| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always love the old "Death is not defined in the rules" argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see both points of view and to be honest my initial reaction to the question was the same as the GM's in question. But I think the player would have persuaded me round to his way of thinking.
However it's a classic case of caveat emptor. The player could have queried with the GM beforehand if he had thought to ask but instead left an important grey area unresolved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually can provide rules to prove that "spells do what they say they do".
From the Magic chapter in the Core Rulebook (chapter 10, I believe?).
Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.
If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.
This spell makes the duration of certain other spells permanent.
Seems pretty clear to me.
1. Permanency makes the duration of certain spells (see the spell for which ones).2. All spell effects, regardless of type, last for the entire duration, outside of special (mentioned) cases: antimagic field, dispel magic, caster dispels them.
3. Permanent duration spells mean that the spell effect lasts effectively forever, up until such time as it is dismissed or dispelled.
The spells in question don't even have to have the permanent duration added. A normal Enlare Person will continue to affect your body up until the duration runs out, at which point it no longer will.
There is nothing, including the set of rules I quoted, that implies dying will get rid of any effects, let alone permanent ones.
Saying otherwise is a houserule and a completely fine one to implement, in your own game.
But a dead creature under a spell affect that affects only creatures creates an illegal condition. The spell couldn't be cast on a corpse (object) so why can it persist on an object? Ending the spell when the creature stops being a creature avoids weird illegal cases like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider a spell that targets a willing target. You can cast it on an unconscious target. If the recipient doesn't want the spell when he wakes, then the spell isn't automatically dismissed.
But a dead creature under a spell affect that affects only creatures creates an illegal condition. The spell couldn't be cast on a corpse (object) so why can it persist on an object? Ending the spell when the creature stops being a creature avoids weird illegal cases like that.
The point I'm making is that it's not illegal.
There is absolutely no text that even suggests that you have to check the legality of the target beyond the first time you do so, at the time of casting.Yeah, I get that you can't cast Barkskin on a dead creature.
But if you cast that spell on your party fighter and then he died, is his natural armor suddenly going to disappear? You legally applied the effect of the spell on a living target, and that's all that matters.
I could possibly understand not allowing permanent or ongoing spells/effects to carry over if the target has been Reincarnated or True Resurrected from a pile of ashes or something, but just simply dying and coming back? Shouldn't cause the loss of any permanent spells.
Honestly, the only thing I can see coming out of this is the player being upset that he put up a few thousand gold and the time needed to find someone to cast it only to have it ripped away from him, in my mind unfairly and illegally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The creature Animated Object and the spell Animate Objects show that even though a spell targets an object, it continues functioning after the object becomes a creature. This spell is also a possible recipient of Permanacy.
So the target of a spell is only checked upon the casting of the spell and doesn't need to stay valid throughout.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've just found something that might answer this... Though it's a bit of a stretch, because it assumes coherence in the target rules that's not particularly in evidence.
There are a number of spells that affect Target: living creature (Aid and Command, for example) and a number of spells (primarily the raise/resurrection line) that affect dead creatures (which implies that dead creatures are still creatures).
Enlarge person has target: one humanoid creature, and makes no distinction regarding the life/death state, which implies that it can function on a dead humanoid, and thus the effect won't end with the death of the target.
For more confusing fun, see Breath of Life. As written, this spell has no effect, because if dead creatures are objects (and not creatures) then this spell can never target the intended recipients!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the Nth time: you are houseruling.
Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.
Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.
This is not something that is covered either way. There is nothing that says spells persist after death. There is nothing that says spells dissipate after death. There is no solid evidence on either side of the argument. If you're the GM consider what is reasonable and use your best judgement, or if you're the player ask your GM. Expect table variance.
Here it is:
Duration
A spell's duration entry tells you how long the magical energy of the spell lasts.
Timed Durations: Many durations are measured in rounds, minutes, hours, or other increments. When the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends. If a spell's duration is variable, the duration is rolled secretly so the caster doesn't know how long the spell will last.
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.
Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.
Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
Discharge: Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged.
(D) Dismissible: If the duration line ends with "(D)," you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell's effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell's verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn.
The duration of a spell has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate spells.
*Sigh* this is my point. There is not evidence on either side. Each side is trying to put burden of proof on the other, and there is no proof on either side. This is a rules argument where the rules are ambiguous. You cannot win by saying "If you can't produce rules that prove your point, then I am correct". That is a logical fallacy.
False, read what I cited above.
