Speak with Dead is Quite a Terrible Spell

[Thunderous Mojo]

For reference, here is the text of the spell:
You grant the semblance of life and intelligence to a corpse ofyour choice within range, allowing it to answer the questions you pose. The corpse must still have a mouth and can't be undead. The spell fails if the corpse was the target of this spell within the last 10 days.
Until the spell ends, you can ask the corpse up to five questions. The corpse knows only what it knew in life, including the languages it knew. Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive, and the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit. Thus, the corpse can't learn new information, doesn't comprehend anything that has happened since it died, and can't speculate about future events.

The fact that one can be lied to, after expending a 3rd level spell slot, just obliterates the most the most obvious use...interrogation of dead creatures that have critical information.

The Zone of Truth spell will not work on that dead cultist of Tiamat, whom has critical knowledge of the plot to destroy the world, and whom drank poison to take that information to the grave.

Not only does this destroy the usefulness of the Speak with Dead spell, it destroys the theme. The bit of the animating spirit wants to talk. The corpse can't hear, it can't see...it isn't even the full soul of the creature...how does it exactly know that it's interlocutor is something it should be hostile about?

[Blood of Gaea]

Having a chance to question a dead body is a lot better than no chance at all. Try doing things like disguising yourself as an ally of theirs, or some independent enforcement.

Basically, it comes down to allowing you to have a conversation with a dead enemy, but you still need to make your skill checks and ask the right questions.

[Anymage]

Remember that dead bodies don't get saves. If it could compel truthfulness, PCs would be actively encouraged to kill anyone they wanted information from and then SWD to get a truthful answer.

It's useful-with-limitations any time you want to find out how a dead body got to be that way. Or to ask someone something that they wouldn't normally have any reason not to answer, but are inconveniently dead for other reasons. Not being an automatic truth extractor on dead enemies just means that PCs are less inclined to make those foes dead in the interest of extracting an answer.

[Witty Username]

You can disguise yourself to appear as someone else for the purposes of the spell, gives you some leeway.

[LudicSavant]

For reference, here is the text of the spell:
You grant the semblance of life and intelligence to a corpse ofyour choice within range, allowing it to answer the questions you pose. The corpse must still have a mouth and can't be undead. The spell fails if the corpse was the target of this spell within the last 10 days.
Until the spell ends, you can ask the corpse up to five questions. The corpse knows only what it knew in life, including the languages it knew. Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive, and the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit. Thus, the corpse can't learn new information, doesn't comprehend anything that has happened since it died, and can't speculate about future events.

The fact that one can be lied to, after expending a 3rd level spell slot, just obliterates the most the most obvious use...interrogation of dead creatures that have critical information.

The Zone of Truth spell will not work on that dead cultist of Tiamat, whom has critical knowledge of the plot to destroy the world, and whom drank poison to take that information to the grave.

Not only does this destroy the usefulness of the Speak with Dead spell, it destroys the theme. The bit of the animating spirit wants to talk. The corpse can't hear, it can't see...it isn't even the full soul of the creature...how does it exactly know that it's interlocutor is something it should be hostile about?

I don't agree. Speak With Dead is a completely world-changing spell. It's the kind of thing you can base entire questlines around. Or -- if you don't take it into account as a factor in the world -- can completely destroy your plans.

If it compelled truthfulness it would be even more insane. There's a Sixth level spell that can compel truthfulness from the dead, but it requires you to be there when they die, only works on that person, and only within a limited time of their death.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Remember that dead bodies don't get saves. If it could compel truthfulness, PCs would be actively encouraged to kill anyone they wanted information from and then SWD to get a truthful answer.

Alignment, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws all should inhibit PCs from roaming the land and slaughtering creatures for their ATM passcode.

Restraint, is part of being a fully actualized person. Just because one can do something, doesn't mean one should do something.

Not being an automatic truth extractor on dead enemies just means that PCs are less inclined to make those foes dead in the interest of extracting an answer.

No, it just means, you kill them, take a finger from their corpse, Revivify them, and question them, possibly under a Zone of Truth spell. You then inform them, that you took the finger to remind them not to cross you again, and that they will be a target of Scrying. Of course, the party can just kill the now, 1 HP creature again, if they so choose.

5e's addition of the subject of a Speak with Dead, being able to lie, results in a net increase in brutality, not a reduction of brutality.

As for disguising oneself, altering your voice is the difficult part. Even if a semblance of life, includes sight, it is a simple matter to prevent a corpse from being able to see you. Outside of being an Assassin Rogue, or a Kenku...one is probably going to roll a Cha: Deception check.

[AttilatheYeon]

Personally, i like the barbarian "yell at dead" better😁

[heavyfuel]

It's not a terrible spell because it's a Cleric spell.

Don't need it? Don't prepare it. Need it? The corpse isn't going anywhere.

While I wouldn't spend one of my Bard spells known on it in a million years, the fact that a Cleric can take a Long Rest and access it makes it good. You may not need it pretty much ever, but when you do need it, it's a game changer.

This is the kind of spell that can get a lot of DMs by surprise if you haven't used it before, and then you suddenly solved (part of) a quest with a single spell.

[Mellack]

Alignment, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws all should inhibit PCs from roaming the land and slaughtering creatures for their ATM passcode.

Restraint, is part of being a fully actualized person. Just because one can do something, doesn't mean one should do something.


No, it just means, you kill them, take a finger from their corpse, Revivify them, and question them, possibly under a Zone of Truth spell. You then inform them, that you took the finger to remind them not to cross you again, and that they will be a target of Scrying. Of course, the party can just kill the now, 1 HP creature again, if they so choose.

5e's addition of the subject of a Speak with Dead, being able to lie, results in a net increase in brutality, not a reduction of brutality.

As for disguising oneself, altering your voice is the difficult part. Even if a semblance of life, includes sight, it is a simple matter to prevent a corpse from being able to see you. Outside of being an Assassin Rogue, or a Kenku...one is probably going to roll a Cha: Deception check.


Your two scenarios are in contradiction. If the PCs are showing restraint from killing people, then that should also keep them from killing, healing, and then torturing those same people.

Speak with the Dead is a great investigation tool. You can find out what the poor murdered guy saw before he died. You can get advice from advice about events that happened ages ago from people who were there.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't agree. Speak With Dead is a completely world-changing spell. It's the kind of thing you can base entire questlines around. Or -- if you don't take it into account as a factor in the world -- can completely destroy your plans.

If it compelled truthfulness it would be even more insane. There's a Sixth level spell that can compel truthfulness from the dead, but it requires you to be there when they die, only works on that person, and only within a limited time of their death.

Prior editions did not feel the need to allow the subject of the spell to lie.
So, the spell is not "terrible" in the same sense that True Strike is "terrible".

It is, however, more "terrible" compared to AD&D, and 3e. (I don't remember the 4e Ritual details off the top of my head).

I'm assuming you are referring to the Soul Cage spell. Soul Cage has more uses than simply compelling truthful answers from dead creatures. You also are not limited by the requirement that the dead creature have a head and share a language with you.

A Truth from the Dead spell, that has the same restrictions as the Speak with Dead spell, except the creature must answer truthfully, is what level of spell?

I would estimate, such a spell should not be more than a 4th level spell.

[LudicSavant]

Prior editions did not feel the need to allow the subject of the spell to lie. I am aware, yes. I remember discussions about how people would use this in courts, among other things.

The fact that it's not as crazy as it was in 3e doesn't mean that it isn't still a big deal in terms of it just existing in the world at all.

To me, it's a big deal that you can communicate with the deceased at all. Just like I think it's a big deal that you can cast Sending to someone very far away.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Your two scenarios are in contradiction. If the PCs are showing restraint from killing people, then that should also keep them from killing, healing, and then torturing those same people.

There is no contradiction. The other poster claimed that the Truth requirements were needed to inhibit PCs from being compelled from performing terrible deeds, because they could.

My example, demonstrates, that even with Speak with Dead allowing the subject body to lie, PCs that want to be brutal, can still be creatively brutal.


Speak with the Dead is a great investigation tool. You can find out what the poor murdered guy saw before he died. You can get advice from advice about events that happened ages ago from people who were there.

I don't disagree with this. If the murdered person, however, is a habitual liar, or had their family threatened with death if they ever revealed the identity of their killer, then Speak with Dead, might have the same level of veracity as a Social Media post from unreliable sources.

I'm not seeing how a 3rd level spell, requiring 5 truthful answers from a corpse leads to a world shattering end.

LudicSavant, I agree that the potential of the spell is amazing. That is the genesis of the thread for me. The practical in game results, however, can wind up with it being not very useful at all, because every answer is a lie.

I will gladly state, that the "terrible" designation vis a vis Speak with Dead might be a tad hyperbolic, depending on if the DM allows the spell to uncover hidden information, and not just receive prevarications.

[Pex]

You don't use it on the enemy you just defeated. You use it on the dead body you happen to come across in your travels to learn what killed it. You use it on one of the villager victims when the Mayor asks your party to stop whatever it is that's killing the villagers. Even so, most DMs won't let the spell be renamed Solve The Adventure but it should be pertinent information that helps you solve the adventure. In those cases where the spell does tell you "X killed me", capturing/defeating X is a problem in its own right.

[Mellack]

I will gladly state, that the "terrible" designation vis a vis Speak with Dead might be a tad hyperbolic, depending on if the DM allows the spell to uncover hidden information, and not just receive prevarications.

