Is "character" equivalent to "creature?"

[Mordorandor]

When reading through the guidelines, especially the spell explanations, it seems "character" is not equivalent to "creature." Most times, it seems to be an equivalency for "player."

I read the LBBs as distinguishing characters (those can can be completely or partially controlled by players) from creatures (all living things: characters, non-player characters, and monsters).

For example, in the reincarnation spell explanation:

"... the reincarnated character is that creature and must play as it."

If "character "does hold this stricter meaning -- only those living things that players control (fully or partially) -- it seems reincarnation works only for PCs and NPCs, never "monsters?"

Sort of like the carve-outs in raise dead, which works on both types of characters (PCs and NPCs) and monsters, but only with Humans, Dwarves, and Elves.

I kind of like these special carve-outs (similar to how I prefer reading the charm monster spell re: "animals or creatures with 3 HD or fewer").

[Desparil]

Honestly, I think that this has more to do with Gary and his players not seeing any reason why they would ever want to cast it on a creature other than a PC or henchman. Their outlook on most issues was quite mercenary, so if it didn't directly benefit them they were probably uninterested in the possibility.

[hamurai]

Of course, "monsters" are not necessarily "characters", could be non-player "characters" though. NPCs are technically "monsters", though, if they're "found in the dungeon" (see M&M "Non-Player Characters", p.12 Premium Edition (PE)).

"Characters" are PCs or NPCs, so Reincarnation works for "monsters" as long as they fit the above definition, at least RAW. My guess is, the idea is that no one would use that spell on any random creature, only named "characters", either in player or DM control.


"Creatures" might exclude constructs.

In M&T, the monster table has the heading: "MONSTER REFERENCE TABLE, HOSTILE & BENIGN CREATURES:"

"Robots, Golems, Androids" are the last explanatory entry before the treasure section begins (M&T p.22 PE), and they're not on the monster table. Probably just coincidence, because they're "Self-explanatory monsters which are totally subjective as far as characteristics are concerned", so a table entry wouldn't make sense.

Edit: Anyway, to answer the topic's title: In a normal game, I'd say "Yes, characters are creatures." Since M&M tells us we could literally play anything we want, it might be that characters are non-creatures, assuming robots, androids and golems are excluded for a reason from the monsters/creatures table. 
Personally, I'd assume a "creature" to be anything of sentience, but I guess I'd have to check the LBBs if that holds up to all mentions of creatures.

[Vile Traveller]

Dec 26, 2022 9:43:06 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Honestly, I think that this has more to do with Gary and his players not seeing any reason why they would ever want to cast it on a creature other than a PC or henchman.

I agree, this seems like one of those many examples of Gygax just not looking at the rules from outside his head. A lot of his responses to these sorts of questions from customers were along the lines of, "Why would you ever want to do that?" (most famously about the desire for pre-written adventures).

I'd just treat characters as synonymous with creatures in these cases, though if you wanted to stick to the differentiation you could file it under Mythic Underword like everyone but the PCs being able to see in the dark and open doors at will.

[Mordorandor]

Another one of these curious uses of "character."

"Cure Light Wounds: During the course of one full turn this spell will remove hits from a wounded character (including elves, dwarves, etc.). A die is rolled, one pip added, and the resultant total subtracted from the hit points the character has taken. Thus from 2–7 hit points of damage can be removed."

Am I thinking too hard about this?

Why would the author need to make the call out "...(including elves, dwarves, etc.)?"

Is this one of those mythic underworld occurrences?

Likely not, as I imagine the "ol' timers" just assumed: if it applies to (non-)players' characters, it applies to monsters too.

Edit: I chalk it up to Vile's observation that this might be another one of those times Gary was deep into his own head/views.