You cited what the definition of spell durations is. That still has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate the effects of spells.
I can quote paragraphs of unhelpful text as well, but it also won't prove anything.
|
|
You cited what the definition of spell durations is. That still has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate the effects of spells.
I can quote paragraphs of unhelpful text as well, but it also won't prove anything.
We are speaking of spell duration. Unless you can cite a piece of text that say that a spell duration is affected by a change of the target nature, the spell duration is determined by the rules about spell duration.
Targeting rules are very clear: they apply when you target someone, not after that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And we still have Animate Object as an example of a spell that must keep working once its target's designation has changed.
You cited what the definition of spell durations is. That still has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate the effects of spells.
I can quote paragraphs of unhelpful text as well, but it also won't prove anything.
See my post above, quoting the same text.
I'm not sure why you think it's "unhelpful text", as that passage is actually the only thing we have regarding when spells actually end.
It pretty clear in saying exactly when spells, left to their own, end. It notes the very specific conditions regarding when spell effects end. If you want us to quote the conditions where spells end before the duration is up, I'll be glad to quote Dispel Magic, Mage's Disjunction, Antimagic Field, or any other actual rules text-based ways a spell can be ended before its duration is up.
(Hint: the part I bolded earlier, but here it is again).
If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration.
Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.
This is not something that is covered either way. There is nothing that says spells persist after death. There is nothing that says spells dissipate after death. There is no solid evidence on either side of the argument. If you're the GM consider what is reasonable and use your best judgement, or if you're the player ask your GM. Expect table variance.
See, we did show you the only piece of the rules that says exactly how to handle this, and you dismissed it as "unhelpful".
The text I quoted, and the longer block Diego did, actually covers this entire subject perfectly.The rules specifically state that once a legal target has been selected, and the spells' effects have been put into place, there are no other conditions for the spell to end beyond the duration expiring and outside influence (Dispel Magic).
There not being one shred of evidence to point towards your added on route of spell expiration is quite telling.
The ability of spells to end upon a target's death, along with any other methods of spells expiring before their duration is up (the caster dies instead of the target, caster worships Saranrae and it's nighttime on the moon so Her power doesn't function, target spun around in three circles both clockwise and counter-clockwise consecutively) are all houserules, as there is no base in rules for your argument.
I'm not sure why you think it's "unhelpful text", as that passage is actually the only thing we have regarding when spells actually end.
Once again, that is my point. That's all we have, and it isn't enough. It's unclear. Ambiguous. Vague. Up to interpretation.
Death isn't defined in the rules. That doesn't mean it has no effect. It's self-evident that death has repercussions. What those repercussions are is up to interpretation. Anything else is utter madness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For more confusing fun, see Breath of Life. As written, this spell has no effect, because if dead creatures are objects (and not creatures) then this spell can never target the intended recipients!I've just found something that might answer this... Though it's a bit of a stretch, because it assumes coherence in the target rules that's not particularly in evidence.
There are a number of spells that affect Target: living creature (Aid and Command, for example) and a number of spells (primarily the raise/resurrection line) that affect dead creatures (which implies that dead creatures are still creatures).
Enlarge person has target: one humanoid creature, and makes no distinction regarding the life/death state, which implies that it can function on a dead humanoid, and thus the effect won't end with the death of the target.
Alex is correct. Dead creatures are not objects. They are creatures with the Dead condition. Thus they can still be targeted by any spell that targets a creature unless specifically prohibited for Dead creatures such as healing magic.
I'm not sure why you think it's "unhelpful text", as that passage is actually the only thing we have regarding when spells actually end.Once again, that is my point. That's all we have, and it isn't enough. It's unclear. Ambiguous. Vague. Up to interpretation.
Death isn't defined in the rules. That doesn't mean it has no effect. It's self-evident that death has repercussions. What those repercussions are is up to interpretation. Anything else is utter madness.
If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration.
Could you explain how, exactly, any part of that is unclear, ambiguous, or vague?
Because it seems pretty clear to me.Cast spell on legal target -> effect shows up -> effect lasts until duration is over.
That's it. That's all there is.
I'd be delighted to. But in order to you need to answer a question for me.
According to RAW, what are the effects of death?
Ah, the ever-popular "I can act while dead" argument.
I was beginning to miss it!
Doesn't exactly bring credit to your stance, does it?
*Sigh* read my previous posts please. That was the point I made.
I always love the old "Death is not defined in the rules" argument.