Then you now see that it is not a terrible spell. It is not a super-powerful one. It is somewhere in the middle. That seems acceptable. If you want to run your table where it forces truthful answers, go right ahead. But as is, the spell still can give some useful information.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You don't use it on the enemy you just defeated. You use it on the dead body you happen to come across in your travels to learn what killed it.

Sure...but in the past, one could use Speak with Dead, to question the corpse of Lord Nolton, the chief supporter of the Pretender King, to gather critical information to end the civil war that is splitting the kingdom.

Now, even in death, Lord Nolton is going to lie, to everyone. The 5e spell, is less useful as a tool, which results in the DM having to do a tad more spoon feeding than was necessary in prior editions.

Outside of feeding, toddlers..spoon feeding is less than desirable.😀

Investigation and the Medicine skills can both determine the cause of death in CSI: Greyhawk.

Magically Knowledgeable foes also know, to always take the head, if informational security is required.

[MaxWilson]

Sure...but in the past, one could use Speak with Dead, to question the corpse of Lord Nolton, the chief supporter of the Pretender King, to gather critical information to end the civil war that is splitting the kingdom.

Now, even in death, Lord Nolton is going to lie, to everyone. The 5e spell, is less useful as a tool, which results in the DM having to do a tad more spoon feeding than was necessary in prior editions.

Why is Nolton going to lie to everyone? For example, why would he lie to the Pretender King, or someone who seems to be the Pretender King?

[JellyPooga]

@Thunderous Mojo: The way you're phrasing your argument implies that because the spell allows the target to lie that it must or will. That's a gross misinterpretation, both of the spell and your posts, but it's how you're coming across. Jus' sayin'.

Come to think of it, if it did compel the target to lie, the spell would have a certain fey whimsy; I could dig that.

Barbarian: "Oops! Grognar accidentally kill squishy man again."
Rogue: "Dammit Grog, we needed his testimony!"
Cleric: "Don't worry, I have a spell for that, but be warned, the dead are fickle and speak only in half-truths at best."
Rogue: "Ok, cool and everything, but do you always have to be so damn cryptic and mysterious?"

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If you want to use it on an enemy you should get a 3ed party to cast it.

If it is not an enemy it will not lie to you.

Basically, that is why I like to use non lethal attacks on enemies.
You can always get information out of them one why or the other.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Why is Nolton going to lie to everyone? For example, why would he lie to the Pretender King, or someone who seems to be the Pretender King?
If the Pretender King is an infant, or a young boy, or the players don't know the innocuous seeming phrase the followers of the Pretender King's use to identify themselves, then Nolton's animating spirit might be aware a rouse is being perpetrated on his corpse.

To put it another way, even if Darth Vader slew Princess Leia, and used the Force to Speak with Dead on her corpse, the Spirit of Princess Leia would still lie, and not give up the rebel base.

(Conspiracies often have "Need to Know information", if you don't know it, you don't need to)

I do appreciate the theme, of having to fool the spirit you are using Speak with Dead on. It is a great complication, but it also requires some spoon feeding on the part of the DM, or players whom have the expertise to be aware of the 5e spell's New limitation, (that was not present in prior editions).

(Grognard players, with young children, often miss those fine alterations between past editions to 5e...they are woefully sleep deprived 😁)

@Thunderous Mojo: The way you're phrasing your argument implies that because the spell allows the target to lie that it must or will. That's a gross misinterpretation, both of the spell and your posts, but it's how you're coming across. Jus' sayin'.


I appreciate the feedback on how my "tone" is being received!
Now, by principles of game theory, one has to assume that there is always a chance that the spirit contacted is lying to you.

Admittedly, in prior editions of D&D, Speak with Dead could yield answers that the spirit erroneously thought were true, but were instead false. In 5e, you also have to account for willful misdirection on the part of the spirit, and can not use Zone of Truth in the questioning.

To me, that means Speak with Dead, went from being a fairly reliable source of information in prior editions, to being a source of dubious providence in 5e.
(Possibly even a source of active misinformation)

In terms of practical play, there is a large difference between having a reliable source of information from a 3rd level spell, or having to wait until one can cast 5th level spells to get access to the, (somewhat), more reliable spells such as Commune, Contact Other Plane, or Legend Lore.

Bartering for an NPC to cast a 5th level spell, can be quite pricey..either in terms of monetary payment, or favors.

The Eberron Divinity, The Traveller, reveals in sowing chaos and confusion, as do adherents to it's faith. Some people are also just jerks. Lying spirits is not some trivial concern. Not to me at least. I hope this, further clarifies my position.

BTW...I might have mentioned this before, but I absolutely adore your screen name JellyPooga!👍

[MaxWilson]

If the Pretender King is an infant, or a young boy, or the players don't know the (A) innocuous seeming phrase the followers of the Pretender King's use to identify themselves, then Nolton's animating spirit might be aware a rouse is being perpetrated on his corpse.

To put it another way, even if Darth Vader slew Princess Leia, and used the Force to Speak with Dead on her corpse, (B) the Spirit of Princess Leia would still lie, and not give up the rebel base.

I do appreciate the theme, of having to fool the spirit you are using Speak with Dead on. It is a great complication, but it also requires some spoon feeding on the part of the DM, or players whom have the expertise to be aware of the 5e spell's New limitation, that was not present in prior editions.
(Grognard players, with young children, often miss those fine distinctions present from past editions to now...they are woefully sleep deprived 😁)

(A) seems a bit paranoid to me, and therefore dramatically unnecessary in the typical case, but if the Pretender King's forces are paranoid enough that they really do this, then it's obviously not impossible for PCs to acquire this knowledge through other divinations (e.g. Detect Thoughts on a different minion) and then leverage it to fool Nolton. Paranoid enemies are harder (but not impossible) to extract information from--that doesn't sound like a bad play experience to me. Note that you can use other divinations like Divination to ask in advance: "Given what we know now, if we conjure up Nolton's shade with Speak With Dead and ask him XYZ, will he cooperate and speak the truth?"

If your players are interested enough in intrigue to want to make tracking down info a major part of the play experience, they ought to enjoy complications that reward their additional investment in information skills.

It may also be that there are ways to fool Nolton's shade without having the password, but it depends on what you're looking for.

(B) Perhaps. But if Obi-Wan Kenobi used Speak With Dead to urgently request Rebel assistance to prevent a military and humanitarian disaster, and begged to be put in touch with someone with executive level decision making capability... is it a foregone conclusion that Leia would refuse? And if she gave them a name and a place, and it turned out that Obi-Wan Kenobi was in fact actually Vader in disguise, would Vader have gained no useful information from her answer?

Social engineering works in the real world. Why would Leia's ghost be immune?

[Thunderous Mojo]

[
Social engineering works in the real world. Why would Leia's ghost be immune?

I actually updated my previous post, with a point about compartmentalized conspiracies often having "Need to Know" information. If you don't know the information, you don't need to.

Since the animating spirit is no longer receiving "real time updates", Social Engineering might be made more difficult as one has to discover the old pass phrases. Alternatively, this might make the Spirtual Spear Phising Hack easier.

Zone of Truth, Detect Thoughts, are both second level spells. Infiltration and ferreting out secrets via use of skills is easier to use against the living. In short, it is easier to social engineer against the living than it is the dead.

In practice, unless the DM is setting up a scenario that requires the use of Speak with Dead to divine a particular bit of information, many players will opt instead to use Bloodsnake's Cha option of keeping people alive to use Skills and Zone of Truth on.

So sure, one can potentially social engineer Leia's ghost.

Running Paranoid scenarios is a part of military "War Gaming", but I take the point. I certainly could be way beyond the pale, here. 😁

A quick aside, a few sessions ago my cleric and adventuring party got sucked into Ravenloft. (No 5e spoilers please). We have verified that some of the inhabitants of Barovia have no true souls, but are puppet like servants of Strahd. Others, that do have souls, have been brutalized over centuries to be fearful of crossing Strahd, even in death. Everyone is lying to us..both corpses and the 'living'.

The original AD&D (1e) module was the only time I have ever had two TPKs..(dragons and then Strahd)...so I am being paranoid...but with good reason.

I fear Strahd! 🧛🏻*♀️

[MaxWilson]

I actually updated my previous post, with a point about compartmentalized conspiracies often having "Need to Know" information. If you don't know the information, you don't need to.

Since the animating spirit is no longer receiving "real time updates", Social Engineering might be made more difficult as one has to discover the old pass phrases. Alternatively, this might make the Spirtual Spear Phising Hack easier.

Zone of Truth, Detect Thoughts, are both second level spells. Infiltration and ferreting out secrets via use of skills is easier to use against the living. In short, it is easier to social engineer against the living than it is the dead.

In practice, unless the DM is setting up a scenario that requires the use of Speak with Dead to divine a particular bit of information, many players will opt instead to use Bloodsnake's Cha option of keeping people alive to use Skills and Zone of Truth on.

So sure, one can potentially social engineer Leia's ghost.

Running Paranoid scenarios is a part of military "War Gaming", but I take the point.
I certainly could be way beyond the pale, here. 😁

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're running deep intrigue scenarios already (and there's nothing wrong with doing so--I just personally don't know how to do it well, from a game structure and pacing perspective) then sure, maybe Detect Thoughts and Zone of Truth are your bread and butter, but Speak With Dead gives you another attack vector: dead lieutenants can now spill information as easily as living mooks, and as you point out, the dead lieutenants are the ones more likely to have access to Need To Know information.

