Great. How does that work in terms of game play, then?
Welcome to poorly written game rules episode 732?
That excuse works in some cases, but not this one
In this case the rules work just fine if you recognize that having no physical brain means you are, in fact, dead, and that the writers of the rules didn't think that would be necessary to spell out
If your RAW argument leads to impossible or incomprehensible situations, sometimes it's not the rules that are the problem
I think they spelled it out clearly. The only time a creature is dead, or having died is when the intel dev has put itself in the same space where a creature’s brain was, and then leaves the space and nothing is left there but empty space.
That’s when the creature dies, and not before
And that interpretation leads to completely illogical or impossible game scenarios, as I've pointed out. Whereas recognizing that when the rules talk about the body being alive, they are not talking about the character, does not
death ward would stop the intellect devourer from initially consuming the brain, because that's the effect that kills the character. Casting it on a puppeted body being kept alive by the intellect devourer would have no effect at all
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
death ward would stop the intellect devourer from initially consuming the brain, because that's the effect that kills the character. Casting it on a puppeted body being kept alive by the intellect devourer would have no effect at all
Death ward does not target or work on characters -- it will not prevent effects that are entirely debilitating but leave the body alive.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When a creature dies, their soul is released. (There are a few edge cases; this is not one, as all edge cases tell you what happens to the soul.)
For anyone to argue that a creature is NOT dead when their brain is eaten, they also have to argue that the creature's soul is effectively imprisoned within a puppet being piloted by an entirely separate creature. However, this has hilarious implications.
RAW, when an Intellect Devourer is ejected from the body, it takes the body a round to perish. It does NOT state that this gamestate is checked every round; only the round after the ID leaves is checked. Therefore, any effect that would prevent the creature from dying instantly would keep the creature alive indefinitely. This is because of Death Ward's wording and the ID's wording. "The body then dies" is "an effect that would kill it instantaneously without dealing damage" under this understanding of death.
RAW, there's also nothing in the ID's stat block that applies any condition automatically to the brainless body. Therefore, unless they're under the effects of a condition from another source, the body is free to move and act as if nothing happened without their brain. After all, the soul is still able to pilot the body when the ID isn't inside, since it's still a resident.
If you're going to argue that the creature is still alive, this must be your stance. After all, the block doesn't say otherwise.
Or.
You can just accept that an ID consuming a brain means the creature is dead. The body is alive, but only in the sense that it's being used by another creature. The original creature's essence (brain and soul) are no longer present.
The body dying is still relevant here: A creature that's dead but its body is alive can't be resurrected by most means.
It targets a creature -- which is to say, a body. What you have is a creature that is alive but subjected to a debilitating status effect (missing brain).
An equivalent case is: if you cast magic jar, the spell will prevent your body from being reduced to 0 hp or instantly killed.
It targets a creature -- which is to say, a body. What you have is a creature that is alive but subjected to a debilitating status effect (missing brain).
1) A D&D character is most definitely a creature
2) A creature is not simply a body, in both a metaphysical sense and a very real mechanical sense in 5e, which you helpfully made clear by referencing the magic jar spell -- another instance where "the creature" and "the creature's body" become distinct
3) Please show me this "missing brain" status effect in the rules. I don't seem to have it in my list of conditions
This insistence on denying the obvious -- which is that having your brain destroyed is lethal, and not something the writers of the rules felt was worth the page space to point out because, well, duh -- keeps getting funnier
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It targets a creature -- which is to say, a body. What you have is a creature that is alive but subjected to a debilitating status effect (missing brain).
1) A D&D character is most definitely a creature
2) A creature is not simply a body, in both a metaphysical sense and a very real mechanical sense in 5e, which you helpfully made clear by referencing the magic jar spell -- another instance where "the creature" and "the creature's body" become distinct
3) Please show me this "missing brain" status effect in the rules. I don't seem to have it in my list of conditions
This insistence on denying the obvious -- which is that having your brain destroyed is lethal, and not something the writers of the rules felt was worth the page space to point out because, well, duh -- keeps getting funnier
I don't think they consciously thought it was unnecessary. They rewrote the rules and weren't as precise this time, but otherwise I agree.