You're trying to argue that death does not take away the effects of spells because there are no rules saying that it does. But there are no rules at all saying what death does, even though most of the repercussions are self-evident. My point, the only point I'm trying to make, is that we do not know all of the repercussions of death because it is not defined in the rules, therefore we cannot know for certain if spells persist or not. Since we know that death does have repercussions despite it not being defined in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to RAW, what are the effects of death?
That question doesn't have much to do with the original question though. Animate Objects demonstrates that spells continue their duration once their target has changed designation. Whether a dead creature is a creature, an object or both, the spell durations from before its death would still continue.
Death isn't defined in the rules. That doesn't mean it has no effect. It's self-evident that death has repercussions. What those repercussions are is up to interpretation. Anything else is utter madness.
Seriously? That is what you are going with? Death is most certainly defined in the game.
Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
Your soul leaves. You cannot benefit from healing. Your body decays.
Are you sure those are 100% of the repercussions of death? No other effects at all?
Actually, we can be absolutely, 100% positive as to when a spell ends: when it's subjected to a successful Dispel Magic (or associated effect), when its duration is over, or when the caster decides to dismiss it.
Those are literally the only three things that can end a spell.
The applied conditions of death are actually completely irrelevant, as unless we're houseruling (which is completely fine, just admit you're doing it), death has zero effect on any spell effects affecting the body. There is not a single word in the entire rule set that defines what death does to a spell effect, which means we fall upon what we do have.
Which is this.
If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration.
Can't get much more explicit than that.
No confusing language, extra words, conditions, nothing. If a spell creates any sort of effect, then it lasts until the spells' duration is up, regardless of effect or spell.
Your soul leaves. You cannot benefit from healing. Your body decays.
Are you sure those are 100% of the repercussions of death? No other effects at all?
Maybe. Maybe not.
You're right, we don't know.But you're adding more rules that aren't even implied at anywhere (that I could find) in our current rule set.
Hasn't ever been mentioned. In a game where both Permanency and Resurrection magic are both readily available to most adventuring parties, surely this fairly obvious interaction would get some attention.
And it did. Spells don't end on their own until their duration is up.
Period. End of story.
*Sigh* read my previous posts please. That was the point I made.
I always love the old "Death is not defined in the rules" argument.You're trying to argue that death does not take away the effects of spells because there are no rules saying that it does. But there are no rules at all saying what death does, even though most of the repercussions are self-evident. My point, the only point I'm trying to make, is that we do not know all of the repercussions of death because it is not defined in the rules, therefore we cannot know for certain if spells persist or not. Since we know that death does have repercussions despite it not being defined in the rules.
Come on. You can't possibly be serious. Yes we know all the repercussions of death. Also you are strawmanning the argument.
Fact: A dead creature is simply a CREATURE with that specific condition.
Fact: Conditions don't generally affect targeting of spells unless they specifically say they do, like blindness vs visual spells or dead vs healing spells. When a condition impacts the effectiveness of certain types of spells or attacks it specifies it in the text.
Conclusion: The dead condition doesn't stop spells targeting creatures from affecting said creatures.
The example of the Breath of Life spell which targets "Creature Touched" was given which you have conveniently ignored.
Edit: Also Raise Dead a dead CREATURE is still a CREATURE and thus a valid target for spells with CREATURE as their target.
Raise Dead
School conjuration (healing); Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 minute
Components V, S, M (diamond worth 5,000 gp), DF
Range touch
Target dead creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none, see text; Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
unless we're houseruling (which is completely fine, just admit you're doing it)
There is not a single word in the entire rule set that defines what death does to a spell effect, which means we fall upon what we do have.
So since it's not defined in the dead rules, that means there are no repercussions about it?
Ah, the ever-popular "I can act while dead" argument.
I was beginning to miss it!
But anyways, I can feel this devolving into a screaming match soon enough, and I don't care to take part in those anymore. Not since Crimeo stopped posting anyways (knock on wood). Good day, and happy gaming.
bunch of stuff
Your soul leaves. You cannot benefit from healing. Your body decays.
Are you sure those are 100% of the repercussions of death? No other effects at all?
Yes those are 100% of the repercussions.
Your soul leaves. You cannot benefit from healing. Your body decays.
Are you sure those are 100% of the repercussions of death? No other effects at all?
Yes those are 100% of the repercussions.
Ah, the ever-popular "I can act while dead" argument.
I was beginning to miss it!But I'm done now, as my gut feeling was right. I don't take part in flippant arguments (anymore).
