wouldn't be affected. -They have a Constitution score. I've bolded this one, because its the most important. In game terms, it defines whether a creature is alive or not. From the MM, pg 312, "Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution score has no body (a spectre, for example) or no metabolism (a golem)." Warforged therefore must have a metabolism, another key feature of being alive. -Page 23 of the ECS: "A warforged responds slightly different from other living creatures when reduced to 0 hit points." -Any feature of the Construct type which says they are not alive is explicitly overwritten by the living construct subtype. Being constructed does not prohibit a magical creature from being alive as well. That's all I can remember. If anyone else can chip in with more, that'd be great. Zookeeper, can I have a summary of your points, so I can debate them a little easier? |
| Zookeeper02-18-08, 08:29 PM | The sentence does come first, so it is of obvious important to living constructs, but I still don't believe it entirely defines the subtype. Rather than just picking the first sentence, read the whole thing. The whole thing reads: 1) Warforged are CONSTRUCTS with the Living Construct subtype. 2) Living Constructs arecreated beings given sentience and free will through complex and powerful creation enhancements. 3)Warforged are living constructs that combine ASPECTS of both living creatures and constructs. ASPECTS of - is a very important statement - explained later. They are a collection of mostly non-living parts, which as a whole form a living creature. They are living constructs. Are you seeing something in the list of components that I am missing, everything I am reading here is NON-LIVING. An armoured warforged is built without the normal layer of armour, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has no metallic parts at all. This is true, they may still have metallic parts, but the point here was that (other than the Warforged, which has not totally been established), living creatures are not affected by rust - only thier metal equipment and possessions. drakir_nosslin dealt with this one, but I'll see if I can expand on this. The case of naming something incorrectly (crap as steak) has no bearing here, because we have to assume that warforged are named correctly, since they were name by a designer. A designer would not give a creature a name which has no relation to what it is. So you have to accept that warforged are living constructs or that the designer was deliberately misleading the players. OK - I see that point, but you must also conceed that a construct that mimics life without truely being alive, could be named living construct - just because of the semblience of life. Yes, but those things don't affect warforged because they have immunities to those things, not because they aren't alive! For example, warforged are immune to cloudkill because they are immune to poison, no because they aren't alive (in fact, the are specifically stated to be alive for those purposes). Devils are immune to poison too, but you can't seriously claim they aren't alive. Where do you get the idea that warforged are immune to trap the soul? Remember the spell doesn't just trap the soul, but the material body as well. Even if you argued that warforged don't have souls, their material body is still affected. Normal constructs are not immune to the spell either. I have to conceed Trap the Soul, I was not remembering the spell correctly. ...living spells are alive. Oozes as a creature type are living creatures (gelatinous cubes, black puddings...they're all alive), and living spells have a Con score. Living Spells are actual arcane or divine spells that form an ooze. The spell is not alive. In fact the template states "This is an unusual template as it is applied to a spell or group of spells and not to a creature." Baelnorns (good liches) are in Monsters of Faerun, and are still undead AFAIK, and still use negative energy to support them. You're probably thinking of deathless in the ECS and BoED, which are supported by positive energy. I'll grant you from that deathless type that being healed by positive energy does not necessarily mean a creature is alive. I believe (and I could be wrong on this), that a good lich can turn undead. This ability comes from channeling positive energy. So, now to the summary: Evidence that Warforged are Alive: -It says so in their name. If they aren't supposed to be alive, the designers are deliberately misleading the players, which seems very unlikely. -They are affected by spells and abilities as if they were living creatures. If they weren't living creatures, they wouldn't be affected. -They have a Constitution score. I've bolded this one, because its the most important. In game terms, it defines whether a creature is alive or not. From the MM, pg 312, "Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution score has no body (a spectre, for example) or no metabolism (a golem)." Warforged therefore must have a metabolism, another key feature of being alive. -Page 23 of the ECS: "A warforged responds slightly different from other living creatures when reduced to 0 hit points." -Any feature of the Construct type which says they are not alive is explicitly overwritten by the living construct subtype. Being constructed does not prohibit a magical creature from being alive as well. 1) A Name does not prove anytrhing. If it looks like water. and its in a pool, it could be acid. A construct that mimics life without truely being alive, could be named living construct - just because of the semblience of life. 2) The reason it is affected by somethings that affect living creatures is because it combines aspects of living creatures with those of a construct. ASPECTS - this is not being alive, this is (maybe a bad analogy) like taking aspects of your mother and aspects of your father and getting you. Are you your father? 3) Constitution from Players Handbook pg 306 - The ability that represents a characters health and stamina. In the MM it also states near the end of the passage you quoted that No Con score can run indefinately without tiring - a warforged is immune to exhaustion and fatigue so it can also run without tiring. I believe the CON score may serve as a HP bonus for players, and possibly to use for the "consumable spells and magic items" But until I can find a better arguement for this point I can not dispute it too much right now. 4) A warforged responds differently, it becomes inert - it does not die (as living does) or is not destroyed (as constructs) - this is one of those benifits from combining aspects of both. 5) Features are overwritten by Class, other traits are not: LLV & DV are, Immunities some are and some are not, Can't heal naturally but can be repaired - same, Bonus HP from CON score rather than from size, proficient with class weapons, do not eat sleep or drink. Zookeeper, can I have a summary of your points, so I can debate them a little easier? OK Type is primary, subtype is secondary as with all other creatures in game (Humanoid, Human), (Outsider, Native), (Outsider, Archon, Extraplanar, Good, Lawful) In other words the type gives basic info and the subtype gives additional info for that creature. The name can not be a deciding factor. Even assuming the designers named this subtype - a semblience of life or acting alive is not the same as being alive. Nothing listed in the construction materials of a warforged seem to be living at the time of creation, the first warforged were not living creatures and did not have the living construct subtype, they were simple constructs. Even the very first line of the subtype description states "Warforged are CONSTRUCTS..." Those are the first three words. The description of the subtype (above) mentions nothing about being alive other than the name. The second Line "A Living Construct is ..." Sounds like a definition, and it may be possible (NOTE MAY BE) that this is not the full definition, but it is the only thing we have at this time. I agree constructs could possibly be made into living creatures through magical means, but I also believe that if this were indeed the case it should have been more detailed in the descriptions. Everyone, including yourself, points out they are affected by spells that affect living creatures. So I will point out, again, they are affected by spells that do not affect living creatures also. A downfall to combining aspects of living and non-living. A Warforged is only partially affected by positive energy - another side effect of these combinations. There is nothing in any description, creation text, or phisology text that states a warforged is alive. That is all I can think of at the moment. |