2) A creature is not simply a body, in both a metaphysical sense and a very real mechanical sense in 5e, which you helpfully made clear by referencing the magic jar spell -- another instance where "the creature" and "the creature's body" become distinct
There's no evidence that a soul in a magic jar is a creature -- it cannot be targeted in any way, and the jar remains an object.
2) A creature is not simply a body, in both a metaphysical sense and a very real mechanical sense in 5e, which you helpfully made clear by referencing the magic jar spell -- another instance where "the creature" and "the creature's body" become distinct
There's no evidence that a soul in a magic jar is a creature -- it cannot be targeted in any way, and the jar remains an object.
In the example of Magic Jar, the soul is still connected to the body in explicitly stated ways. The entire spell flies in the face of normal rules.
I don't think they consciously thought it was unnecessary. They rewrote the rules and weren't as precise this time, but otherwise I agree.
If it was language dropped from the 3.5 version during the editing/revision process for 5e, I'm pretty confident someone must have said out loud something along the lines of, "Wait, do we really need to say a creature is dead if their brain is destroyed?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If it was language dropped from the 3.5 version during the editing/revision process for 5e, I'm pretty confident someone must have said out loud something along the lines of, "Wait, do we really need to say a creature is dead if their brain is destroyed?"
If this was merely simplifying the text I might agree -- but it wasn't. It was just changing it, and the big change is that in 3.5 the body was dead, and in 5e the body is not dead.
3.5e explicitly states that Body Thief kills the victim (if not already dead; it worked on corpses).
"If the host body dies, the intellect devourer must leave it." requires the body to be alive. No equivalent phrase exists in 3.5e.
"The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round." requires the body to be alive. No equivalent phrase exists in 3.5e.
When a creature dies, their soul is released. (There are a few edge cases; this is not one, as all edge cases tell you what happens to the soul.)
For anyone to argue that a creature is NOT dead when their brain is eaten, they also have to argue that the creature's soul is effectively imprisoned within a puppet being piloted by an entirely separate creature. However, this has hilarious implications.
RAW, when an Intellect Devourer is ejected from the body, it takes the body a round to perish. It does NOT state that this gamestate is checked every round; only the round after the ID leaves is checked. Therefore, any effect that would prevent the creature from dying instantly would keep the creature alive indefinitely. This is because of Death Ward's wording and the ID's wording. "The body then dies" is "an effect that would kill it instantaneously without dealing damage" under this understanding of death.
RAW, there's also nothing in the ID's stat block that applies any condition automatically to the brainless body. Therefore, unless they're under the effects of a condition from another source, the body is free to move and act as if nothing happened without their brain. After all, the soul is still able to pilot the body when the ID isn't inside, since it's still a resident.
If you're going to argue that the creature is still alive, this must be your stance. After all, the block doesn't say otherwise.
Or.
You can just accept that an ID consuming a brain means the creature is dead. The body is alive, but only in the sense that it's being used by another creature. The original creature's essence (brain and soul) are no longer present.
The body dying is still relevant here: A creature that's dead but its body is alive can't be resurrected by most means.
I don’t understand why the concept of a creatures soul trapped in its body is hilarious or even remotely funny, lots of examples of trapped souls in D&D that are the puppets of their masters.
Look at the Intellect Devourers text. It only states that when a body that has a Intellect devourer inside, and the iD is forced out, does the body begin to die. now is the point at which the body never has a brain in it. Before when the iD is devouring the brain, it is also replacing the brain with itself, so the body is never left without a “brain” to control it. And once a “brain” is no longer in the body, that is when the clock to re-implant a brain starts. Because of the six second window, for a quick wish to get the creature back before death, Death ward would only extend that time another six seconds. In that time, the body is simply in a state of having both the unconscious an incapacitated condition, it’s ability scores are zero, and on its turn would fail all three of its death saves.( because of the zero stats, initiative order becomes a 0, so all the time needed to find a fix is given. and if by that point all that could be done to save the former creature was not done, then the body dies, and the necromancy can begin. )
Next, Proc from G or E : same as just stated. Body driven to 0hp: same as above. Middle of fight wish for little timmy to get his brain back, fastest and only possible outcome in restoring the target creature body to preinfested condition.
Pretty much anything that might prevent or at least make the ability of an Intellect Devourer to body Theft a humanoid creature will be far better than Death Ward.