So, for the last time (I promise you), good day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, you can argue that death isn't well defined. It's an old complaint with some other repercussions. But that's just a sidetrack, that has little to do with the main question. No one has offered an argument to counter that Animate Objects gives an example of a spell that targets one thing and then keeps effecting another thing. So we have an example that the target of a spell changing its designation does not cause the spell to end.
I'm actually fairly enjoying the discussion itself, but I've always been one for getting into it like this.
[quite=You]So since it's not defined in the dead rules, that means there are no repercussions about it?
Actually...yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying here.
There's no evidence that says that spell effects are removed upon death, yet there are very specific rules on when spells end on their own (see the duration argument above).We can't just assume that the developers left this specific text out of the book and just add it in ourselves, as that's pretty much the definition of houseruling.
Not sure why you think that particular argument is petty; you are adding new, completely unwritten content to the ruleset. That's houseruling.
To be clear, you can argue that death isn't well defined. It's an old complaint with some other repercussions. But that's just a sidetrack, that has little to do with the main question. No one has offered an argument to counter that Animate Objects gives an example of a spell that targets one thing and then keeps effecting another thing. So we have an example that the target of a spell changing its designation does not cause the spell to end.
There isn't an answer for that or the raise dead and breath of life examples or Diego's argument there are specific rules for spell duration and they never once mention a change in form or conditions.
There is way too much evidence proving that once a spell is cast on a valid target it remains until dispelled, dismissed or its duration expires.
As has already been discussed the permanent duration is as follows...
"Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does."
If the subject dies, then the following spells cease to have an effect effect, or are you suggesting that any of these can function when the receipiet is dead?
Arcane sight,Comprehend languages, Darkvision, Detect magic, Read magic, See invisibilty, Tongues, Magic fang, Magic fang greater, Resistance, Telepathic bond?
You may argue that these effects are suspended by death and re-start again when a corpse regains its thought/sight/attacks/hearing but that would be a house rule - though a reasonable one in my opinion.
The exception is enlarge person and reduce person. The effect of these spells does not end at death, therefore by the logic above they remain permanent.
There are a few other spells that keep operating once their target changes too. Spells like haste have a target of "one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart". If spells constantly checked their target validity, then haste would really keep your team blobbed up.
Also, there are spells that only target allies, but do those break if an ally suddenly turns out to be an enemy?
As has already been discussed the permanent duration is as follows...
"Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does."
If the subject dies, then the following spells cease to have an effect effect, or are you suggesting that any of these can function when the receipiet is dead?
Arcane sight,Comprehend languages, Darkvision, Detect magic, Read magic, See invisibilty, Tongues, Magic fang, Magic fang greater, Resistance, Telepathic bond?
The exception is enlarge person and reduce person. The effect of these spells does not end at death, therefore they remain permanent.
The effects of all of those spells remain active even though at the moment the creature can't make use of them. For example, the Darkvision spell doesn't end if a creature gains the blind condition even though now it can't see. If the blind condition is removed before the Darkvision spell expires the creature will still benefit from Darkvision. The dead condition is no different. The creature may not be able to utilize the benefits of having those effects active while dead but the effects themselves are still present.
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?
Yes.
The effect of darkvision is "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight."
Clearly when dead, the subject no longer has the ability to see anything. Therefore the effect is ended...???
What if your head was severed from your shoulders? What if reincarnated as a creature with no sight?
*Sigh* this is my point. There is not evidence on either side. Each side is trying to put burden of proof on the other, and there is no proof on either side. This is a rules argument where the rules are ambiguous. You cannot win by saying "If you can't produce rules that prove your point, then I am correct". That is a logical fallacy.
Agreed. The rules can't cover every conceivable situation. This is why Pathfinder is a tabletop game with a human GM, and not a computer game run by an AI.
Your GM has made a ruling. He said that he'd reconsider if you could show him that the rules say otherwise. They dont, so his ruling stands. Accept that's how this situation works at this table.
(I frequently make a table ruling in situations where I don't want to interrupt the game to look up the official rule; or, I ask one of the players who isn't in the spotlight to look it up for me. I'll then use use the official rules next time. Unless they're dumb. Then I'll make a home rule instead.)
The effect of darkvision is "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight."
Clearly when dead, the subject no longer has the ability to see anything. Therefore the effect is ended...???
No, I even mentioned that specifically in my previous post. A character who gains the blind condition wouldn't be able to see either while under the effect of Darkvision. That doesn't end the effect. If the condition is removed before the duration expires then the character still gets the benefit.