Dead Lieutenants won't have updated passphrases, so you don't need updated passphrases to get information out of them. Even if the bad guys change locations frequently, being able to (repeatedly, every 10 days) interrogate lieutenant heads for information about the past could help you spot operational patterns, e.g. you might be able to intercept the channels by which new passphrases are distributed throughout the organization, or the procedure for overriding a compromised passphrase with a new passphrase. You might be able to determine organizational goals, or past activity sites, or likely future objectives--and because the spirits can't learn new information, they can't learn from repeated interrogations. Fool them once and you can fool them repeatedly; you can even crosscheck their answers against themselves. Session 1: "Leia, it's Kenobi. I must get an urgent message to prevent an utter disaster to executive level decision makers within the Rebellion. Who must I contact?" "Go to Yavin and tell Yiv Carthrob, the Senator's Secretary, that you would like to offer the Senator a deal on new cabinets. Then tell him the truth." Session 2, ten days later: "Leia, it's Kenobi. The Empire has blockaded the planet Yavin and is interrogating everybody, looking for Rebels. A member of the Senator's staff has contacted us, claiming to have vital information and asking for a rescue mission. Do you know who it could be and if we can trust them?" Session 3, ten days later: "Leia, it's Kenobi. Can Yiv Carthrob be trusted?" If Yiv is a genuine contact then you can expect Session 2 and 3 to go differently than if Yiv's name was a ruse.

Speak With Dead would be much, much more fun in a paranoid, high-intrigue game with a high degree of information-security sophistication than a standard dungeon crawl. I think I would play that game, if the DM knew how to run it in a way that made it both challenging and interesting. (Again, I don't know how to do that well--most of the ways I can think of to make information security challenging would also make it incredibly tedious to play and DM. On reflection, I guess the best idea I have is to maybe give out the information puzzles at the end of a session so that players can do the boring-but-challenging deductions between sessions, and then gameplay could hopefully focus on the interesting decisions--but I'd be afraid that gameplay could easily run right into a brick wall if they missed a clue or deduction during the session. Maybe this would work best as a slow-paced play-by-mail campaign?)

[Thunderous Mojo]

Speak With Dead would be much, much more fun in a paranoid, high-intrigue game with a high degree of information-security sophistication than a standard dungeon crawl. I think I would play that game.
LoL...I'm sure I could accommodate you.
Fun in this situation, means "more challenging"....and typically I agree.

Alas, we have some hints, that Strahd might be able to control the information that the fugazi Barovians relay when dead.
So, I would really love an old school, AD&D Speak with Dead spell, right now!

We are trying to form a Resistance Movement, but being ambushed, and mislead by Strahd's Cat's Paws is all we have accomplished.

[Anymage]

There is no contradiction. The other poster claimed that the Truth requirements were needed to inhibit PCs from being compelled from performing terrible deeds, because they could.

My example, demonstrates, that even with Speak with Dead allowing the subject body to lie, PCs that want to be brutal, can still be creatively brutal.

It doesn't compel PCs to be brutal when they wouldn't otherwise be. As for what they'd generally otherwise be, though? Have you never read a thread on usual PC interrogation tactics before?


If the murdered person, however, is a habitual liar, or had their family threatened with death if they ever revealed the identity of their killer, then Speak with Dead, might have the same level of veracity as a Social Media post from unreliable sources.

I'm not seeing how a 3rd level spell, requiring 5 truthful answers from a corpse leads to a world shattering end.

When you quote the spell in your OP, the bolded text says that there's no compunction to be truthful if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. Pure RAW, if neither applies, Nolton's corpse would happily spill all the beans about all the security secrets.

More practically implemented, you aren't going to find state secrets of an old empire without having historian priests take decades doing the equivalent of a dictionary attack with a long lockout for wrong answers. You can still find out information that real world archeologists would absolutely love to have, and ditto for detectives on a murder case. The latter really does seem to be the intent behind the spell.

If the DM makes random corpses lying around tend to come from habitual liars in life, that's the DM messing with you. If that line weren't there, I'm sure they'd find other ways (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0845.html).

[MaxWilson]

LoL...I'm sure I could accommodate you.
Fun in this situation, means "more challenging"....and typically I agree.

Alas, we have some hints, that Strahd might be able to control the information that the fugazi Barovians relay when dead.
So, I would really love an old school, AD&D Speak with Dead spell, right now!

We are trying to form a Resistance Movement, but being ambushed, and mislead by Strahd's Cat's Paws is all we have accomplished.

I added some more comments on "challenging" in an edit. In this case I think a major challenge is that good TTRPG pacing jumps to the interesting decision points, but good information security tries to deny you actionable information--there's a tension there, and it may not be surmountable. Maybe the intrigue layer could be the metalayer above a West Marches style campaign, a la Shadowrun? Players schedule their own sessions with the DM when they have an idea for a way to gain an information advantage (party A stages a raid on MegaCorp's research campus, but it's only a diversion while party B is ransacking MegaCorp's security chief's office looking for his home address so they can gain leverage on him outside of a work context where his guard is down!). The reward for a successful adventure, in addition to XP or gold, is the opportunity to falsify one of their theories or gain leverage/leads on cracking one of their investigations ("where is the main Rebel Base right now?").

Case in point with Strahd: is it good information security on Strahd's part, or is it the DM being unfair? They will tend to feel identical if Strahd (or Strahd's security chief) does his job right.

I'm honestly not sure if it's possible to make intrigue fun without additional game structures that 5E does not have (unless a DM invents them).

[Valmark]

Nothing says those that are reanimated through Speak with Dead cannot see or hear, especially given that they need to at least hear the questions.

That said... Like others said, the dead person will lie only if they have reason to- this simply means the party shouldn't kill someone to interrogate them without a plan.

Of course it is indeed situational but that's regardless of its properties- how often does anybody need to talk to corpses in their day-to-day lives? Without being a necromancer?

[Thunderous Mojo]

The bolded text in your quote spells out that there's no compunction to be truthful if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. Pure RAW, if neither applies, Nolton's corpse would happily spill all the beans about all the security secrets.
That is how I would run it, but I'm not sure that is how every DM would adjudicate Speak with Dead.


If the DM makes random corpses lying around tend to come from habitual liars in life, that's the DM messing with you.
Or Strahd. Just as participants engaged in real life asymmetrical warfare, have altered their operational security methods in response to what the expansive increase of computational power has meant for intelligence gathering, I also assume the same would be true for D&D elements.

The Sci-Fi author, (and CompSci Prof), Vernor Vinge has long postulated that the most meaningful check on surveillance power, was the limited computational resources available. As computational powers reach unbounded levels so does surveillance. Vinge said this in the late 1970's/ early 1980's..(too tired to remember clearly)....history has proven this assertion, largely correct.


I added some more comments on "challenging" in an edit. In this case I think a major challenge is that good TTRPG pacing jumps to the interesting decision points, but good information security tries to deny you actionable information--there's a tension there, and it may not be surmountable. Maybe the intrigue layer could be the metalayer above a West Marches style campaign, a la Shadowrun? Players schedule their own sessions with the DM when they have an idea for a way to gain an information advantage (party A stages a raid on MegaCorp's research campus, but it's only a diversion while party B is ransacking MegaCorp's security chief's office looking for his home address so they can gain leverage on him outside of a work context where his guard is down!). The reward for a successful adventure, in addition to XP or gold, is the opportunity to falsify one of their theories or gain leverage/leads on cracking one of their investigations ("where is the main Rebel Base right now?").

Case in point with Strahd: is it good information security on Strahd's part, or is it the DM being unfair? They will tend to feel identical if Strahd (or Strahd's security chief) does his job right.

I'm honestly not sure if it's possible to make intrigue fun without additional game structures that 5E does not have (unless a DM invents them).
Trust between the players and the DM, I think is the most crucial aspect for games heavy on intrigue.

I believe as long as the DM, always keeps in mind that complicated rouses implemented by the players, (even if those plans are not perfect, or perfectly implemented), should result in something, like the part of your quote I placed in a bold font...then I think the game is on the right track.

People have real life time constraints, both players and DMs. As a player, I expect Strahd or other Long Lived Super Intelligent foes to "outthink me", even if that means occasionally the DM just outright foils a well laid, and secret plan.

I know one trick I use as a DM, is outsourcing the intrigue to the players. My main group is fairly Roleplaying intensive. A PC under a curse, charm, or magic item that adds a new flaw or motivation to a character, is something that is usually going to be emphatically embraced by the players.

You can't blame the DM for being "unfair" when the DM was as much in the Dark, about the dastardly plan the Charmed PC hatched, as the rest of the players.

Admittedly, this may be specific to my main group.

Did Shadowrun have formal intrigue rules? I've only ever played original SR, and the first Revised Rules.

The old Paranoia Game had betrayal certainly baked in. I once played an RPG based on the Roman Empire, that had excellent intrigue mechanics...for it's time...(mid 1980's), but I don't remember the name of it..or if the rules wizard of a GM had developed the rules themselves.

Night all...I apologize if in my sleepy state..I rambled on, more than Led Zepplin.

[MaxWilson]

Did Shadowrun have formal intrigue rules? I've only ever played original SR, and the first Revised Rules.

Sorry, by Shadowrun I was referring to campaign feel (heists and infiltrations in a world full of entities far more powerful than yourself, instead of dungeon crawls and epic quests as the biggest heroes in the world), not to rules. If Shadowrun has good intrigue rules I've never read them.