| blade26502-19-08, 12:30 AM | Hey, if warforged are "living constructs" then couldn't they theoretically become undead. Because warforged technically die (inert at -10 hp) couldn't some necromancer come and flood the area where the 'dead" warforged lay with negative energies, unknowingly make the dead wood and metal husk into a shambling undead warrior. Or could a vampire druid with a taste for sap (e.x. warforged blood) take a bite out of our wood and metal friend and tutn him into a warforged vampire with metal fangs that suck the life out of other warforged and local flora? or could ancient civilization drain the life juice of a warforged and warp him up and make a warforged mummy? Warforged can't become a vampire as the prereq are Humanoid/Monstrous Humanoid and Warforged aren't either one of those types. |
| drakir_nosslin02-19-08, 09:20 AM | 1) Warforged are CONSTRUCTS with the Living Construct subtype. This can be debated forever, or until we acually find a place in the rules where it states which one preceeds the other. 2) Living Constructs arecreated beings given sentience and free will through complex and powerful creation enhancements. Also, a human beeing is created when different biological substances come into contact with each other, creating different chemical reactions inside a confined space. Not really that different is it? Besides the materials used. Remember, children are often called magical by their parents ;) 3)Warforged are living constructs that combine ASPECTS of both living creatures and constructs. And I ask you, does a human with a artificial limb cease to be a living beeing if the technology replaces more than 50% of his body? Are you seeing something in the list of components that I am missing, everything I am reading here is NON-LIVING. The interesting thing is that we all are made of non-living things. You don't eat living chickens, right? No, your body uses the non-living materials in those substances to make you a living beeing, warforged simply uses different materials and methods of living. This is true, they may still have metallic parts, but the point here was that (other than the Warforged, which has not totally been established), living creatures are not affected by rust - only thier metal equipment and possessions. This has to do with what kind of materials your body is made of, Warforged are immune to other things, that humans are not, since they are made of different components. OK - I see that point, but you must also conceed that a construct that mimics life without truely being alive, could be named living construct - just because of the semblience of life. That is true, but really, what do you think that the designer would have done? Named it a living construct because it is a living construct or because he thought that it would be nice to make another golem, but needed a new name for it? Living Spells are actual arcane or divine spells that form an ooze. The spell is not alive. In fact the template states "This is an unusual template as it is applied to a spell or group of spells and not to a creature That I can't really respond to, since I haven't seen the template, but I will check it out. However, according to the above wording it seems as if the spell would become alive after the template had been added, though I can't be sure. I believe (and I could be wrong on this), that a good lich can turn undead. This ability comes from channeling positive energy. That I also have to check, since I'm unsure if they can do that, and if it's impossible to channel positive energy through a body held together by negative energy. The opposite is possible, otherwise negative energy spells would be impossible to cast by the normal human cleric. I don't really have time to write more, since I'm at work right now, but I look forward to continue this discussion. /Rikard Nilsson |
| Legdiwena02-19-08, 12:42 PM | ... In general, dang, I'm amazed at how ... heated ... this debate turns. o.o. It's not like it's a katana thread or something. Undead warforged, the new katana. Since warforged become inert at -10 instead of dying, then technically they are not dead for purposes of undead templates, correct? |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-19-08, 01:01 PM | Undead warforged, the new katana. Since warforged become inert at -10 instead of dying, then technically they are not dead for purposes of undead templates, correct? No, warforged are 'inert' instead of 'dying', between 0 and -10 hit points. At -10, they are still dead. I have a an entirely new point of evidence and a few rebuttals for Zookeeper, but those will have to wait a couple of hours as I'm in a bit of a rush right now ;) |
| Legdiwena02-19-08, 01:13 PM | I thought they were fully functional until -10, then they go inert. |
| Zookeeper02-19-08, 02:36 PM | This can be debated forever, or until we acually find a place in the rules where it states which one preceeds the other. Players Handbook pg 313 "Subtype: A subdivision of creature type. For example, humans and elves are both of the humanoid type, but each race also constitutes its own subtype of humanoid." Players Handbook pg 306 "Creature Type: One of several broad catagories of creatures. The creature types are .... See Monster Manual for full descriptions." Sounds pretty clear that Type is Primary and Subtype is secondary. Also, a human beeing is created when different biological substances come into contact with each other, creating different chemical reactions inside a confined space. Not really that different is it? Besides the materials used. Remember, children are often called magical by their parents ;) Using those terms yes you are correct, but a human or other living creature is not built, or constructed. They are born, hatched, or whatever - but not built. And I ask you, does a human with a artificial limb cease to be a living beeing if the technology replaces more than 50% of his body? No - this example is not a good example. You are starting with a living creature, and even if you replace 80% with artificial parts does not change the basis of living creature. We do not know at this point if a warforged is a living creature. The interesting thing is that we all are made of non-living things. You don't eat living chickens, right? No, your body uses the non-living materials in those substances to make you a living beeing, warforged simply uses different materials and methods of living. I'm not too sure about this statement. Just because we use non-living parts to sustain our living bodies does not mean anything to this discussion. The entire discussion is weather a warforged is alive. If alive it does not matter what it uses to sustain that life. Not too sure where you were trying to go with this. This has to do with what kind of materials your body is made of, Warforged are immune to other things, that humans are not, since they are made of different components. My point here was that a warforged is affected by magic that does not affect living creatures. Everyone seems to point out that they are affected by spells that target living creatures, but seem to forget the other side of the coin. That is true, but really, what do you think that the designer would have done? Named it a living construct because it is a living construct or because he thought that it would be nice to make another golem, but needed a new name for it? A Warforged is not a golem. It has free will and sentience breaking the bonds of slavery that seem to be associated with constructs in general. So I believe he may have needed a new name for a construct that was "Free" and has a semblience of life (or possibly actual life which is our discussion). That I also have to check, since I'm unsure if they can do that, and if it's impossible to channel positive energy through a body held together by negative energy. The opposite is possible, otherwise negative energy spells would be impossible to cast by the normal human cleric. This mostly has to deal with alignment, a good cleric can not use evil spells which most negitive energy spells are, and vice versa. Take a look at Desecrate as example. It is evil and blankets the area with negitive energy - a good cleric can not use it. So it seems that a good cleric can not use negitive energy. Editted to add: A Good cleric turns undead by using positive energy, he can not use negitive energy to rebuke them. Vice Versa is also true. Editted again to add: Good clerics can not Animate Dead, Create Undead, or Greater Undead. I don't really have time to write more, since I'm at work right now, but I look forward to continue this discussion. I look forward to continueing also, I think we need to see if we can determine an answer to this question or not. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-19-08, 03:12 PM | I thought they were fully functional until -10, then they go inert. From the ECS: "A warforged responds slightly differently from other living creatures when reduced to 0 hit points. A warforged with 0 hit points is disabled, just like a living creature. He can only take a single move action or standard action in each round, but strenuous activity does not risk further injury. When his hit points are less than 0 and greater than -10, a warforged is inert. He is unconcious and helpless, and he cannot perform any actions. However, an inert warforged does not lose additional hit points unless more damage is dealt to him, as with a living creature that is stable." In other words, they responds exactly the same as other creatures, but never lose hit points. Now to address Zookeeper's points: Are you seeing something in the list of components that I am missing, everything I am reading here is NON-LIVING. Granted, but drakir_nosslin answered this point admirably. All living creature are made from unliving parts which, when combined, are considered alive. This is true, they may still have metallic parts, but the point here was that (other than the Warforged, which has not totally been established), living creatures are not affected by rust - only thier metal equipment and possessions. To say rust doesn't affect living creatures is incorrect. Nothing about rust is inherently prevented by the condition of being alive. Rust is prevented by the condition of not being made, in whole or in part, of iron. Notice the target line of Rusting Grasp says 'ferrous creature', not 'unliving creature'. It is possible to have a ferrous, living creature. Even if you dispute warforged, it is possible to create a magical beast, for example, with metal plating in place of chitin but otherwise entirely organic, which is vulnerable to rust. OK - I see that point, but you must also conceed that a construct that mimics life without truely being alive, could be named living construct - just because of the semblience of life. Yes, I suppose it could be. It'd still be a confusing misnomer, however, and I'm willing to trust the designer's better judgement. To take an example from your side of the argument, we have iron wood, which isn't actually iron, but wood with the properties of iron. However, that works while 'living construct' does not, because a material cannot actually be iron and wood simultaneously, whereas by magic a constructed creature can be alive (as I've said before, the two aren't mutually exclusive). Living Spells are actual arcane or divine spells that form an ooze. The spell is not alive. In fact the template states "This is an unusual template as it is applied to a spell or group of spells and not to a creature." No, the spell is not alive, but the creature created by the template is. The beginning of the template says that because a spell is not a creature. The template creates a creature rather than augments another as usual templates do, hence the need for clarification. 1) A Name does not prove anytrhing. If it looks like water. and its in a pool, it could be acid. A construct that mimics life without truely being alive, could be named living construct - just because of the semblience of life. Bad example, because if you call a pool of acid 'water', you'd be wrong, because its actual name is 'acid'. I discussed the name point in more detail above. 2) The reason it is affected by somethings that affect living creatures is because it combines aspects of living creatures with those of a construct. ASPECTS - this is not being alive, this is (maybe a bad analogy) like taking aspects of your mother and aspects of your father and getting you. Are you your father? But they are affected by all magical effects that can target living creatures. There are no exceptions, so you can only conclude that they are living creatures. If it said, 'warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures except X, Y and Z', I'd have to agree with you. The 'regaining half hp from healing subschool' thing doesn't count, because we've already established that the ability to be healed by positive energy has no bearing on whether something is alive (deathless, Tomb-Tained Soul feat). You might also claim that the warforged's immunities are there to cover the exceptions, but each of the warforged's immunities could be found separately in other living creatures. 3) Constitution from Players Handbook pg 306 - The ability that represents a characters health and stamina. In the MM it also states near the end of the passage you quoted that No Con score can run indefinately without tiring - a warforged is immune to exhaustion and fatigue so it can also run without tiring. I believe the CON score may serve as a HP bonus for players, and possibly to use for the "consumable spells and magic items" But until I can find a better arguement for this point I can not dispute it too much right now. How can one have health is one is not alive? Yes, warforged can run forever (well, they take damage, but they don't tire), but that's a consequence of no Con score, not a cause. If a character casts a spell to become immune to fatigue, he does not lose his Con score. 4) A warforged responds differently, it becomes inert - it does not die (as living does) or is not destroyed (as constructs) - this is one of those benifits from combining aspects of both. That's wrong, re-read the rules. Warforged die (or is destroyed, functionally the same thing) at -10 hp, are inert from -1 to -9hp, and disabled at 0hp. OK Type is primary, subtype is secondary as with all other creatures in game (Humanoid, Human), (Outsider, Native), (Outsider, Archon, Extraplanar, Good, Lawful) In other words the type gives basic info and the subtype gives additional info for that creature. Yes, and the additional information included with the living construct subtype is that parts of the construct type are overwritten. One of those things is the state of being non-living, another is the Con score (actually those are the same point, but still), another is a portion of the immunities. Phew, I think that's everything, without looking at the same thing twice. And now to the new point: Warforged are not immune to necromancy and death effects. "How do you kill that which has no life?" By D&D definition necromancy is about manipulating life and death. If warforged aren't alive, they should be immune. |
| drakir_nosslin02-19-08, 04:22 PM | Players Handbook pg 313 "Subtype: A subdivision of creature type. For example, humans and elves are both of the humanoid type, but each race also constitutes its own subtype of humanoid." Players Handbook pg 306 "Creature Type: One of several broad catagories of creatures. The creature types are .... See Monster Manual for full descriptions." Sounds pretty clear that Type is Primary and Subtype is secondary. To you it might sound clear, but to me it doesn't. If you have a monkey and a human you wouldn't say that they are the same creatures, right? Even so, there is little differerence between the two. The thing that makes a human a human are the small things, it's subtype if you like. The same goes for living and non-living constructs, they look the same but are really two completely different beeings. Also, nowhere on those pages does it say which one comes in first hand. Using those terms yes you are correct, but a human or other living creature is not built, or constructed. They are born, hatched, or whatever - but not built. Just because you don't see the construction doesn't mean that it isn't there, I would say that humans, and all living beeings are built, but not by other humans, but by cells and enzymes. No - this example is not a good example. You are starting with a living creature, and even if you replace 80% with artificial parts does not change the basis of living creature. We do not know at this point if a warforged is a living creature. I see your point, but if I would ask you the question the other way, if you take a robot, that previously just had a computer to think with but all the senses of a human and then plugged in a human brain. Would that android be alive or not? It would certainly feel alive, and would act as any other human, besides from the limitations of it's present body. I'm not too sure about this statement. Just because we use non-living parts to sustain our living bodies does not mean anything to this