17

What does D&D 5e define as a living creature? More specifically, which creature types would be considered not to be living? The only creature type I see that suggests nonliving is undead.

Page 7 MM:

Undead are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath...

The phrase "once-living" suggests that it is no longer a living creature, but what about Constructs, Elementals, Fiends, Celestials, etc.?

The Bag of Devouring directly mentions this on page 153 DMG:

Animal or vegetable matter placed wholly in the bag is devoured and lost forever. When part of a living creature is placed in the bag, as happens when someone reaches inside it, there is a 50 percent chance that the creature is pulled inside the bag... Any creature that starts its turn inside the bag is devoured, its body destroyed.

Given the mention of "living creature" as to what the bag specifically pulls in, and the additional mention of "Any creature" suggests that there are living and unliving creatures.

Aaron Koning
  • 1,741
  • 16
  • 25
  • Can you include an example of where the books refer to "living creature" for completeness? – Erik Nov 07 '17 at 06:31
  • 3
    Why do you ask? The difference between creature and object is relevant and previously dealt with. Why do you care about the difference between living and non-living? – Dale M Nov 07 '17 at 06:31
  • I added the example of where this comes up underneath the question. – Aaron Koning Nov 07 '17 at 06:36
  • 1
    Not seeing how this makes a mechanical difference – Dale M Nov 07 '17 at 07:25
  • 2
    The mechanical difference is whether or not a Bag of Devouring would completely ignore say something like a Vampire, Zombie, Skeleton, etc. Someone could use Animate Dead and command the skeleton/zombie to withdraw items from the bag safely. – Aaron Koning Nov 07 '17 at 10:03
  • The exact demarcation between life and non-life is a serious question studied by philosophers, biologists, and complexity theorists. – TimothyAWiseman Nov 07 '17 at 18:14

3 Answers3

12

A living creature is a creature that is alive

Defining life is difficult, but recognizing it is pretty easy. You consider the creature in question and then go 'Is that alive?' and if the answer is 'Yes.' then it's yes, and if it's 'No.' then it's no and if it's 'Maybe?' then it's probably no for the purposes of D&D.

Beyond that, it comes down to souls. D&D acknowledges the soul as the seat of identity as well as life, and things that have souls are, generally, alive, while those that do not are not. The biggest category of exception are the undead who, in keeping with folklore, are neither truly dead nor truly alive, trapped in a hellish and unnatural state of being. Other exceptions can exist, and it's probably best to just go with your intuition on this one.

There's no 5e equivalent to the 3.5 rule about Constitution scores, if that's what you're looking for.

Community
  • 1
Please stop being evil
  • 67,458
  • 16
  • 159
  • 311
  • Undead are obviously not alive, and in previous editions constructs weren't (except Living Constructs, i.e., warforged) -- but at the same time, is that what it really means for the Bag of Devouring? Are undead really safe from being devoured? (Which actually is kind of a cool idea, a vampire who keeps valuable items in a bag of devouring that only he and his minions can safely use...) But constructs? Animated armor isn't alive, but are modrons not living things? Flesh golems? Maybe there IS a consistent answer to this, but it's really up to the DM to make that determination. – Darth Pseudonym Nov 07 '17 at 16:28
  • 1
    My personal sense is that the idea behind the bag of devouring is 'living creature' doesn't exclude undead or constructs, but rather is meant to distinguish between, say, testing a bag with a corpse's arm versus a creature that is conscious and moving around. – Darth Pseudonym Nov 07 '17 at 16:31
  • @DarthPseudonym Modrons are alive. They are construct-like, but ultimately they are outsiders, not constructs. (One web enhancement from 3.5e statted them as living constructs, which is awful from a lore perspective though reasonable from a mechanical one—either way, still alive.) – KRyan May 29 '22 at 23:28
  • Note that the majority of native Barovians in CoS don't have souls - would they qualify as living creatures? – Kirt May 30 '22 at 01:02
  • @KRyan In the 5e monster manual, Modrons are listed as constructs. But that's the point I was making (checks date) five years ago. They're of the construct type but pretty obviously living things in a way that a stone golem isn't. – Darth Pseudonym May 30 '22 at 02:36
8

I believe in this context undead and constructs would be considered "non-living". I make this judgements because there are many spells and abilities that specifically call out that they don't work on undead and constructs, and lore-wise, constructs are inanimate objects given an appearance of life via magic.