[Eldariel]

Alignment, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws all should inhibit PCs from roaming the land and slaughtering creatures for their ATM passcode.

Restraint, is part of being a fully actualized person. Just because one can do something, doesn't mean one should do something.


No, it just means, you kill them, take a finger from their corpse, Revivify them, and question them, possibly under a Zone of Truth spell. You then inform them, that you took the finger to remind them not to cross you again, and that they will be a target of Scrying. Of course, the party can just kill the now, 1 HP creature again, if they so choose.

5e's addition of the subject of a Speak with Dead, being able to lie, results in a net increase in brutality, not a reduction of brutality.

As for disguising oneself, altering your voice is the difficult part. Even if a semblance of life, includes sight, it is a simple matter to prevent a corpse from being able to see you. Outside of being an Assassin Rogue, or a Kenku...one is probably going to roll a Cha: Deception check.

Minor Illusion is the best way to imitate voice. Takes some cooperation or trying to hide the somatics and then lipsynching though.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Sorry, by Shadowrun I was referring to campaign feel (heists and infiltrations in a world full of entities far more powerful than yourself, instead of dungeon crawls and epic quests as the biggest heroes in the world), not to rules.
I figured as much. I will admit, I had a twinge of hope that perhaps one of the later editions of Shadowrun had some great intrigue rules I could crib.

Damn Max, now I want to play Shadowrun. LOL, a month back you quoted some rules for, 2e AD&D, that made me reread those rules. The 2e core ruleset was a nicely written set of rules. The biggest misstep in the core rules, (I'm not touching Kits/Overproduction years), was leaving the spells largely untouched from 1e, (some spells needed to be rewritten), and the 3 hole punched Monster Manual binder.


If Shadowrun has good intrigue rules I've never read them.
This made me laugh! It did have excellent burst fire rules...much better than 5e.

Minor Illusion is the best way to imitate voice. Takes some cooperation or trying to hide the somatics and then lipsynching though.
Minor Illusion is certainly a good place to start. If a DM rules the spirit does not get a Saving Throw, it might even be foolproof. Personally, I would likely judge that the "semblance of life clause" would allow a Saving Throw, rather than have all attempts to fool the spirit succeed.

Why even have the change in the 5e version of Speak with Dead, if even the merest, token attempt will succeed?

[Demonslayer666]

Speak with Dead does not animate the corpse so it can see you to recognize you, so a disguise would not help. It would have to recognize your voice.

I would not have a recently killed enemy easily recognize your voice unless you talked with them at length. That pretty much leaves being hostile towards the spirit. Avoid Speaking with Dead with enemies that know you and avoid being hostile, and there's no reason the spirit wouldn't answer the questions.

More importantly, it is not a conversation. The spirit can only infer your intentions by the questions you ask. If you start off with, "where's the treasure you were guarding hidden?", they would certainly lie to protect it. If you start off with, "who were those jerks that killed you?", then you might come across as an ally.

That's how I feel the spell should work, making it quite useful.

[Valmark]

Speak with Dead does not animate the corpse so it can see you to recognize you, so a disguise would not help. It would have to recognize your voice.


Nothing in the spell stops the corpse/spirit from seeing you, though.

[Ettina]

I do appreciate the theme, of having to fool the spirit you are using Speak with Dead on. It is a great complication, but it also requires some spoon feeding on the part of the DM, or players whom have the expertise to be aware of the 5e spell's New limitation, (that was not present in prior editions).

(Grognard players, with young children, often miss those fine alterations between past editions to 5e...they are woefully sleep deprived 😁)

So, do you think mechanics shouldn't change between editions just because it might confuse the people who played previous editions? You do realize you can keep playing an older edition with your group if you want to, right? If you don't like mechanics changing, you don't have to switch over to the new mechanics.

I personally don't think "it worked differently in different editions" is a particularly persuasive argument for why it should work that way in a new edition.

What I dislike about Speak with Dead is how confusing it is figuring out what can and can't affect the corpse mechanically, as well as what exactly the "animating spirit" is supposed to act like RPwise. I have absolutely no problem with them being able to lie, but I hate how every single spellcast of Speak with Dead in my games has involved being asked to make ambiguous rules judgements in the moment while simultaneously roleplaying a very unusual perspective. I really think the spell needs a lot clearer wording on how it works both RAW and RPwise to not be a pain-in-the-ass for the DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having a chance to question a dead body is a lot better than no chance at all. Try doing things like disguising yourself as an ally of theirs, or some independent enforcement.

Basically, it comes down to allowing you to have a conversation with a dead enemy, but you still need to make your skill checks and ask the right questions. As a DM, that's my general approach. The spell is fine.

Remember that dead bodies don't get saves. If it could compel truthfulness, PCs would be actively encouraged to kill anyone they wanted information from and then SWD to get a truthful answer. Eventually, that trail of bodies will lead to consequences, in this DM's games. :smallcool:

Alignment, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws all should inhibit PCs from roaming the land and slaughtering creatures for their ATM passcode. I see that dreated S-word in your post: should. :smallbiggrin: Those background traints are descriptive, not perscriptive, and are (as I read the PHB) intended to inform, not dictate, the role playing of the PC - unless you as the DM (or your DM) takes the approach of "I am holding you to those four and there are consequences for not adhering to them!" That's a way to play, to be sure, but not the only way to play.

Personally, i like the barbarian "yell at dead" better😁 Wait, isn't that a Warcry from Diablo II where they get potionns or magic items from dead enemies? :smallbiggrin:

Speak with the Dead is a great investigation tool. You can find out what the poor murdered guy saw before he died. You can get advice from advice about events that happened ages ago from people who were there. It's also a nice way for DM's to crack a few jokes when using the cryptic style of reply, now and again. :smallcool:

You don't use it on the enemy you just defeated. You use it on the dead body you happen to come across in your travels to learn what killed it. You use it on one of the villager victims when the Mayor asks your party to stop whatever it is that's killing the villagers. Even so, most DMs won't let the spell be renamed Solve The Adventure but it should be pertinent information that helps you solve the adventure. In those cases where the spell does tell you "X killed me", capturing/defeating X is a problem in its own right. *golf clap* Nice summary of how I have used it, and seen it used, at the table.

[Pex]

So, do you think mechanics shouldn't change between editions just because it might confuse the people who played previous editions? You do realize you can keep playing an older edition with your group if you want to, right? If you don't like mechanics changing, you don't have to switch over to the new mechanics.

I personally don't think "it worked differently in different editions" is a particularly persuasive argument for why it should work that way in a new edition.

What I dislike about Speak with Dead is how confusing it is figuring out what can and can't affect the corpse mechanically, as well as what exactly the "animating spirit" is supposed to act like RPwise. I have absolutely no problem with them being able to lie, but I hate how every single spellcast of Speak with Dead in my games has involved being asked to make ambiguous rules judgements in the moment while simultaneously roleplaying a very unusual perspective. I really think the spell needs a lot clearer wording on how it works both RAW and RPwise to not be a pain-in-the-ass for the DM.

What makes it a donkey pain is more likely a DM not wanting the spell to be Solve The Adventure. The same goes with Augury, Divination, Commune, etc. A DM doesn't want one spell to circumvent the plot, so any answer has to be almost useless. Only if the question is not related to the main plot will a concise answer be given. There was a big debate about this with the Speak With Plants spell a year or so ago where one person made the spell useless because plants don't know anything. At some point players have to learn about the plot. What's wrong with Speak With Dead being the means to do so? It's the DMs who believe players should remain ignorant of everything who have the most problem with it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So, do you think mechanics shouldn't change between editions just because it might confuse the people who played previous editions? You do realize you can keep playing an older edition with your group if you want to, right? If you don't like mechanics changing, you don't have to switch over to the new mechanics.
No this is not what I stated, nor intended to state. 😀
Please note on page 2, (in another post), where I expressed my opinion that one of the flaws with core 2e AD&D was that the spells were relatively unchanged from 1e, and that some spells needed to be re-written.

The quote of mine, you used sums up my issue with the 5e version of Speak with Dead. Chiefly, my fear is the addition of the spirit being able to lie, (while a sufficiently cool idea), may not be worth the hassle that a DM can now, actively and aggressively render the spell useless if they so chose.


Those background traints are descriptive, not perscriptive, and are (as I read the PHB) intended to inform, not dictate, the role playing of the PC -
I agree, wholeheartedly with this. My only point I would emphasize is the DM and other players are well within the bounds of acceptable behavior to point out when a PC is deviating from their character description.

I would, almost NEVER, as a DM dictate to a player how they should play their character, (Maybe, if the PC is under a Curse, but even then I try to work with the player). I don't even use Alignment, (too restrictive).

Yet if a player was playing a character that they self described as "Courageous, and Kind Hearted as Superman", and then later starts blasting innocent, non-hostile Townsfolk with Rays, like Emirikol the Chaotic in the 1e DMG, (I think you will 'get' the reference), then I might lob a query to the player asking how their deeds matches their self description.

The player can do anything, but their actions might draw a comment...but typically, actions won't even draw that. I just let the consequences of their actions play out...(like you Korvin Starmast).


What makes it a donkey pain is more likely a DM not wanting the spell to be Solve The Adventure. The same goes with Augury, Divination, Commune, etc. A DM doesn't want one spell to circumvent the plot, so any answer has to be almost useless.
I'm not sure I understand what a "donkey pain" is, (I don't think I want to find out😀), but this essentially is a excellent summation of my fears regarding the spell.