discussion. The entire discussion is weather a warforged is alive. If alive it does not matter what it uses to sustain that life. Not too sure where you were trying to go with this. I think that Trolls clarified my point there. My point here was that a warforged is affected by magic that does not affect living creatures. Everyone seems to point out that they are affected by spells that target living creatures, but seem to forget the other side of the coin. So? Take a look at the bladeling race from the PS-setting, they are affected by the 'heat metal' spell, since their skin is made of metal. Also, living trees are affected my the Wood shape spell, as is dead wood. It simply has to do with the materials the creature is made of, not wether it's living or dead. A Warforged is not a golem. It has free will and sentience breaking the bonds of slavery that seem to be associated with constructs in general. So I believe he may have needed a new name for a construct that was "Free" and has a semblience of life (or possibly actual life which is our discussion). True, it is not a golem, bad choice of words, but still, the wording living implies in all ways that warforged are alive. Until you can prove that it isn't in any other way, you can't really argue against it, can you? This mostly has to deal with alignment, a good cleric can not use evil spells which most negitive energy spells are, and vice versa. Take a look at Desecrate as example. It is evil and blankets the area with negitive energy - a good cleric can not use it. So it seems that a good cleric can not use negitive energy. Editted to add: A Good cleric turns undead by using positive energy, he can not use negitive energy to rebuke them. Vice Versa is also true. Editted again to add: Good clerics can not Animate Dead, Create Undead, or Greater Undead. Exactly, my point earlier was that just because a body is kept going by either positive or negative energy it can still channel both kinds. It's all a matter of what diety you choose to ask for help. Good ones don't channel negative energy to their clerics, evil ones however channel both positive and negative energy as long as it suits their agenda (Evil clerics can cast cure spells.) |
| Drackthor02-19-08, 04:29 PM | How. many. immunities. could. you. possibly. want? |
| Zookeeper02-19-08, 07:03 PM | Granted, but drakir_nosslin answered this point admirably. All living creature are made from unliving parts which, when combined, are considered alive. I would have to disagree whit this as all cells within a living creature is alive, from the hair to the toenails. To say rust doesn't affect living creatures is incorrect. Nothing about rust is inherently prevented by the condition of being alive. Rust is prevented by the condition of not being made, in whole or in part, of iron. Notice the target line of Rusting Grasp says 'ferrous creature', not 'unliving creature'. It is possible to have a ferrous, living creature. Even if you dispute warforged, it is possible to create a magical beast, for example, with metal plating in place of chitin but otherwise entirely organic, which is vulnerable to rust. This is true, but humans have iron (although in small amounts) within them, it flows through the blood and makes up part of certain cell structures. Yes, I suppose it could be. It'd still be a confusing misnomer, however, and I'm willing to trust the designer's better judgement. To take an example from your side of the argument, we have iron wood, which isn't actually iron, but wood with the properties of iron. However, that works while 'living construct' does not, because a material cannot actually be iron and wood simultaneously, whereas by magic a constructed creature can be alive (as I've said before, the two aren't mutually exclusive). This is just a name. They needed something to call what I'm guessing to be a very hard wood. But that just proves my point about names, you can not tell by name alone. [QOUTE]No, the spell is not alive, but the creature created by the template is. The beginning of the template says that because a spell is not a creature. The template creates a creature rather than augments another as usual templates do, hence the need for clarification.[/QUOTE] I will give you this point. It does in fact create a creature, a living creature. However, there is nothing within the creation text for a warforged that says the magics used creates a living creature. Bad example, because if you call a pool of acid 'water', you'd be wrong, because its actual name is 'acid'. I discussed the name point in more detail above. No- just saying if it looks as such, it does not follow that it is. A warforged looks and acts alive, does not necessarilly mean it is. But they are affected by all magical effects that can target living creatures. There are no exceptions, so you can only conclude that they are living creatures. If it said, 'warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures except X, Y and Z', I'd have to agree with you. The 'regaining half hp from healing subschool' thing doesn't count, because we've already established that the ability to be healed by positive energy has no bearing on whether something is alive (deathless, Tomb-Tained Soul feat). You might also claim that the warforged's immunities are there to cover the exceptions, but each of the warforged's immunities could be found separately in other living creatures. I never said they were not, what I'm saying is they are affected by spells that do not affect living creatures also. How can one have health is one is not alive? Still checking on this, I'll get back to you if I can find something. Yes, warforged can run forever (well, they take damage, but they don't tire), but that's a consequence of no Con score, not a cause. If a character casts a spell to become immune to fatigue, he does not lose his Con score. But, the spells end, and as far as I know all living creatures tire, become fatigued, or exhausted. Need to sleep to restore thier STR, most (if not all) need to eat to restore energy, and drink to prevent dehydration. They all have living cells that make up thier bodies, even oozes. That's wrong, re-read the rules. Warforged die (or is destroyed, functionally the same thing) at -10 hp, are inert from -1 to -9hp, and disabled at 0hp. I am guilty of misreading this, but it does not mention death in any form in the living construct subtype. Now before you respond, it states in the PHB pg 145. If a character hits -10 HP it dies. Mentions nothing about living or non-living. A Warforged is a playable character and as such should be bound by character rules. Those rules say the character is dead, can be raised or ressurected. Also says if you CON score is damaged or drained to 0 the character is dead. If a warforged had no CON score to damage, it would be a massive advantage to play a Warforged, especially with all the immunities he has. Therefore: I speculate that a warforged was given a CON score and ability to be raised to fit in with the normal character rules reguarding death. Yes, and the additional information included with the living construct subtype is that parts of the construct type are overwritten. One of those things is the state of being non-living, another is the Con score (actually those are the same point, but still), another is a portion of the immunities. See above for CON score info. The immunities also fall into the forementioned answer. Warforged are not immune to necromancy and death effects. "How do you kill that which has no life?" By D&D definition necromancy is about manipulating life and death. If warforged aren't alive, they should be immune. See above. To you it might sound clear, but to me it doesn't. If you have a monkey and a human you wouldn't say that they are the same creatures, right? Even so, there is little differerence between the two. The thing that makes a human a human are the small things, it's subtype if you like. The same goes for living and non-living constructs, they look the same but are really two completely different beeings. That is where you don't seem to understand. A Monkey and a Human can both be Humanoids. They share the same basic traits. The Human Subtype defines the Human farther as the Monkey Subtype would describe the Monkey farther. When you add the additional information from the subtypes to the basic information from the Type you end up with two different creatures. Also, nowhere on those pages does it say which one comes in first hand. How can you divide the type if it does not come first. Just because you don't see the construction doesn't mean that it isn't there, I would say that humans, and all living beeings are built, but not by other humans, but by cells and enzymes. If you want to look at the devolopment of a baby as building, then we must look at the building blocks, Cells - are alive and therefore are built from living parts. The rest will have to wait a while as I'm late for an appointment. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-19-08, 08:19 PM | I would have to disagree whit this as all cells within a living creature is alive, from the hair to the toenails. Think smaller. Atoms are not alive. This is true, but humans have iron (although in small amounts) within them, it flows through the blood and makes up part of certain cell structures. Yes, that argues my point. This is further proof that inorganic materials can be part of a living creature. The difference between a warforged and a human is that the balance between organic and inorganic is much different. This is just a name. They needed something to call what I'm guessing to be a very hard wood. But that just proves my point about names, you can not tell by name alone. I don't think you understand my point. Sometimes you can tell just with the name, and living construct is one of those cases, but I agree that sometimes you can't. Let me think of another example, then. To reference something that came up earlier...baelnorns. If someone told you baelnorns were 'good liches', would you assume that they're not entirely good, just a bit more good than normal liches (ie, Neutral), or would you assume that the label is fair, and that baelnorns are actually Good? I will give you this point. It does in fact create a creature, a living creature. However, there is nothing within the creation text for a warforged that says the magics used creates a living creature. There doesn't need to be, because warforged are described as living creatures separately. Yes, it would clarify, but it'd be redundant. No- just saying if it looks as such, it does not follow that it is. A warforged looks and acts alive, does not necessarilly mean it is. That point is useless, because I can use it too. Warforged look and act like non-living creatures (normal constructs), but that doesn't mean they are. I never said they were not, what I'm saying is they are affected by spells that do not affect living creatures also. The spells can target non-living creatures because they target constructs, not because constructs are not alive. With the addition of the living construct subtype, what this means is that those spells you reference in fact can now target living creatures too, but only a subset of them. But, the spells end, and as far as I know all living creatures tire, become fatigued, or exhausted. Need to sleep to restore thier STR, most (if not all) need to eat to restore energy, and drink to prevent dehydration. They all have living cells that make up thier bodies, even oozes. The key point here is that being alive makes you susceptible to fatigue, exhaustion etc. unless otherwise stated. However, the reverse is not true. Being immune to exhaustion and fatigue does not mean you are not alive. I am guilty of misreading this, but it does not mention death in any form in the living construct subtype. Now before you respond, it states in the PHB pg 145. If a character hits -10 HP it dies. Mentions nothing about living or non-living. A Warforged is a playable character and as such should be bound by character rules. Those rules say the character is dead, can be raised or ressurected. Also says if you CON score is damaged or drained to 0 the character is dead. If a warforged had no CON score to damage, it would be a massive advantage to play a Warforged, especially with all the immunities he has. Therefore: I speculate that a warforged was given a CON score and ability to be raised to fit in with the normal character rules reguarding death. Yes. I'm pretty sure that keeping warforged balanced was exactly the reason they were given a Con score. But the reasons for giving something a Con score has no bearing on what that Con score means. You can't give a zombie an intelligence score (so that it can be affected by mind-affecting effects, making it more balanced), then turn around and say 'but they're still mindless'. See above for CON score info. The immunities also fall into the forementioned answer. See above. Again, those immunities were dropped to balance the race, but that doesn't change what losing those immunities actually means. How can you divide the type if it does not come first. I completely agree with you here, subtypes are subdivisions of types (it's in the name after all ;)). But that doesn't prove anything, and has no bearing on this debate at all. It doesn't change the fact that subtypes (as with the living constuct subtype), can overrule the overarching type. If you want to look at the devolopment of a baby as building, then we must look at the building blocks, Cells - are alive and therefore are built from living parts. But how do you make the new cells? They are not the bricks, the unliving atoms are. |
| Zookeeper02-20-08, 01:57 AM | Think smaller. Atoms are not alive. Yes, that argues my point. This is further proof that inorganic materials can be part of a living creature. The difference between a warforged and a human is that the balance between organic and inorganic is much different. Here is some info: Iron-sulfur world theory The iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer, involving forms of iron and sulfur. Wächtershäuser proposes that an early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex compounds. A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells' would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces. This is basically stateing how the first cell had devoloped. Cell theory Cell theory refers to the idea that cells are the basic unit and structure of all non-living things. Development of this theory during the 1800s was made possible by advances in microscopy. This theory is one of the fundamental foundations of biology. The theory says that new cells are formed from other existing cells and the cell is a fundamental unit of structure, physiology, and organization in all living organisms. And this explains how the cell is the actual building blocks for life. The thing is the atom is not the building block of life, it is the building block for the first living cell. After that the cells reproduced from existing cells and formed more complex life forms. I don't think you understand my point. Sometimes you can tell just with the name, and living construct is one of those cases, but I agree that sometimes you can't. Let me think of another example, then. To reference something that came up earlier...baelnorns. If someone told you baelnorns were 'good liches', would you assume that they're not entirely good, just a bit more good than normal liches (ie, Neutral), or would you assume that the label is fair, and that baelnorns are actually Good? This depends on who tells me, reading or hearing "Good Lich" would not convince me. I would need more evidence. The same thing should apply to most people. If you heard or read "Living Construct" you should question it. Now if I'm looking at a "Good Lich" described in detail with examples of how it is good, such as turning undead, then I'm more open to it. "Living Construct" is described in detail, however I believe that a large piece of the puzzle is missing. The detail on weather it is actually alive or not. There doesn't need to be, because warforged are described as living creatures separately. Yes, it would clarify, but it'd be redundant. Unfortuneately Warforged are not described in detail as being alive. Only a name of a subtype states "Living" That point is useless, because I can use it too. Warforged look and act like non-living creatures (normal constructs), but that doesn't mean they are. Actually they are constructs, that is thier type. But I do understand what you are trying to say. The spells can target non-living creatures because they target constructs, not because constructs are not alive. With the addition of the living construct subtype, what this means is that those spells you reference in fact can now target living creatures too, but only a subset of them. Heat Metal does not target constructs, Repel Wood and Repel Stone does not target constructs. In fact those target objects only. I believe there are more, I'm just a bit tired at the moment and not going to spend time re-looking these up. These spells that target objects also target Warforged. The key point here is that being alive makes you susceptible to fatigue, exhaustion etc. unless otherwise