Once that “Brain” bug gets into your head, short of having that wish you had stayed in bed that morning granted, you’re in an extremely bad place. ( un-alive the poor soul, if you have any mercy. And be sure to get the iD too.)
Putting a group against the things that is unprepared is not an excuse to go easy on them, and to bend the rules to such a point as to make the challenge easier, thus destroying the whole point of the challenge.
It is just as brain dead a idea as thinking that as soon as you read the devourer then magically consumes the brain, teleports inside the creature's skull, and takes control of the targets body all three of those things happen one at a time.
They all happen at the exact same time, like flipping a switch. Thats the problem, the mistake of thinking that the moment the brain is magically consumed, that means instant death and that instant trigger is what sets off death ward, but that isn’t what it appears to happen.
From a purely RAW context, once an Intellect Devourer wins the incapacitated contest and body theft’s a creature that creature is doomed, and is now just a former shell of itself. The creatures “brain” has been instantly replaced with another, and until it is restored, the intellect devourer has a new defensive shell, and will attempt to kill everything else it must with the new form.
I think your going to need a bigger ward.
Your entire premise assumes that the ID replacing the brain counts as the creature still having a brain. But it doesn't. The ID is in its place and serves the same purpose for the body's sake, but ultimately, the ID is the creature in that space. The ID doesn't also count as is it's the other creature, it only mimics their abilities.
If it was language dropped from the 3.5 version during the editing/revision process for 5e, I'm pretty confident someone must have said out loud something along the lines of, "Wait, do we really need to say a creature is dead if their brain is destroyed?"
If this was merely simplifying the text I might agree -- but it wasn't. It was just changing it, and the big change is that in 3.5 the body was dead, and in 5e the body is not dead.
3.5e explicitly states that Body Thief kills the victim (if not already dead; it worked on corpses).
"If the host body dies, the intellect devourer must leave it." requires the body to be alive. No equivalent phrase exists in 3.5e.
"The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round." requires the body to be alive. No equivalent phrase exists in 3.5e.
That was done to try and match language used elsewhere -- you can see echoes of it in magic jar, which also describes what happens when the "host body dies", and also makes a very clear distinction between creatures and their bodies ("If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead, you die.")
That's not remotely enough support to jump to the conclusion that destroying a creature's brain doesn't kill it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In the real world, yeah I'd agree. But in dnd, I am more inclined to say you are your soul. And I would make a clear distinction between your soul and brain. Look at plasmoids, they have no brain, but I would say they have soul.
Futhermore, if you are "not dead" as by the text of the intellect devourer, does that mean you can be revived by spells that would raise the dead?
Ok - let's try to work with that.
You are your soul. But you've lost your brain. Where, precisely, does losing your soul differ from losing your brain. In other words, what abilities do you retain - because you still have your soul - now that your brain is gone?
How much do you retain when Polymorphed and your brain is switched to one with a completely different structure and capacity? The rules say alignment and personality but I have seen "personality" taken to include knowledge and all sorts of other elements that would presumably require the original brain :)
So, in D&D, how much do you retain with no brain? Personally, I'd rule nothing but that is based on common sense. The rules DO include cases that state that a creature that can't live without its head, instantly die if it is removed, (see vorpal weapons) .. the wording is something like "if the creature can't survive without its head ...". In a similar way, I'd rule that when the ID leaves the humanoid creature dies in one round if it can't survive without its brain (which would be true in pretty much every case).
P.S. Personally, I would rule that the ID becomes a functional equivalent for the creature's brain maintaining all functions and, as body thief states, also retaining all knowledge and abilities - so that the creature isn't actually dead until after the ID departs leaving the body without a brain.
However, because 5e is supposed to use "common" sense in understanding the rules - I'd also rule that a body without a brain will die in one round. Remove the ID and somehow use magic to extend the life of the creature by a round then unless there is an effect indefinitely extending the "life" of the body - the creature dies without a brain.
It is important to remember that the 5e rules are not exhaustive. They do not go through and itemize everything a creature can and can not do if it happens to lose an appendage or bodily organs. There is no rule stating that if a creature loses a leg or foot that it can't walk. There is no rule stating that a creature can continue to function without a head or even a rule stating that any particular creature is fine if it loses a head (except perhaps a hydra :) ). There is no rule itemizing the effects of damage or loss of any particular internal organ like the heart, brain, lungs, etc.