If a character is the target of Darvision and then dies but this brought back to life before the duration expires he still has the benefit of Darkvision.
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?
With regards to dominate, this is a little like freedom of movement. The target would have the spell, but would not be subject to its effects.
*Sigh* this is my point. There is not evidence on either side. Each side is trying to put burden of proof on the other, and there is no proof on either side. This is a rules argument where the rules are ambiguous. You cannot win by saying "If you can't produce rules that prove your point, then I am correct". That is a logical fallacy.Agreed. The rules can't cover every conceivable situation. This is why Pathfinder is a tabletop game with a human GM, and not a computer game run by an AI.
Your GM has made a ruling. He said that he'd reconsider if you could show him that the rules say otherwise. They dont, so his ruling stands. Accept that's how this situation works at this table.
(I frequently make a table ruling in situations where I don't want to interrupt the game to look up the official rule; or, I ask one of the players who isn't in the spotlight to look it up for me. I'll then use use the official rules next time. Unless they're dumb. Then I'll make a home rule instead.)
But...this clearly is covered by the rules...it's not a stretch of the imagination by any means.
I don't think blindly accepting whatever ruling his GM went with is the right decision here. Sometimes you make a wrong call, but when you figure this out, you should usually correct it.
The GM has clearly allowed him the opportunity to prove his case, and the rules do quite say otherwise. So, if he still wants, he has the information he needs to take to his GM.
To be clear, you can argue that death isn't well defined. It's an old complaint with some other repercussions. But that's just a sidetrack, that has little to do with the main question. No one has offered an argument to counter that Animate Objects gives an example of a spell that targets one thing and then keeps effecting another thing. So we have an example that the target of a spell changing its designation does not cause the spell to end.
Easiest murder mystery ever!
"My allies are healing me solve th case! *buff* ... Frank?! You traitor!"EDIT: why yes, I am both "hip" and "with it" and could neeeeeeever be ninja'd by an hour due to multiple open tabs, why do you ask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
magic jar
Have fun with this well-written gem. First of all, the target is "one creature". Is that you? Maybe. Maybe it's the body you're going to inhabit. But regardless, step #1 is that your soul transfers into a literal gem, "leaving your body lifeless".
So your body is dead. Does the spell end?
Nope. Because casting it was a standard action and the spell specifically tells you that attempting to take over a body is a full-round action, which by definition can't be started until your next round.
There's a bunch of text that pretty much makes it clear that you can reside in the "jar" for hours on end, during which your body is dead. "your body is, as near as anyone can tell, dead." Anyone. Anyone includes deities, technically.
Point is, this spell relies on you being dead, and you're the caster of it. While you may or may not be the target of it, you're definitely, positively, the recipient of half of its results.
So there's rules-as-written evidence that spells don't end when you are dead.
Worse, it's RAW evidence that you can act while you're dead. <Grin>
Just because your soul isn't visiting Pharasma (yet), and is instead inside a crystal doesn't change things. You're dead. The spell just gives you the magical ability to continue to act while your body is dead, which is an exception to the general assumption that you can't normally act while dead.
As has already been discussed the permanent duration is as follows...
"Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does."
If the subject dies, then the following spells cease to have an effect effect, or are you suggesting that any of these can function when the receipiet is dead?
Arcane sight,Comprehend languages, Darkvision, Detect magic, Read magic, See invisibilty, Tongues, Magic fang, Magic fang greater, Resistance, Telepathic bond?
You may argue that these effects are suspended by death and re-start again when a corpse regains its thought/sight/attacks/hearing but that would be a house rule - though a reasonable one in my opinion.
The exception is enlarge person and reduce person. The effect of these spells does not end at death, therefore by the logic above they remain permanent.
The spells continue to function just fine. The target (the now dead person) just can't USE them.
Nothing wrong with the spells.
If you picked up that corpse and slammed his open mouth onto something, the calculated bite damage should benefit from Magic Fang.
Saving throws made by that dead person would be affected by Resistance.
Just because you can't USE a spell doesn't mean it stops working.
Being paralyzed negates the utility of Expeditious Retreat, it does NOT dispel it.
Actually, to be fair, as established before, being dead doesn't actually prevent you from acting, so yes, you could benefit from them.
Most of us have a houserule about being dead though. No actions allowed, you aren't aware of anything etc etc etc.
Lol, some of my characters have been more successful dead than alive. Like when that Orc tripped over my corpse and smashed his face on the floor. My characters can never seem to trip anyone when alive!