stated. However, the reverse is not true. Being immune to exhaustion and fatigue does not mean you are not alive. Yes, I realized this was a bad example just after I sent it. Yes. I'm pretty sure that keeping warforged balanced was exactly the reason they were given a Con score. But the reasons for giving something a Con score has no bearing on what that Con score means. You can't give a zombie an intelligence score (so that it can be affected by mind-affecting effects, making it more balanced), then turn around and say 'but they're still mindless'. My point here was the fact that Warforged are playable characters. Undead are not playable characters. Playable characters (Living or Not) are bound by the rules for dying and death, If a Warforged had no CON score that would be one less way for it to "Die", Dropping some of the Immunities also opened the other ways playable characters "Die" (Maybe Die is the wrong wording - maybe cease to be is better) I completely agree with you here, subtypes are subdivisions of types (it's in the name after all ;)). But that doesn't prove anything, and has no bearing on this debate at all. It doesn't change the fact that subtypes (as with the living constuct subtype), can overrule the overarching type. This was actually a responce to drakir_nosslin. But how do you make the new cells? They are not the bricks, the unliving atoms are. See Above. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-20-08, 10:01 AM | Here is some info: This is basically stateing how the first cell had devoloped. And this explains how the cell is the actual building blocks for life. The thing is the atom is not the building block of life, it is the building block for the first living cell. After that the cells reproduced from existing cells and formed more complex life forms. Cells are made of atoms. When a cell makes a new cell, it uses atoms and molecules from an external source. So while the cell is the building block of life, the atom is the building block of a cell. Thus, life (a cell) is made from unliving parts (atoms). Now, in the real word, the only way to have life is to have cells. But that's only life as we know it. A warforged is something alien, something magical, that is indescribable by biology and all science. That doesn't mean it's not alive in the D&D world, by the definitions of the D&D world. And for the record, warforged do have cells, since they are made of wood. Sure, those cells are dead before creation of the construct (unless they include livewood, but we've covered that they may not), but the magic could resurrect the cells. This depends on who tells me, reading or hearing "Good Lich" would not convince me. I would need more evidence. The same thing should apply to most people. If you heard or read "Living Construct" you should question it. Now if I'm looking at a "Good Lich" described in detail with examples of how it is good, such as turning undead, then I'm more open to it. "Living Construct" is described in detail, however I believe that a large piece of the puzzle is missing. The detail on weather it is actually alive or not. This is ridiculous. It's not about convincing you. It's not an argument, or a debate. It's not an opinion. It's a description of an out-of-game element. If someone tells you there's a good lich called a baelnorn, why question that? What possible reason is there to think the person might be lying, and that baelnorns are actually neutral or evil? They are Good because that's what they are. Here's another example. If a passage in a novel says a character is holding a red ball, do you want further proof the ball is red? Do you want the passage to say "He was carrying a red ball. The ball was red." Do you want to analyse the ball yourself, perhaps take a reading of the ball's spectrum, to prove that the ball is in fact red? Or even a cross reference to somewhere later in the book that also says the ball is red? Can't you see the absurdity there? No one is trying to trick you. D&D rules are written from an objective perspective, not a subjective one. If a character in game were to tell you that warforged are living constructs, by all means question them. Find out why, in game they believe that. But there's no reason to question a description of an out of game element. Unfortuneately Warforged are not described in detail as being alive. Only a name of a subtype states "Living" See the other evidence I have posted. Notably: the Con score, and the susceptibility to necromancy. These are the details that further show that warforged are alive. Heat Metal does not target constructs, Repel Wood and Repel Stone does not target constructs. In fact those target objects only. I believe there are more, I'm just a bit tired at the moment and not going to spend time re-looking these up. These spells that target objects also target Warforged. But heat metal, repel wood etc. don't affect non-living creatures as a general rule either, only objects. So they can't be used as evidence that warforged are not alive. My point here was the fact that Warforged are playable characters. Undead are not playable characters. Playable characters (Living or Not) are bound by the rules for dying and death, If a Warforged had no CON score that would be one less way for it to "Die", Dropping some of the Immunities also opened the other ways playable characters "Die" (Maybe Die is the wrong wording - maybe cease to be is better) I don't see what this has to do with whether warforged are alive or not. Why should designer out-of-character decisions over why to give a race an ability have any bearing on what that ability does or means? And undead can be playable characters. Read Libris Mortis if you have it. The necropolitan race is a prime example of an undead player character. Necropolitans are not living creatures, and are not bound by the death/dying rules in the PHB. Instead, they follow standard rules for undead. |
| Pepitom02-20-08, 02:06 PM | Yes, but those things don't affect warforged because they have immunities to those things, not because they aren't alive! For example, warforged are immune to cloudkill because they are immune to poison, no because they aren't alive (in fact, the are specifically stated to be alive for those purposes). Devils are immune to poison too, but you can't seriously claim they aren't alive. Where do you get the idea that warforged are immune to trap the soul? Remember the spell doesn't just trap the soul, but the material body as well. Even if you argued that warforged don't have souls, their material body is still affected. Normal constructs are not immune to the spell either. No! They are immune because they do not breath, nor do they consume! Poisons also affect the body through blood, where is it going to go in a warforged? sap? BS! there is no way a Warforge could be affected by poison, because they dont breath or eat. just because they have mental thought(which was manufactured) does not mean they are LIVING!:( They have no biological make-up that we consider ALL living things contain, so why are they living? they have no flesh, hair, blood, sweat, need to eat or drink, and their brains were made by some little Gnome ***** that should be shot because he started this huge thread!:mad: |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-20-08, 03:40 PM | No! They are immune because they do not breath, nor do they consume! Poisons also affect the body through blood, where is it going to go in a warforged? sap? BS! there is no way a Warforge could be affected by poison, because they dont breath or eat. Warforged are unaffected by poison because they are listed as immune to it. Warforged are immune to poison because of all the reasons you just stated. It has nothing to do with whether they are alive or not. At least, not in the D&D sense of the word. just because they have mental thought(which was manufactured) does not mean they are LIVING!:( I agree. Hence why maugs are not alive. Also, be careful about using the word 'manufactured' when referring to warforged. They aren't built like traditional constructs, but created in a forge using designs barely understood from an ancient civilisation. Cannith does not design the minds of individual warforged. They have no biological make-up that we consider ALL living things contain, so why are they living? they have no flesh, hair, blood, sweat, need to eat or drink, and their brains were made by some little Gnome ***** that should be shot because he started this huge thread!:mad: Not by gnomes, by humans,and even that'd debatable. The correct answer is probably quori or giants...but that's not what we're talking about. The key here is to divorce yourself from modern science and think about a fantasy world. Warforged have flesh like a tree has flesh. Warforged have alchemical fluids in place of blood. Warforged don't need to eat/drink, no, they are magically sustained. It is possible to replicate this effect with a ring of sustenance, so the magic exists. Warforged are a very different kind of life to humans, but they are life nonetheless. They have a metabolism, but it is fuelled by magic rather than food. |