So, I'd tend to say that anyone deciding that a creature without a brain can continue to live indefinitely if they somehow survive for the first round after an ID leaves just because the rules for the ID state that the host dies if the brain is not restored within that round by use of a Wish but don't say that it dies after two rounds if the brain is not restored... are sort of missing the point. The rules are never going to state that a creature gets to live indefinitely without a brain because it is pretty obviously not the case for most creatures and it isn't something 5e would be written to cover.
That was done to try and match language used elsewhere
If they weren't trying to change how the ability works, they could have easily just stated that it's an animated corpse, like a zombie, which is the way it worked in 3.5e.
That was done to try and match language used elsewhere
If they weren't trying to change how the ability works, they could have easily just stated that it's an animated corpse, like a zombie, which is the way it worked in 3.5e.
But it's not an animated corpse like a zombie. It's not undead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
How much do you retain when Polymorphed and your brain is switched to one with a completely different structure and capacity?
Well - you raise a valid point. I'd say that the brain was changed, not destroyed, and that all bodily functions are maintained throughout. Of course, a True Polymorph might change you into a chunk of basalt, which makes the argument harder, but the spell clearly states that you turn back eventually. Whereas the ID entry states that you die, although ....... for some reason someone on staff felt the urge to put in something about using a Wish. That, to me, seems utterly ludicrous, because if you didn't cast with on the round the ID leaves, and the body was then burned to cinders by a red dragon, trampled for an hour by elefants, then disintegrated by a beholder ..... a Wish would still be able to bring the poor, mistreated guy back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And that interpretation leads to completely illogical or impossible game scenarios, as I've pointed out. Whereas recognizing that when the rules talk about the body being alive, they are not talking about the character, does not
death ward would stop the intellect devourer from initially consuming the brain, because that's the effect that kills the character. Casting it on a puppeted body being kept alive by the intellect devourer would have no effect at all
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Death ward does not target or work on characters -- it will not prevent effects that are entirely debilitating but leave the body alive.
Say what now
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Let's look at this from another angle.
When a creature dies, their soul is released. (There are a few edge cases; this is not one, as all edge cases tell you what happens to the soul.)
For anyone to argue that a creature is NOT dead when their brain is eaten, they also have to argue that the creature's soul is effectively imprisoned within a puppet being piloted by an entirely separate creature. However, this has hilarious implications.
RAW, when an Intellect Devourer is ejected from the body, it takes the body a round to perish. It does NOT state that this gamestate is checked every round; only the round after the ID leaves is checked. Therefore, any effect that would prevent the creature from dying instantly would keep the creature alive indefinitely. This is because of Death Ward's wording and the ID's wording. "The body then dies" is "an effect that would kill it instantaneously without dealing damage" under this understanding of death.
RAW, there's also nothing in the ID's stat block that applies any condition automatically to the brainless body. Therefore, unless they're under the effects of a condition from another source, the body is free to move and act as if nothing happened without their brain. After all, the soul is still able to pilot the body when the ID isn't inside, since it's still a resident.
If you're going to argue that the creature is still alive, this must be your stance. After all, the block doesn't say otherwise.
Or.
You can just accept that an ID consuming a brain means the creature is dead. The body is alive, but only in the sense that it's being used by another creature. The original creature's essence (brain and soul) are no longer present.
The body dying is still relevant here: A creature that's dead but its body is alive can't be resurrected by most means.
It targets a creature -- which is to say, a body. What you have is a creature that is alive but subjected to a debilitating status effect (missing brain).
An equivalent case is: if you cast magic jar, the spell will prevent your body from being reduced to 0 hp or instantly killed.
1) A D&D character is most definitely a creature
2) A creature is not simply a body, in both a metaphysical sense and a very real mechanical sense in 5e, which you helpfully made clear by referencing the magic jar spell -- another instance where "the creature" and "the creature's body" become distinct
3) Please show me this "missing brain" status effect in the rules. I don't seem to have it in my list of conditions
This insistence on denying the obvious -- which is that having your brain destroyed is lethal, and not something the writers of the rules felt was worth the page space to point out because, well, duh -- keeps getting funnier
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't think they consciously thought it was unnecessary. They rewrote the rules and weren't as precise this time, but otherwise I agree.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
There's no evidence that a soul in a magic jar is a creature -- it cannot be targeted in any way, and the jar remains an object.