[Valmark]

No this is not what I stated, nor intended to state. 😀
Please note on page 2, (in another post), where I expressed my opinion that one of the flaws with core 2e AD&D was that the spells were relatively unchanged from 1e, and that some spells needed to be re-written.

The quote of mine, you used sums up my issue with the 5e version of Speak with Dead. Chiefly, my fear is the addition of the spirit being able to lie, (while a sufficiently cool idea), may not be worth the hassle that a DM can now, actively and aggressively render the spell useless if they so chose.


From what I gather the issue then isn't the spell, it's the risk of a DM that doesn't want the spell to work. Which... Is the risk of pretty much anything in the game, no? That doesn't make the spell bad, it makes the DM bad.

[Thunderous Mojo]

That doesn't make the spell bad, it makes the DM bad.
No, the clause in the spell is what enables a DM to "be bad".

MaxWilson, is vastly more succinct and eloquent than myself, but part of the conversation in this thread that was being examined, was the issue that in games that highlight intrigue...there is a certain built in tension, perhaps even conflict, between player agency and having fun, and presenting misinformation to the PCs.

At some point it is hard to know if the DM is just playing Strahd, (for example), as a cunning foe that twists your perceptions, and fills your head with wrong headed notions, or if the DM is just being, as Pex stated: "A Donkey Pain".

The line between "challenging fun", and "hosing your players" is a fine line to tread. I wouldn't categorically claim, that any referee that misjudged the line is automatically a "bad DM".

When using spices in cooking, sometimes, even a chef with the purest of intentions and the greatest skills, just adds a pinch too much of something.

[Laserlight]

The spell isn't "extract truthful vital information from enemy corpses". If you're talking with an ambush victim by the roadside, or the assassin's victim, or something of that nature, you can get good results.
Even for enemies, I've been able to talk some of them around. "Sorry, dude, my archer was aiming for the priest and didn't mean to hit you. I can't rez you right now because I don't have the gems, but we can give you an honorable burial, maybe inform your family, something like that, I really apologize. Or if you can point us to some diamonds around here, I'd be able to get you back up tomorrow morning."

[MaxWilson]

I was thinking more about game structures for intrigue and what is the minimum amount of structure needed to have a fun intrigue-based experience. Tentatively, I think it might be worth stealing Courtney Campbell's approach to sages (or is it Justin Alexander's?): have the DM give certain metagame guarantees, a la "if you a Sage for an answer you will receive information that is true to the best of the DM's knowledge." In an intrigue campaign, instead of sages, you might just tie it to something like a Divination spell: "the DM says that any hypothesis confirmed via a Divination spell is actually true, and if you can't cast Divination you can go to the Temple of Ghnomb and they'll confirm it for you."

In this setting, since outright lies cannot stand up to scrutiny, intrigue will often rely more on hiding information (in plain sight?) than on false information. False information can buy you (good guy or bad guy) time while it is checked out, but unless there's a whole lot of false information to sort through it may not do you much good. If you want to commit a murder and not get caught, it isn't enough to frame one other potential suspect: there need to be thousands of other suspects, like DDOSing the FBI with bad tips. Harry Dresden sort of took advantage of this phenomenon in Turncoat. Conveniently, this is somewhat similar to how misinformation works in real life (lies cannot be hidden forever, except sometimes from the public) so you can steal many real-world techniques and events for your gameworld.

The reason I think this might work for players is because it always gives them something to do, a way to move forward: look for clues to generate or narrow down hypotheses, then falsify them with Divination. Just like a dungeon always gives you a default action when you're at a loss (find a door and go through it), in this kind of intrigue campaign you can always, when in doubt, go to the Temple of Ghnomb and falsify/confirm some info. As long as the DM has enough interesting stuff going on in the world (conspiracies, secret alliances, etc.) the players should, I hope, experience the sensation of agency (the ability to act within a fictional world and change it in ways which are related to your intentions for acting), in a way that might not be true if they didn't have a way to confirm their beliefs.

[Valmark]

No, the clause in the spell is what enables a DM to "be bad".

MaxWilson, is vastly more succinct and eloquent than myself, but part of the conversation in this thread that was being examined, was the issue that in games that highlight intrigue...there is a certain built in tension, perhaps even conflict, between player agency and having fun, and presenting misinformation to the PCs.

At some point it is hard to know if the DM is just playing Strahd, (for example), as a cunning foe that twists your perceptions, and fills your head with wrong headed notions, or if the DM is just being, as Pex stated: "A Donkey Pain".

The line between "challenging fun", and "hosing your players" is a fine line to tread. I wouldn't categorically claim, that any referee that misjudged the line is automatically a "bad DM".

When using spices in cooking, sometimes, even a chef with the purest of intentions and the greatest skills, just adds a pinch too much of something.
The chef analogy is an entirely different case from talking about a DM actively choosing to 'screw' the party over (screw is a bit of a big word in most cases, but you get my meaning).

Doing it by mistake is still a DM error, even if unwilling (it is a mistake, after all).

By itself the clause allows the spirit to lie- which is something anybody in the world can do by default. If a DM doesn't have a problem making normal npcs lie/be truthful they won't have a problem making the spirit lie/be truthful, most of the time.

The spell isn't "extract truthful vital information from enemy corpses". If you're talking with an ambush victim by the roadside, or the assassin's victim, or something of that nature, you can get good results.
Even for enemies, I've been able to talk some of them around. "Sorry, dude, my archer was aiming for the priest and didn't mean to hit you. I can't rez you right now because I don't have the gems, but we can give you an honorable burial, maybe inform your family, something like that, I really apologize. Or if you can point us to some diamonds around here, I'd be able to get you back up tomorrow morning."

This is more like an house rule IMO- a spirit is unable to think of future events or realize what is happening, so being able to convince them that you'll do them a future favor (and have them understand what will happen) shouldn't work.

[KorvinStarmast]

... one of the flaws with core 2e AD&D was that the spells were relatively unchanged from 1e, and that some spells needed to be re-written. Would have been nice, but they didn't for whatever reason.


Yet if a player was playing a character that they self described as "Courageous, and Kind Hearted as Superman", and then later starts blasting innocent, non-hostile Townsfolk with Rays, like Emirikol the Chaotic in the 1e DMG, (I think you will 'get' the reference), then I might lob a query to the player asking how their deeds matches their self description. I get the reference and I do indeed have such conversations with my players if I see a change in approach.

I'm not sure I understand what a "donkey pain" is I suspect that it is a polite / humorous way of saying "Pain in the A........" :smallwink: PITA is another way to apply the same expression. :smallcool:

[Telok]

What I've ended up doing for all the assorted "speak with" spells in a different system is have them conjure up a spirit and compel it to answer. Spirit has stats like a perception score and all, I plug in a personality, players get to use the social rules. It nicely takes all these janky "what can a plant see" and "can the corpse tell who is talking" questions and lets me use existing rules instead of making new ones on the fly.

The occasional "Hey, you're the guy who killed me! You *****!" is just fun to rp.

Probably helps to have a generic weak spirit stat block to use.

[Evaar]

I don't have time to engage with this whole thread, but in the Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign I've been playing in one of my warlock's most important contributions to the part has been his Whispers of the Grave invocation. That allows him to cast Speak With Dead at will.

There's no time limit on the body, and no requirement that it be a largely intact body. I was able to cast it on a skull, which the DM later told me was actually explicitly written into the campaign book - if player casts Speak With Dead on this skull, obtain specific extremely useful information.

But outside of that, we've been finding dead adventurers all over and I've been able to ask them for context about what's going on in that level. We've also had success tricking enemy corpses into giving us information by dressing up as their companions and claiming we were sent to reinforce them but came too late.

A big part of what's made it so useful is that, as a warlock, I can just cast it at will. So while I'm limited on the questions I can ask any given corpse I can interrogate as many corpses as I want. And while you're limited on the number of questions you can ask, it doesn't say you can't otherwise speak to the spirit - so I usually try to improvise some deception or persuasion to convince it that sharing info with us is what it wants to do before I start with the questions.

Anyway. It's not terrible. It's actually great, if a little situational; though I'd argue the situation is pretty likely to come up at least a few times.

[Samayu]

We used it recently to get some hints about a level of the dungeon that we hadn't explored yet. I would have preferred the info be a little more specific, but maybe we just weren't smart enough to ask the right questions. Either way, the info was much more useful than what we could have gained with an Augury (L2), which is very vague, or a Divination (L4), a single question, which in our case, we wouldn't have even known what to ask about.

Pro-tip: always have a conversation with the dead person. Just make sure not to ask any questions except the ones you want to count. This gives the GM some context for your questions so they can give the deceased an excuse not to be a jerk to you. More importantly, it can give you the context to understand whether they're lying to you.

Why should the dead be held to different standards than the living? You want to learn something, you've got to talk to someone.

[JoeJ]

No, the clause in the spell is what enables a DM to "be bad".

No, the fact that that person is the DM is what lets them be bad. A compelled truth clause in the spell description would just result in bad DM's giving technically true but unhelpful answers to any questions.

[Greywander]

A corpse with an animating spirit but not a soul also describes your run-of-the-mill zombies and skeletons. They are not sentient, and can only mimic the habits and mannerisms they had in life. Fooling a corpse animated with Speak with Dead should be a bit easier than fooling a living person. You can also take advantage of their inability to learn new information; even if it recognizes you as an enemy, you could put on a disguise right in front of it and it would forget that you are an enemy. Again, it isn't sentient, it's really more like a robot that has had the memories and personality of that person uploaded to it.