Chris Boucher
  • 413
  • 1
  • 3
  • 11
3

Living creatures have a metabolism, which is tied to game rules

Since there is no definition of 'living' in the rules, we fall back to the natural meaning in English...where there isn't a clear definition either.

Every fall I start my high school Biology class with the 'Definition of Life', and give the students a list of eight characteristics of living things. Over the next two lessons we discuss how these eight characteristics are guidelines to help us understand what we mean by life, but they are not hard and fast rules; not all living things have all eight of the characteristics, but things that have most of them are generally considered alive.

Some of these characteristics have nothing to do with 5e D&D. We don't know that within the game living things evolve, or have a genetic code, or are made up of cells. However, we do know that within the game living things have a metabolism, that is, they obtain and use materials to build their bodies and energy to run them. In the Monster Manual, living things are assumed to have a need to eat, drink, and breathe because of their metabolism which sustains their life - the biological processes of their physical body. Creatures that are not alive are specified to be of a different Nature.

For example, in the lore for Shambling Mounds we can read that (emphasis mine):

Despite its monstrous form, the shambling mound is a living plant that requires air and nourishment. Although it doesn't sleep the way an animal does, it can lie dormant for days on end before rising to hunt for food.

Whereas for Shadows:

Undead Nature. A shadow doesn't require air, food, drink, or sleep.

For Scarecrows:

Construct Nature. A scarecrow doesn't require air, food, drink, or sleep.

and for Water Wierds:

Elemental Nature. A water weird doesn't require air, food, drink, or sleep.

Thus, we can generally assume that living things are those which require food, drink and air, at least in some form and some amount to maintain the biological processes of their physical bodies, even if they do not follow the rules for food consumption given in the DMG. Anything which does not have these needs will have its atypical Nature called out, which tells us that it is not alive.

Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse revises this somewhat, adding a more general collective trait called Unusual Nature, to spell out that all such creatures don’t need to eat, sleep or breathe.

You ask about "Constructs, Elementals, Fiends, Celestials, etc.?" As the examples above show, Constructs and Elementals have Natures specifying their lack of need to eat, drink or breathe, and thus they are not alive. Fiends and Celestials have no such unusual Nature specified. Presumably they need to eat, drink and breathe (although again, we do not know what or how much), meaning they have biological bodies they must maintain and are thus alive.

As a test of whether 'living' means maintaining a physical body with metabolic needs, we can look at creatures that don't have a physical body. While 'incorporeality' is not itself a feature, there are six creatures in the MM that are listed as having incorporeal movement. Of these, five are undead and don't need to eat, drink, or breathe because of their undead nature: banshees, ghosts, spectres, will-o-wisps, and wraiths. The last one is a demon - and demons, as stated above, are assumed to need to eat. However, this particular demon explicitly does not have a body. Of shadow demons, the MM says:

When a demon's body is destroyed but the fiend is prevented from reforming in the Abyss, its essence sometimes takes on a vague physical form...A shadow demon uses its insubstantial claws to feast on its victim's fears, to taste its memories, and drink in its doubts.

Further, since its lack of a true body means that it does not have a true metabolism but more of a metaphorical one, the shadow demon has

Shadowy Nature. A shadow demon doesn't require air, food, drink, or sleep.

Kirt
  • 50,327
  • 7
  • 121
  • 276
  • This is excellent. It ties in what is generally understood as "living" in the absence of a formal game definition, and it provides a good test. I'll be using this in my games from now on. – Nobody the Hobgoblin May 30 '22 at 07:24
  • I think this is a great answer, I can't think of a better one. I do want to bring some player classes to your attention that might break with this. Monks from 15th level no longer need food nor drink but still air so living? Undead warlocks are non living from 6th level which makes sense but the undying warlock from Level 10 is questionable. – findusl May 30 '22 at 20:46
  • @findusl In the case of monks, the fact that they don't need to eat doesn't mean that they stop eating - just that they can choose not to eat without suffering any ill effects because they are able to sustain themselves on their ki alone. Having the ability to do that does not mean that they are no longer alive. Not eating, etc., is a useful distinguishing trait for a type of creatures, like undead, but not necessarily for an individual that has access to class features or magic items (like the right set of ioun stones). – Kirt Jun 18 '22 at 21:11