| ToastedAmphibian02-20-08, 05:24 PM | To you it might sound clear, but to me it doesn't. If you have a monkey and a human you wouldn't say that they are the same creatures, right? Even so, there is little differerence between the two. The thing that makes a human a human are the small things, it's subtype if you like. The same goes for living and non-living constructs, they look the same but are really two completely different beeings. Uh..... no? Humans are humanoid type, monkeys are animal type, an awakened monkey is a magical beast. The only one of the three that even HAS a subtype is the human. STOP BRING REAL WORLD BELIFES INTO THIS! If you want to know if a warforged can become undead in real life, then first go FIND a real-life Warforged, AND a real life NECROMANCER. Otherwise, lets stay in game terms. Also, nowhere on those pages does it say which one comes in first hand. Agian, i disagree. It says so plainly. Every time you see the word "Subtype" its telling you it is secondary, lesser, below, or almost type. That is the definetion of the prefix "Sub-" From Meriam webster online (www.m-w.com) Main Entry: sub- Function: prefix Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, under, below, secretly, from below, near, from sub under, close to — more at up 1: under : beneath : below <subsoil> <subaqueous> 2 a: subordinate : secondary : next lower than or inferior to <substation> <subeditor> b: subordinate portion of : subdivision of <subcommittee> <subspecies> c: with repetition (as of a process) so as to form, stress, or deal with subordinate parts or relations <sublet> <subcontract> 3: less than completely, perfectly, or normally : somewhat <subacute> <subclinical> 4 a: almost : nearly <suberect> b: falling nearly in the category of and often adjoining : bordering on <subarctic> See? Rather clear id say. Just because you don't see the construction doesn't mean that it isn't there, I would say that humans, and all living beeings are built, but not by other humans, but by cells and enzymes. Irrelevant I see your point, but if I would ask you the question the other way, if you take a robot, that previously just had a computer to think with but all the senses of a human and then plugged in a human brain. Would that android be alive or not? It would certainly feel alive, and would act as any other human, besides from the limitations of it's present body. Also Irrelevant Seriously people, i dont see your problem. It is a matter of template and type. Does a warforged have a soul distinct from its body? I dont know. Can it be resurected by any magic weaker than a true ressurection spell? If it can, then it has a soul. Move on. If it cant, then it dosnt. To determine if a warforged can be a particular type of undead, go on a case by case basis. Vampire: No, wrong type Dracolitch: No, wrong type Zombie: Creature? yep Coporeal? yep Skeletal system? meh, close enough. Zombie warforged is a go... Strip his class levels, double his HD, remove his feats and skill, including warforged feats. His dex drops by 2, his HD become d12. He retains natural attacks and movment modes but loses all other special abilites, Dex drops by 2, he loses his con and int score, CHA becomes 1, wisdom becomes 10, and he can only take standard actions. Done. ;) Oh ya, type change, dr 5/slashing ect ect Ghoul/Ghast/Mummy/Worg: Check. Base creature is irrelevant, same creature is created regardless. If you use "Create Undead" on a bloody DRAGON to make a mummy, you get a mummy. Not a dragon mummy. Silly? yes Absurd? probably. Correct acording to teh rules? Yep. |
| WereForged02-20-08, 06:38 PM | Why couldn't there be an undead warforged? I mean sure they were made with magic and what not. Extream emphisis on the made part. But think about it. With such cryptic lines like. "there is no known way for a warforged to be undead" Wouldn't it be really easy to say that some psychopath has discoverd a way? Or better yet, there was a lesser forge that had a malfunction that produced warforged that were rusted and displayed traits like that of an undead. It could work. |
| Mercurius02-20-08, 09:32 PM | What gets me is how worked up people are getting over the very idea that a warforged might actually be, y'know, a living construct. It's pretty much obvious that they're alive, even though they aren't alive in the sense of organic life one might encounter on this real Earth. Not really a surprise - earth elementals are alive, but they're composed of nothing but stone and dirt. How is a warforged any different? Additional information could maybe be gleaned from the Wizards staff, particularly in Wizards Presents: Races and Classes: ...People are often inclined to play warforged as unfeeling robots, but that's not how I see them at all. They're living creatures, and part of living is emotion, attachment, grief, and love. They might have trouble expressing their emotions because of their blank, almost featureless faces, but to my mind, at least, they feel them just as strongly as humans do. Note where a designer says that warforged are "living creatures" so, y'know, I guess that reinforces it. |
| Mercurius02-20-08, 09:38 PM | Ignore. WotC acting up, apparently I wound up triple posting. Sorry. |
| Mercurius02-20-08, 09:44 PM | Triple Post. Ignore. |
| Zookeeper02-20-08, 10:07 PM | Cells are made of atoms. When a cell makes a new cell, it uses atoms and molecules from an external source. So while the cell is the building block of life, the atom is the building block of a cell. Thus, life (a cell) is made from unliving parts (atoms). Actually, once the first cell was created all other cells came from Mitosis (I think thats spelled right) or cell division. The cell actually divides itself in 2, then both grow and divides again giving you 4, etc., etc. Now, in the real word, the only way to have life is to have cells. But that's only life as we know it. A warforged is something alien, something magical, that is indescribable by biology and all science. That doesn't mean it's not alive in the D&D world, by the definitions of the D&D world. And for the record, warforged do have cells, since they are made of wood. Sure, those cells are dead before creation of the construct (unless they include livewood, but we've covered that they may not), but the magic could resurrect the cells. I have to give you this one. There could be other life we do not know about, but I also say since we do not know about it, it needs a better explanation. This is ridiculous. It's not about convincing you. It's not an argument, or a debate. It's not an opinion. It's a description of an out-of-game element. If someone tells you there's a good lich called a baelnorn, why question that? What possible reason is there to think the person might be lying, and that baelnorns are actually neutral or evil? They are Good because that's what they are. If someone came up to you and said this, and you did not know they exist - you would instantly believe them. Thats rediculous, what if that informant was paid to get you to go somewhere, or something. As for an out of game element, if your talking about reading the rule books and finding it, then yes I would accept it. But, trying to use this example as part of the warforged discussion, as I said, seems to me to leave a big question unanswered. If a character in game were to tell you that warforged are living constructs, by all means question them. Find out why, in game they believe that. But there's no reason to question a description of an out of game element. That is what I intended my responce to mean, must have not worded it too well. But heat metal, repel wood etc. don't affect non-living creatures as a general rule either, only objects. So they can't be used as evidence that warforged are not alive. These spells affect OBJECTS, Objects are not creatures and are not living. These spells affect a warforged. Logically speaking: If spell affects only objects and if spells affects warforged then warforged are objects. I don't see what this has to do with whether warforged are alive or not. Why should designer out-of-character decisions over why to give a race an ability have any bearing on what that ability does or means? The ability score definition was written before warforged were introduced, the designers needed to keep a playing character balanced enough with the rest of the player characters that CON was added. And undead can be playable characters. Read Libris Mortis if you have it. The necropolitan race is a prime example of an undead player character. Necropolitans are not living creatures, and are not bound by the death/dying rules in the PHB. Instead, they follow standard rules for undead. The necropolitan is an aquired template for humanoids (Libris Mortis pg 115) |