Different DMs will handle the spell differently, but the "correct" way might be to RP the corpse as being permanently stuck in the moment of their death (since they can't learn new information), or even just before. So when you speak to the corpse, it will always "think" that it has just died, even if they've been dead for 100 years. This also means that the corpse will respond to questions as if (in this example) it was still a hundred years ago. They may refer to people or places that no longer exist. This could actually make for a really interesting campaign where you question long dead corpses in an attempt to retrace the steps of some other character (the BBEG, an ancient hero, or a failed chosen one, for example).

[Tawmis]

For reference, here is the text of the spell:
You grant the semblance of life and intelligence to a corpse ofyour choice within range, allowing it to answer the questions you pose. The corpse must still have a mouth and can't be undead. The spell fails if the corpse was the target of this spell within the last 10 days.
Until the spell ends, you can ask the corpse up to five questions. The corpse knows only what it knew in life, including the languages it knew. Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive, and the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit. Thus, the corpse can't learn new information, doesn't comprehend anything that has happened since it died, and can't speculate about future events.
The fact that one can be lied to, after expending a 3rd level spell slot, just obliterates the most the most obvious use...interrogation of dead creatures that have critical information.
The Zone of Truth spell will not work on that dead cultist of Tiamat, whom has critical knowledge of the plot to destroy the world, and whom drank poison to take that information to the grave.
Not only does this destroy the usefulness of the Speak with Dead spell, it destroys the theme. The bit of the animating spirit wants to talk. The corpse can't hear, it can't see...it isn't even the full soul of the creature...how does it exactly know that it's interlocutor is something it should be hostile about?

I think it has to be able to lie. Imagine, Big Bad gets away with a nice teleport spell - but you manage to kill his most faithful servant who has been at his side.
Now you could technically get all the information from the faithful servant and break the game for the DM/story.
So, I think the connection is made to the spirit to speak (it does connect, in my head, to the soul that sees who summons it).
If it sees any enemy it might, indeed lie. Or maybe it won't, because it was left behind to die.
But definitely having the ability to lie is not only needed, but I feel logical too.
However, as other said - you could disguise yourself.
Or roleplay it - tell the soul that the Cleric standing behind you is going to rend their soul into pieces, and they will never know peace.
Or something along those lines. I think it's an opportunity for roleplay and fun.

[Pex]

No, the fact that that person is the DM is what lets them be bad. A compelled truth clause in the spell description would just result in bad DM's giving technically true but unhelpful answers to any questions.

But a bad DM has a plausable deniability written into the spell to hide he's being a donkey cavity. No rules can stop bad DMing, but it would be nice for the rules not to facilitate it. What the spell essentially does is prevent players from using it on the bad guys they just killed. The game designers wanted the spell to be used for Gather Information, not Interrogation. There's a difference.

[Azuresun]

Personally, i like the barbarian "yell at dead" better😁

Or the lesser-known spell Speak With Dad. Acts as a Sending spell, but can only target the caster's father.

[noob]

Or the lesser-known spell Speak With Dad. Acts as a Sending spell, but can only target the caster's father.

It is actually often a free spell if you have a wizard father because which dad would not give you a copy of that spell if they have it in their spellbook?

[Cikomyr2]

I am currently playing an Int-based warlock with a necromantic patron, flavored as a University Professor of Archeology.

Speak with dead is a spell I recently acquired. The thematic application is just so interesting to interrogate old bodies.

[KorvinStarmast]

But definitely having the ability to lie is not only needed, but I feel logical too.
However, as other said - you could disguise yourself.
Or roleplay it - tell the soul that the Cleric standing behind you is going to rend their soul into pieces, and they will never know peace.
Or something along those lines. I think it's an opportunity for roleplay and fun. Yeah. There's some latitude in how to apply it to a given situation.

Pex, the assertion that the rules 'facilitate bad DMing' is a remarkable reach into one of your pet peeves. It's the archer, not the arrow, at the root of the problem that vexes you so.

[MrStabby]

Generally I find if a DM seems to be being a bit harsh or restrictive, it is because they are trying to protect the game from one of the other players who is pushing to overshadow others. Not that DM judgement is always right, but I tend to see their motivations as protective rather than trying to screw with their players.

As a player, I would have some sympathy if I were playing a detective character with expertise in investigation or a bard with great social skills for information gathering and the DM put some content in where the focus was discovering this information... then another player cast one spell and circumvented the task I was expecting to shine at.

Limiting the spell to protect the DM... I cant approve of making it useless. Limiting it to support the fun of others at the table? A much better motivation.

Speak with dead is one of those spells that can circumvent a lot of challenges where other characters might have been involved so there needs to be some care from DMs.

[patchyman]

Minor Illusion is the best way to imitate voice. Takes some cooperation or trying to hide the somatics and then lipsynching though.

Or the Actor feat.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't compel PCs to be brutal when they wouldn't otherwise be. As for what they'd generally otherwise be, though? Have you never read a thread on usual PC interrogation tactics before?Rright. IMX the vast majority of players believe that physically intimidating an NPC including some minor physical pain should get accurate information from them. A minority don't see anything wrong with more extreme methods. Conversely only a tiny number will give in to OCs being intimidated or interrogated. Personally, I think the root cause is that it's only in the mind, not actually being experienced.


I see that dreated S-word in your post: should. :smallbiggrin: Those background traints are descriptive, not perscriptive, and are (as I read the PHB) intended to inform, not dictate, the role playing of the PC - unless you as the DM (or your DM) takes the approach of "I am holding you to those four and there are consequences for not adhering to them!" That's a way to play, to be sure, but not the only way to play.More commonly, there are common break points where players tend to forget what the wrote down for their character, or over-act them. Combat is one where personality tends to fall by the wayside. Interrogations is one where they can either fall by the wayside, or when they do for some players but not for others, cause internal party conflicts.

IMO that's fine unless it causes internal table conflict among the players as well. Which is common, because player/character separation is (largely) a myth.


What makes it a donkey pain is more likely a DM not wanting the spell to be Solve The Adventure. The same goes with Augury, Divination, Commune, etc. A DM doesn't want one spell to circumvent the plot, so any answer has to be almost useless. Only if the question is not related to the main plot will a concise answer be given. There was a big debate about this with the Speak With Plants spell a year or so ago where one person made the spell useless because plants don't know anything. At some point players have to learn about the plot. What's wrong with Speak With Dead being the means to do so? It's the DMs who believe players should remain ignorant of everything who have the most problem with it.
If a DM is designing adventures with player abilities in mind, or even ad-how trying to decide how effective a spell use should be, a good guideline is: a 3rd level spell is an effective resource expenditure to effectively end/resolve a medium to hard encounter through at least level 7, and have major impact to about level 8-10. (And non-combat stuff counts as an encounter.)

You and I tend to view DM nerfing from opposite directions, so I'm taking what you're saying and thinking of a way to say "generally speaking, allowing this spell to have X minimum effectiveness" as a guideline to avoid over nerfing.

[KorvinStarmast]

While not a 5e derived use of the spell, I like this illustration of how to have some fun with that spell (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0845.html), but it is of course a little over the top since it was playing for comedic effect. Responses need not be that cryptic.

[Valmark]

Generally I find if a DM seems to be being a bit harsh or restrictive, it is because they are trying to protect the game from one of the other players who is pushing to overshadow others. Not that DM judgement is always right, but I tend to see their motivations as protective rather than trying to screw with their players.

As a player, I would have some sympathy if I were playing a detective character with expertise in investigation or a bard with great social skills for information gathering and the DM put some content in where the focus was discovering this information... then another player cast one spell and circumvented the task I was expecting to shine at.

Limiting the spell to protect the DM... I cant approve of making it useless. Limiting it to support the fun of others at the table? A much better motivation.

Speak with dead is one of those spells that can circumvent a lot of challenges where other characters might have been involved so there needs to be some care from DMs.

The unfortunate thing here is that by doing a favor to one player a DM risks an inversion of roles.

By this I mean that if I, player, get for my PC Speak with Dead and you, DM, nerf it to let other people shine it's the same as me, player, getting investigation skills and you, DM, making the same info available through Speak with Dead that another player knows/has prepared.

I still took something for my PC that the DM is not letting it be used effectively 'because no'. Either way, you're diminishing somebody's fun for someone else.

Note that I'm just talking in general- there's obviously plenty of things that could make this a non issue. For example in my specific case I wouldn't care regardless of which player I am, since the important thing is discovering whatever it is we gotta discover.

Another example would be a DM preparing the things in advance so that when the party gets there no spell can screw it up somehow and there is no arbitrary nerf to be done.

[MrStabby]

The unfortunate thing here is that by doing a favor to one player a DM risks an inversion of roles.

By this I mean that if I, player, get for my PC Speak with Dead and you, DM, nerf it to let other people shine it's the same as me, player, getting investigation skills and you, DM, making the same info available through Speak with Dead that another player knows/has prepared.

I still took something for my PC that the DM is not letting it be used effectively 'because no'. Either way, you're diminishing somebody's fun for someone else.

Note that I'm just talking in general- there's obviously plenty of things that could make this a non issue. For example in my specific case I wouldn't care regardless of which player I am, since the important thing is discovering whatever it is we gotta discover.

Another example would be a DM preparing the things in advance so that when the party gets there no spell can screw it up somehow and there is no arbitrary nerf to be done.