In the example of Magic Jar, the soul is still connected to the body in explicitly stated ways. The entire spell flies in the face of normal rules.
If it was language dropped from the 3.5 version during the editing/revision process for 5e, I'm pretty confident someone must have said out loud something along the lines of, "Wait, do we really need to say a creature is dead if their brain is destroyed?"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If this was merely simplifying the text I might agree -- but it wasn't. It was just changing it, and the big change is that in 3.5 the body was dead, and in 5e the body is not dead.
Your entire premise assumes that the ID replacing the brain counts as the creature still having a brain. But it doesn't. The ID is in its place and serves the same purpose for the body's sake, but ultimately, the ID is the creature in that space. The ID doesn't also count as is it's the other creature, it only mimics their abilities.
That was done to try and match language used elsewhere -- you can see echoes of it in magic jar, which also describes what happens when the "host body dies", and also makes a very clear distinction between creatures and their bodies ("If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead, you die.")
That's not remotely enough support to jump to the conclusion that destroying a creature's brain doesn't kill it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
How much do you retain when Polymorphed and your brain is switched to one with a completely different structure and capacity? The rules say alignment and personality but I have seen "personality" taken to include knowledge and all sorts of other elements that would presumably require the original brain :)
So, in D&D, how much do you retain with no brain? Personally, I'd rule nothing but that is based on common sense. The rules DO include cases that state that a creature that can't live without its head, instantly die if it is removed, (see vorpal weapons) .. the wording is something like "if the creature can't survive without its head ...". In a similar way, I'd rule that when the ID leaves the humanoid creature dies in one round if it can't survive without its brain (which would be true in pretty much every case).
P.S. Personally, I would rule that the ID becomes a functional equivalent for the creature's brain maintaining all functions and, as body thief states, also retaining all knowledge and abilities - so that the creature isn't actually dead until after the ID departs leaving the body without a brain.
However, because 5e is supposed to use "common" sense in understanding the rules - I'd also rule that a body without a brain will die in one round. Remove the ID and somehow use magic to extend the life of the creature by a round then unless there is an effect indefinitely extending the "life" of the body - the creature dies without a brain.
It is important to remember that the 5e rules are not exhaustive. They do not go through and itemize everything a creature can and can not do if it happens to lose an appendage or bodily organs. There is no rule stating that if a creature loses a leg or foot that it can't walk. There is no rule stating that a creature can continue to function without a head or even a rule stating that any particular creature is fine if it loses a head (except perhaps a hydra :) ). There is no rule itemizing the effects of damage or loss of any particular internal organ like the heart, brain, lungs, etc.
So, I'd tend to say that anyone deciding that a creature without a brain can continue to live indefinitely if they somehow survive for the first round after an ID leaves just because the rules for the ID state that the host dies if the brain is not restored within that round by use of a Wish but don't say that it dies after two rounds if the brain is not restored... are sort of missing the point. The rules are never going to state that a creature gets to live indefinitely without a brain because it is pretty obviously not the case for most creatures and it isn't something 5e would be written to cover.
If they weren't trying to change how the ability works, they could have easily just stated that it's an animated corpse, like a zombie, which is the way it worked in 3.5e.
But it's not an animated corpse like a zombie. It's not undead.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's an animated corpse that isn't undead, like a flesh golem.
Well - you raise a valid point. I'd say that the brain was changed, not destroyed, and that all bodily functions are maintained throughout. Of course, a True Polymorph might change you into a chunk of basalt, which makes the argument harder, but the spell clearly states that you turn back eventually. Whereas the ID entry states that you die, although ....... for some reason someone on staff felt the urge to put in something about using a Wish. That, to me, seems utterly ludicrous, because if you didn't cast with on the round the ID leaves, and the body was then burned to cinders by a red dragon, trampled for an hour by elefants, then disintegrated by a beholder ..... a Wish would still be able to bring the poor, mistreated guy back.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.