So, Speak with Dead. The text says "This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature."
Maybe it's just my BA of English, but that sentence is obnoxiously vague to me. I can see three possible ways to interpret it.
1. The spell doesn't work on a corpse that is CURRENTLY an undead creature.
2. The spell doesn't work on a corpse that is NOW OR HAS EVER BEEN an undead creature.
3. The spell doesn't work on a corpse that has become a PHYSICAL undead creature.
I've seen a lot of people rule #2, but the Carrion Crown AP has some events in it (Village of Herstag in Trial of the Beast) that rule out both #2 and #3. Which makes it seem as if #1 is the only possibility, but as I said, so many people seem to rule it as #2 that I begin to second guess myself.
Any thoughts?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A creature can be turned into an undead with or without the corpse becoming an undead. That creature could be corporeal undead (requiring the corpse) or incorporeal undead (which would not require the corpse). In either case, you cannot use Speak with Dead with that person.
If the undead creature is destroyed then you may use speak with dead to talk to the deceased person.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would never occur to me that the answer wasn't #1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it would be #2.
Speak with dead does not actually speak with the spirit of the departed. It speaks with a magical spell that is able to pull memories and personality out of the soul-imprint left on the body (think of it as the force of personality and its memories have permeated the body during life and now this spell can animate that personality and recall the memories). That's why speak with dead can't be used to get new information; only what the target would have known up to death.
If a creature has been turned into, say, a wraith-spawn, the spell should still work on the corpse (assuming it is whole and otherwise in line with the spell's limitations).
So if the body has been corrupted, it cannot be affected by this spell. If the body is in pieces, it has less power and information.
That's quite a claim you're making; do you have a reference for that?Actually, it would be #2.
Speak with dead does not actually speak with the spirit of the departed. It speaks with a magical spell that is able to pull memories and personality out of the soul-imprint left on the body (think of it as the force of personality and its memories have permeated the body during life and now this spell can animate that personality and recall the memories). That's why speak with dead can't be used to get new information; only what the target would have known up to death.
In previous iterations of D&D, this was explicit.
In pathfinder, it is implicit.
* "...semblance of life to a corpse..."
* "The corpse's knowledge is limited to what it knew during life..."
* "The soul can only speak about what it knew in life. It cannot answer any questions that pertain to events that occurred after its death."
The soul line is problematic, but the entirety of the spell implies the interpretation suggested by MurphysParadox.
Edit: Just checked the AD&D description of the spell and it doesn't contain the reference I thought it did, hmmmm.
That's quite a claim you're making; do you have a reference for that?
This was explicitly stated in the 3.5E version of the spell; although the Pathfinder version has been edited down, it's still implicitly suggested by the fact that a damaged corpse gives partial answers, and that the corpse's knowledge is limited to what it knew in life.
in our games as long as you have the Skull and Jawbone(lock+key), you can use Speak with Dead.
we can't use it on undead, destroyed undead or incorporeal undead.
our DM does allow us to perform funerary rites to cleanse a corpse of the taint of undead, in order to Speak with Dead.
Then, there is also the Grave Candle
You could also do some divining and investigation and use Commune/ContactOtherPlane/Sending
If a creature has been turned into, say, a wraith-spawn, the spell should still work on the corpse (assuming it is whole and otherwise in line with the spell's limitations).
** spoiler omitted **
So if the body has been corrupted, it cannot be affected by this spell. If the body is in pieces, it has less power and information.
My problem is that in Trial of the Beast,
Mining AP's for rules clarification is hardly the best method, but I have to start somewhere, as I find the spell's text woefully vague.
That's quite a claim you're making; do you have a reference for that?
GM interpretation? I don't have any quotes from a game designer about this but given how the spell works (dead any amount of time, only what the creature knew in life, less body equates to less information), I can only assume that this is the case. Of course, each GM can do what he or she wants with any part of the game (even if there was a designer's quote supporting a different plan).
As for the CC AP; I'd say oversight on the writer in an attempt to add danger to that section of the investigation. Though, really, if the players want to be clever and avoid combat, I'd award them the same as if they sought it out (at least in XP; treasure requires blood).
If a creature has been turned into, say, a wraith-spawn, the spell should still work on the corpse (assuming it is whole and otherwise in line with the spell's limitations).
** spoiler omitted **
So if the body has been corrupted, it cannot be affected by this spell. If the body is in pieces, it has less power and information.
My problem is that in Trial of the Beast, it is explicitly stated that Speak with Dead will not work on the children's corpses until their respective wraith-spawn counterparts are destroyed. Which is why I listed #1 as the only viable solution from my play experiences, despite so many asserting that #2 is correct.
Mining AP's for rules clarification is hardly the best method, but I have to start somewhere, as I find the spell's text woefully vague.
A number of spells are left a bit vague so the GM has room to tailor his interpretations to the game he wants to run and the mood of the game.
With the business of the corpses not being able to speak until the wraith spawn are put down, this can be problematic, especially if the spell has worked just fine for the characters before this in an exactly analogous situation, including talking to a corpse while the incorporeal undead version of it wanders around and causes trouble.
There are a few ways to deal with this:
1. Declare a retcon and handwave over the previous way metaphysics behaved and go with the new "correct" way.
2. Declare the new way the metaphysics work to be part of "the accursed realm of Ustalav," explaining why the spell worked one way in Katapesh but another in Ustalav. This has plenty of precedence in the game system--The whole Ravenloft setting had a list of spells that functioned differently based on the dark powers of Ravenloft.
3. Declare this a special kind of wraith. After all, if you look at zombies, there are now fast zombies, and plague zombies, and all sorts of zombies that have assorted whistles and bells based on extra spells added into the mix when they were created. So if you don't want the kids bodies able to chat while their wraiths are at large, you say that this sort of wraith was spawned by an evil cleric who added Silence into the mix, or you just say "Urgathoa did it" which is an easy blanket answer for any sort of weird new undead or even just slightly non-standard ordinary undead. This zombie kills plants, that skeleton can whistle, and there's a specter over there that can travel through mirrors.
I do like the idea of a cleric using silence as part of the creation process to Inhibit Speak with Dead from working until said undead has been put down...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speak with dead doesn't talk to the soul, it talks to the corpse. That's why the answers are so often literal - you're talking to reanimated brain-meats, not a soul retaking occupancy.
Speak with dead doesn't talk to the soul, it talks to the corpse. That's why the answers are so often literal - you're talking to reanimated brain-meats, not a soul retaking occupancy.
This is quite helpful, actually, as we were just trying to figure out whether we could use Speak With Dead on someone whose soul has (apparently) been snatched by a Daemon.
Thank you muchly.
Edit: Durr. Just realized you were replying directly to our GM on that topic.
On a different topic, you missed a spoiler tag, I think (Kevin Andrew Murphy's post quotes the spoilered material).
On a different topic, you missed a spoiler tag, I think (Kevin Andrew Murphy's post quotes the spoilered material).
I no longer have the ability to fix that kind of thing. I've flagged it so someone who does can get it.
Ah, I see. Nevermind me then.
Wow, Ross, you arent with Paizo anymore?
- Gauss
Wow, Ross, you arent with Paizo anymore?
- Gauss
I've relocated to a warmer climate.
Ahhh, sorry to hear that. Hope you enjoy your new job/climate.
Personally, I always thought of the Northwest as pretty warm. :)
- Gauss