Whilst I agree with this, I think it is a matter of degree and emphasis. I am not talking about a character picking up investigation or persuasion and forgetting about it till something comes up. I am talking about the rogue that chooses inquisitive as their class, has a background as an investigator, invested in a decent intelligence and took expertise in investigation - they have a backstory about being an investigator and roleplay a character that is focused on uncovering evidence. Vs a cleric that just added speak with dead effectively for free, not even investing a spell known.

And I am not even saying that the DM is always right to do this, just that the DM can have the best of motivations and their limitations are intended to be for the good of the game. There is a tendency to talk insultingly about "tyrant DMs", usually from the perspective of just one player and not thinking about the impact of a specific ruling on the other players and how it can give them space to flourish in the game. Sometimes people can get so wrapped up in their own feelings of persecution that they miss out on the bigger picture that there are other people at the table and the game needs to cater to them as well.

[Pex]

If a DM is designing adventures with player abilities in mind, or even ad-how trying to decide how effective a spell use should be, a good guideline is: a 3rd level spell is an effective resource expenditure to effectively end/resolve a medium to hard encounter through at least level 7, and have major impact to about level 8-10. (And non-combat stuff counts as an encounter.)

You and I tend to view DM nerfing from opposite directions, so I'm taking what you're saying and thinking of a way to say "generally speaking, allowing this spell to have X minimum effectiveness" as a guideline to avoid over nerfing.

I can support the idea of level X spell can solve Y difficulty. Devil in the details. On purpose extreme I wouldn't support the idea of it takes a 7th level spell before someone can use a spell to go up a tree. :smallyuk: More seriously it is important to teach DMs that spell level/difficulty ratio. It needs to be clearlly and explicitly explained how it works and that it is supposed to happen, because DMs aren't looking at the spell level. They just witness the player cast one spell to solve the adventure and out comes the nerf/ban bat.

As my pet peeve it's a subset of the bigger problem of some DMs not accepting that PCs are supposed to be that powerful at the corresponding level. They're too afraid the players are getting away with something when instead they're getting what they earned.


Whilst I agree with this, I think it is a matter of degree and emphasis. I am not talking about a character picking up investigation or persuasion and forgetting about it till something comes up. I am talking about the rogue that chooses inquisitive as their class, has a background as an investigator, invested in a decent intelligence and took expertise in investigation - they have a backstory about being an investigator and roleplay a character that is focused on uncovering evidence. Vs a cleric that just added speak with dead effectively for free, not even investing a spell known.

And I am not even saying that the DM is always right to do this, just that the DM can have the best of motivations and their limitations are intended to be for the good of the game. There is a tendency to talk insultingly about "tyrant DMs", usually from the perspective of just one player and not thinking about the impact of a specific ruling on the other players and how it can give them space to flourish in the game. Sometimes people can get so wrapped up in their own feelings of persecution that they miss out on the bigger picture that there are other people at the table and the game needs to cater to them as well.

When the DM is a tyrant he's a tyrant to all his players. A particular ruling may not affect all players, but the ones it doesn't affect will be affected by other rulings of an unrelated matter. One ruling does not make a tyrant DM. It is a pattern of rulings.

[Demonslayer666]

Nothing in the spell stops the corpse/spirit from seeing you, though.

More importantly, nothing enables the corpse to see. A corpse cannot see, and the spirit isn't there. It is not a summoning spell, it's contacting the spirit, not bringing the spirit back.

[Valmark]

More importantly, nothing enables the corpse to see. A corpse cannot see, and the spirit isn't there. It is not a summoning spell, it's contacting the spirit, not bringing the spirit back.

It's explicitely bringing the spirit back though. Not only that but corpses can definitely see- skeletons (undeads) have no eyes and yet have eyesight. Of course it's because magic- but Speak With Dead is magic too.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Pex, the assertion that the rules 'facilitate bad DMing' is a remarkable reach into one of your pet peeves. It's the archer, not the arrow, at the root of the problem that vexes you so.

Except it isn't a remarkable reach. Economic Theory has the concept of Moral Hazard. Psychological and Political Theory all have concrete evidence that badly structured barrels..(rules)... indeed contribute and promote rot. Apples that are prone to rot, rot faster, and spread that contagion, when in poor rule sets.

Good rule sets, help inhibit rot.

It is not just about one bad apple, systemically it is about the rules that allow and encourage that apple to be bad.

I think certain real world events buttress' the conclusion reached by multiple academic disciplines:

Give a bad DM an inch and they may take a mile. Create good rules, and people will follow them, even those that might be inclined otherwise.

[Ashrym]

I don't really see the issue. The corpse has no reason to lie if the caster is neither hostile nor recognized as an enemy.

DM's should welcome the opportunity for plot exposition.

The idea isn't a direct answer to "who killed you?" -- it would be an answer like "the man in black". The answers are clues instead of resolution.

Plus, it can be enjoyable to convince the party to carry a corpse around for further questioning. :P

[Neoh]

You grant the semblance of life and intelligence to a corpse.
This spell doesn’t return the creature’s soul to its body, only its animating spirit.

It's not really smart enough that you can't easily circumvent the hostile thing.

It's basically a computer with only notepads in it. The notepads are filled with approximative memories but you have to give a password to access them. The password being your face (or body in general and your voice). Hostile guy face = no notepad memories. Any other faces = access to some notepads. So almost any "password" would work as long as you don't look like the guy they don't like.

[JackPhoenix]

It's explicitely bringing the spirit back though. Not only that but corpses can definitely see- skeletons (undeads) have no eyes and yet have eyesight. Of course it's because magic- but Speak With Dead is magic too.

Skeleton is not mere corpse, though: It's an undead creature. A corpse is just a corpse.

[Greywander]

Another fun thing is that since they can't learn new information, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong for the DM to treat every question you ask them as completely disconnected, i.e. nothing from a previous question would carry over to the next question.

You could ask, "Who killed you?" and they might say, "The man in blue." If you ask them, "Who is the man in blue?" they might respond with, "My son wore blue on his graduation," because they have no idea which man in blue you are talking about. They've already forgotten your first question.

Now, this might be a little unfair to the players. Even if it's "correct", it's okay to bend the rules a bit in the service of fun.

[Pex]

Except it isn't a remarkable reach. Economic Theory has the concept of Moral Hazard. Psychological and Political Theory all have concrete evidence that badly structured barrels..(rules)... indeed contribute and promote rot. Apples that are prone to rot, rot faster, and spread that contagion, when in poor rule sets.

Good rule sets, help inhibit rot.

It is not just about one bad apple, systemically it is about the rules that allow and encourage that apple to be bad.

I think certain real world events buttress' the conclusion reached by multiple academic disciplines:


Case in point of rotting the apple.


Another fun thing is that since they can't learn new information, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong for the DM to treat every question you ask them as completely disconnected, i.e. nothing from a previous question would carry over to the next question.

You could ask, "Who killed you?" and they might say, "The man in blue." If you ask them, "Who is the man in blue?" they might respond with, "My son wore blue on his graduation," because they have no idea which man in blue you are talking about. They've already forgotten your first question.

Now, this might be a little unfair to the players. Even if it's "correct", it's okay to bend the rules a bit in the service of fun.

[JoeJ]

Another fun thing is that since they can't learn new information, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong for the DM to treat every question you ask them as completely disconnected, i.e. nothing from a previous question would carry over to the next question.

You could ask, "Who killed you?" and they might say, "The man in blue." If you ask them, "Who is the man in blue?" they might respond with, "My son wore blue on his graduation," because they have no idea which man in blue you are talking about. They've already forgotten your first question.

Now, this might be a little unfair to the players. Even if it's "correct", it's okay to bend the rules a bit in the service of fun.

I'm not seeing why you would do this though. If the PCs are asking corpses who killed them, that usually means the DM is running some sort of mystery, and the testimony of the corpse is a clue. Why would you want to prevent the PCs from gaining information that you specifically put there for them to find?

I mean, a corpse in a mystery only knows enough to let the players figure out where to go next. Unless this is the climax of the adventure, the murderer will obviously have struck from behind, or have been wearing a disguise, or have been a stranger to the victim, but they will have said or done something that will provide the next clue in the mystery. Wouldn't denying the PCs that information undermine the whole purpose of running this particular adventure in the first place?


Edit: additional thought.

Yes, a corpse can lie, but it usually has no reason to. If it does have a reason, then good mystery design requires that there be clues to let the PCs figure out that it's lying. (Although I personally would never add that complication unless I knew that my players were exceptionally good at solving mysteries. Otherwise, there's too big a risk that they'll go wrong.)

[Greywander]

I'm not seeing why you would do this though.
You can do this. That's all I was saying. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. But there are situations where it should be fine for the DM to do that, particularly if the tone of the campaign is slightly sillier. Giving the players stupid answers if they ask stupid questions can be entertaining for all, and the DM can always just throw another corpse at them if they need to ask more questions. But in a more serious game, this could get frustrating. There is no one-size-fits-all, the DM has to adapt to their own table and campaign.

[Valmark]

Skeleton is not mere corpse, though: It's an undead creature. A corpse is just a corpse.

I meant this by "It's because magic", yes. I should've explained myself better.

In a normal situation a corpse can't see (or do anything else)- but Speak With Dead isn't a normal situation. It's magic.

[Tawmis]

Skeleton is not mere corpse, though: It's an undead creature. A corpse is just a corpse.

Well a skeleton is just a skeleton, until animated to become an undead creature. :smalltongue:

[J.C.]

Depends on which dead you talk to, don't it?