| Legdiwena02-20-08, 10:10 PM | Hmm, each of the triple posts are 6 min apart. Coincidence or conspiracy, you be the judge. Until next time on the Forum for Inane Text. |
| Zookeeper02-20-08, 10:12 PM | Seriously people, i dont see your problem. It is a matter of template and type. This is exactly the discussion. The Undead TYPE definition states "Undead are Once-Living Creatures" The discussion is weather a warforged falls into the living creature catagory. |
| Zookeeper02-20-08, 10:18 PM | What gets me is how worked up people are getting over the very idea that a warforged might actually be, y'know, a living construct. It's pretty much obvious that they're alive, even though they aren't alive in the sense of organic life one might encounter on this real Earth. Not really a surprise - earth elementals are alive, but they're composed of nothing but stone and dirt. How is a warforged any different? Additional information could maybe be gleaned from the Wizards staff, particularly in Wizards Presents: Races and Classes: Note where a designer says that warforged are "living creatures" so, y'know, I guess that reinforces it. OK - there is a source (although 4th ed.) that states clearly they are alive. So to all I say thank you for all your comments, and that I have to conceed due to this new evidence. Editted to add: If this was posted by someone earlier, I'm sorry - I missed it. |
| calronmoonflower02-21-08, 02:32 AM | These spells affect OBJECTS, Objects are not creatures and are not living. These spells affect a warforged. Logically speaking: If spell affects only objects and if spells affects warforged then warforged are objects. Logically speaking this is a Misuse of Principle. Those spell normally only affect object, but a specific exception is made for warforged. By the Rules As Written creatures cannot be object as by definition the two are by-conditional. [edit] I found an entry that should directly end this debate. From the Monster Manual III, page 215 Living: Any creature with a Constitution score is a living creature. Constructs and undead are not living creatures. Now remember that a rule can have exceptions and still be true. This one says one thing and then another on warforged so lets look further. One again, from the Monster Manual III, page 215 ---Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points by size but gains (or loses) bonus hit points through Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures. I underlined the most relevant part. By the Rules As Written warforged are alive. It is stated directly and ineloquently that constructs with the living subtype are alive and warforged are constructs with the living subtype. |
| Pepitom02-21-08, 02:10 PM | Vampire: No, wrong type Dracolitch: No, wrong type Zombie: Creature? yep Corporeal? yep Skeletal system? meh, close enough. Zombie warforged is a go... Strip his class levels, double his HD, remove his feats and skill, including warforged feats. His dex drops by 2, his HD become d12. He retains natural attacks and movement modes but loses all other special abilities, Dex drops by 2, he loses his con and int score, CHA becomes 1, wisdom becomes 10, and he can only take standard actions. Done. ;) Oh ya, type change, dr 5/slashing etc etc I agree with that, if it can be resurrected then it has a souls and you just need to follow the above posted by ToastedAmphibian. Warforged is a go:D , if they have a soul.:confused: |
| Zookeeper02-21-08, 02:43 PM | Now remember that a rule can have exceptions and still be true. This one says one thing and then another on warforged so lets look further. One again, from the Monster Manual III, page 215 I underlined the most relevant part. By the Rules As Written warforged are alive. It is stated directly and ineloquently that constructs with the living subtype are alive and warforged are constructs with the living subtype. But, you just stated a rule can have exceptions, maybe this is an exception. Also that quote is making a comparision, a Warforged gains (or loses) bonus HP as (or like) other living creatures. Any way, I have conceeded the point per Mercurius post; which states "Warforged are alive". |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-21-08, 07:32 PM | I come back here ready for another round and it's all over? Oh well, kudos to Zookeeper for conceeding, I know a lot of other people would have carried on regardless! :) And thanks to Mercurius for digging up that quote. |
| Zookeeper02-21-08, 08:41 PM | I come back here ready for another round and it's all over? Oh well, kudos to Zookeeper for conceeding, I know a lot of other people would have carried on regardless! :) And thanks to Mercurius for digging up that quote. Sorry - I didn't mean to disappoint anyone. LOL:heehee Actually, that is what I was looking for the whole time. A Source that stated specifically that they were alive. |
| Drackthor02-22-08, 12:24 AM | Wow. One person wants to know if they can make their robot into a zombie and it turns into the World War of Debates. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast02-22-08, 08:27 AM | Wow. One person wants to know if they can make their robot into a zombie and it turns into the World War of Debates. World War of Debates? Hardly...we didn't even break 3 pages! Now, if someone was asking if their warforged zombie paladin with a uranium katana was allowed to kill kobold babies and remain lawful good... |
| Legdiwena02-22-08, 12:57 PM | World War of Debates? Hardly...we didn't even break 3 pages! Now, if someone was asking if their warforged zombie paladin with a uranium katana was allowed to kill kobold babies and remain lawful good... The radioactive sword warps zombie into staying LG and kobold babies are good target practice.:hides: |
| Drackthor02-22-08, 09:01 PM | World War of Debates? Hardly...we didn't even break 3 pages! Now, if someone was asking if their warforged zombie paladin with a uranium katana was allowed to kill kobold babies and remain lawful good... You forget internet protocol, sir! Metaphors and similes need not be accurate if they contribute to the overall delivery of a joke! For shame! |
| Isendir02-22-08, 09:17 PM | Why don't the dms who want undead warforged make them, and the dms who don't don't.... |
| JarionSilverblades03-03-08, 05:45 PM | I created a Undead template that can be added to any Living Construct awhile ago on the Monster board, here's the link, Deathforged, Undead construct template (PEACH) |
| StruckingFuggle03-04-08, 12:56 AM | Out of curiosity, doesn't Mr. "Hellcow" Baker post semi-regularly on the Eberron boards? And if so, has anyone ever asked / has he ever shared his thoughts on this topic? |
| Lazaro03-04-08, 03:32 AM | Keith has stated in numerous posts that the existance of Undead Warforged are up to the DM running the game. The only templates/creatures he referenced that could not be applied to warforged were the Skeleton, Zombie, Bone creatures and Lich. But my opioin is if you're running a game, and you want undead warfoged running around do it. Its your game and nothing says the DM HAS to follow the RAW. |
| Legdiwena03-04-08, 01:02 PM | Hellcow? |
| Yadot03-04-08, 04:38 PM | Hellcow? Keith Baker, the creator of Eberron, goes by the name of Hellcow on these boards. |
| StruckingFuggle03-04-08, 04:55 PM | Keith has stated in numerous posts that the existance of Undead Warforged are up to the DM running the game. Not quite the question I was asking, but an interesting and somewhat relevant answer nonetheless. Neat. :) |
| WereForged03-05-08, 07:20 PM | I was thinking about this. What if there was a forge that produced warfarged that were all like rusted and ruddy. ontop of that they displayed all the characteristics of undead. Couldn't they technically be considerd undead? EDIT WOOT 100 |
| Humanoid_Traits05-23-08, 01:12 AM | Ahem. Perhaps page 142 of Savage Species can answer some questions... |
| M-bark05-23-08, 02:49 AM | Ahem. Perhaps page 142 of Savage Species can answer some questions... Remember though, that Savage Species is 3.0, not 3.5. |