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't really see the issue. The corpse has no reason to lie if the caster is neither hostile nor recognized as an enemy.
If 99% of DM are having Speak with Dead always tell the truth, (and more importantly have signaled this meta-game element to the players), then functionally the condition of the corpse lying to the caster doesn't exist.

Your table is running the spell in the manner of prior editions.


DM's should welcome the opportunity for plot exposition.
As a DM I welcome, not the opportunity to tell my players the plot;
I welcome the opportunity to have the players live through the plot.

I absolutely love the idea of a PC Warlock, that can use Speak with Dead at will, heavily using the spell in Undermountain. It enables foreshadowing...( it is also why I love to place scrolls of Speak with Dead).

The rub is, Halaster is a mad, magical Demi-God in Undermountain, that by canon has a raison d'etre of messing with adventurers in overly complicated and mendacious fashion.

It would be entirely appropriate for Halaster to use the Modify Memory spell on a prior adventurer, fill their head with misinformation...(the incorrect solution to a trap, or wrong passcode to a Level Gate), then kill this adventurer and plant the body, to mislead the Players.

The deeper question, to me is: "How does one pull this off, and still have it be fun for the players?" To date...not no one has shared examples of when their campaign had corpses lie to the PCs, and the PCs had fun being lied to.

Some players are never going to enjoy having a near TPK on one of the deeper levels of Undermountain due to some misinformation they received from a corpse on level two of Undermountain, 6 months of real time ago.

I've actually done this. It takes a lot of setup, and foreshadowing to pull this off, to earn the moment as a DM.

It is hard to be a "rat bastard" or "old school meat grinder DM". Fail to get the balance right and you, instead become a "Donkey Pain" DM as Pex would say.

So my question still stands: is the systemically uncertainty of accuracy inherent in 5e's Speak with Dead spell worth it? If so, how have people used this uncertainty?



Plus, it can be enjoyable to convince the party to carry a corpse around for further questioning. :P
You only really need the head. 💀😀

[Demonslayer666]

It's explicitely bringing the spirit back though. Not only that but corpses can definitely see- skeletons (undeads) have no eyes and yet have eyesight. Of course it's because magic- but Speak With Dead is magic too.

If you play it that way, that's great, but that's not what the spell says.

Corpses are not undead, and SWD does not make the corpse an undead creature. It does not summon a spirit, it only opens a very limited line of communication, where you can ask questions and it can answer. If the spirit was there, you could do more than ask it questions.

[TigerT20]

If 99% of DM are having Speak with Dead always tell the truth, (and more importantly have signaled this meta-game element to the players), then functionally the condition of the corpse lying to the caster doesn't exist.

Your table is running the spell in the manner of prior editions.

Hold on: they're only getting the truth because they're casting the spell on people who have no reason to lie to them. If they had used the spell on someone who did, they may recieve untruthful information. Saying that the player's choices suddenly remove a part of the spell from existence doesn't make sense.

If a wizard casts Web a few times, but never sets fire to it you aren't running a version of Web that isn't flammable. You're running the standard version of Web, but the players have simply chosen not to use a specific aspect of that version.

[Valmark]

The deeper question, to me is: "How does one pull this off, and still have it be fun for the players?" To date...not no one has shared examples of when their campaign had corpses lie to the PCs, and the PCs had fun being lied to.

Some players are never going to enjoy having a near TPK on one of the deeper levels of Undermountain due to some misinformation they received from a corpse on level two of Undermountain, 6 months of real time ago.

I've actually done this. It takes a lot of setup, and foreshadowing to pull this off, to earn the moment as a DM.

It is hard to be a "rat bastard" or "old school meat grinder DM". Fail to get the balance right and you, instead become a "Donkey Pain" DM as Pex would say.

So my question still stands: is the systemically uncertainty of accuracy inherent in 5e's Speak with Dead spell worth it? If so, how have people used this uncertainty?
Emphasis by me. You mean you have had a corpse lie to the party and it ultimately having been a fun thing?

If so that kinda replies to your own question (and if it isn't what you meant sorry, I misunderstood).

That said... I think it can make for good times, yes. Personally I haven't used it at all- I always have other spells I want to prepare, and have never happened to need it when I could prepare it especially for the moment.

If you play it that way, that's great, but that's not what the spell says.

Corpses are not undead, and SWD does not make the corpse an undead creature. It does not summon a spirit, it only opens a very limited line of communication, where you can ask questions and it can answer. If the spirit was there, you could do more than ask it questions.

You may want to change your wording, because it definitely summons a spirit. It says so explicitely. After the second time you say it I'm thinking you mean something else.

And "that's not what the spell says" applies the other way around too, or there would be no discussion on using disguises and whatever else.

[MaxWilson]

It would be entirely appropriate for Halaster to use the Modify Memory spell on a prior adventurer, fill their head with misinformation...(the incorrect solution to a trap, or wrong passcode to a Level Gate), then kill this adventurer and plant the body, to mislead the Players.

The deeper question, to me is: "How does one pull this off, and still have it be fun for the players?" To date...not no one has shared examples of when their campaign had corpses lie to the PCs, and the PCs had fun being lied to.

Some players are never going to enjoy having a near TPK on one of the deeper levels of Undermountain due to some misinformation they received from a corpse on level two of Undermountain, 6 months of real time ago.

I've actually done this. It takes a lot of setup, and foreshadowing to pull this off, to earn the moment as a DM.

IMO in infowar scenarios it's not necessary for the players to have fun being lied to--it's sufficient for them to have fun not being sure if they've been lied to or deduced the wrong conclusion.

Scenario A: Combat As War-style campaign. There's a powerful villain (e.g. a Tarrasque), and the PCs have perfect information about he villain's strengths and weaknesses and have been able to theorycraft a solution good enough to kill this particular villain with a 1st level wizard on horseback if the villain ever shows their face again (let alone a full group of PCs). Rumors surface of this villain doing something horrible somewhere in the campaign world. PCs ride out and annihilate the villain, exactly as planned.

Scenario B: Combat As War-style campaign. There's a powerful villain (e.g. a Tarrasque), and the PCs have conflicting information from previous encounters and rumors about the villain and have been able to theorycraft a number of solutions, some of them good enough to potentially kill this particular villain with a 1st level wizard on horseback IF the villain lacks specific traits. Rumors surface of this villain doing something horrible somewhere in the campaign world. PCs ride out and set up a bunch of contingencies, hoping that one of them will work. Villain shows up and turns out to be lack the necessary traits, gets annihilated, does not annihilate PCs.

It's the same villain and the same successful tactic in both scenarios, but IMO the uncertainty in Scenario B makes it a lot more fun. In fact, this very factor is what can make even totally pedestrian encounters from the DM's perspective fun to the players: as a DM, when a 7th level party runs into a couple of Orogs on the road and attacks them, I have zero doubt that the PCs can annihilate the Orogs. I may be tempted to narrate the outcome (since it's not in doubt) and skip ahead to what happens after the PCs defeat the Orogs. But I've learned that this is a mistake, because outcomes which are not in doubt to the DM may be in doubt to the players, since they have less information. All they know is that they're facing two extremely burly, plate-armored enemies (plus potentially others out of sight), and discovering that they can annihilate them and take their stuff is part of the fun. (Plus, they may enjoy the emotional reactions of the Orogs when they learn that these humans are not pushovers and switch from "bullying and threatening" mode to "grovelling".)

Nobody likes being lied to or being annihilated by bad information, but if the increased uncertainty makes other scenarios more fun, it can still be worth including bad information in your game. Remember, "bree-yark is goblin for 'we surrender' (https://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/index.php/Bree-Yark!)"!

[Thunderous Mojo]

Emphasis by me. You mean you have had a corpse lie to the party and it ultimately having been a fun thing?


As a DM, I would say I "earned" the moment...in that I placed clues to indicate to the party that the information was suspect...(a old journal with different information, another corpse with a conveniently placed scroll of Speak with Dead nearby, with information that contradicted the red herring corpse, etc, etc). I laid clues for 6 months of real time..(I also placed further misinformation as well during that time).

Did all the players have fun with it? Honestly, I'm not sure..(so no I have not "answered my own question"..hence this thread).

(No one complained, and everyone agreed it was "pure Halaster")

Some players don't like puzzles at all....puzzles that play out over an extended time frame..I would imagine wouldn't make players that have the predilection to dislike puzzles to suddenly alter their views.

The first time I played Tomb of Horrors, one of my friends interrupted the DM reading the box text before a certain Green Devil Headed relief and exclaimed: "I stick my head in the devil's mouth!"
....we all had a great laugh, including the player that made the exclamation..(whom was rolling a new character).

That player felt having a memorable death, was the part of the charm of D&D. Some players, view death as a failure, regardless of how memorably epic it is. Individuals are different, some will dislike something, no matter how 'gently' the element is introduced.

In order to "earn" a corpse lying to the PC with Speak with Dead, I do think the DM, has to foreshadow, possibly to the point of stating: "remember Speak with Dead, does not compel the truth", up to, perhaps, every time the spell is used.

In practical effect, this either cues the players that something is afoot, ("hmm why did the DM issue the disclaimer this time but not last week") or just discourages people from using the spell, because it is unreliable.

I agree with MaxWilson, (from a prior post a page back), that if intrigue, and doubt are campaign themes, a meta-game discussion is required regarding how often information gathering techniques, (Magical or Mundane), are going to yield untrustworthy results.

Otherwise, I think the campaign is being setup to result in somebody being disappointed.