Can a corpse volentarily fail its save against Speak with Dead?

[Aquillion]

The text of Speak with Dead reads, in part:

If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.

Obviously, it is possible to be friendly with someone who has a different alignment than you; someone who would want to give you information, and therefore would want to fail the save.

Now, normally it's easy to fail a will save if you wish to. And getting a save 'as if you were alive' implies that this is still the case. But a corpse is different from a character; and the rest of the spell reads:

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

This (as well as common sense) implies that the corpse is separate from the character; normally, a dead character doesn't get to make any decisions about their corpse at all, and if Speak with Dead doesn't access their soul, then you wouldn't expect them to get to make any choices with regards to it, either.

On the other hand (and this is the only thing that really makes me think it might be possible to willingly fail the safe), it does say that the target is a 'dead creature', not a corpse... the save does not list (object), either.

Another factor: The spell only accesses information available to the character when they died. Does this apply to voluntarily failing the save, too? That is, if someone was an ally to me and got killed, and (while dead, in the afterlife or whatever) discovered information that turned them against me, would their corpse still 'choose' to fail the Speak with Dead save? Or would their soul in the afterlife get contacted and given the choice? Would they know who is casting the spell? Would they know my alignment and deity, as with Raise Dead? Or what?

[BobVosh]

Too much thought. "as if still alive" means it can volunteer to fail that save. The corpse can't learn new things, so it will have to use its last information (just before death) to ascertain if it likes ya.

Dead creature implies the body to me, rather than the soul. However, that is up to interpetation.

[Demented]

"As if it were alive" seems to sum that up pretty well. It can voluntarily save.

However, a character who is of the same alignment as you cannot voluntarily resist. Kill your best buddy, then use Speak with Dead to abuse his privacy with every question you can imagine. Raise Dead later. He won't even know that you know what he knows until you blackmail him.
(Though he might be a bit cheesed about the whole 'getting killed' thing.)

[BobVosh]

"As if it were alive" seems to sum that up pretty well. It can voluntarily save.

However, a character who is of the same alignment as you cannot voluntarily resist. Kill your best buddy, then use Speak with Dead to abuse his privacy with every question you can imagine. Raise Dead later. He won't even know that you know what he knows until you blackmail him.
(Though he might be a bit cheesed about the whole 'getting killed' thing.)

Thats why Pixies with their arrows of forget were put in D&D.

[Aquillion]

Wait -- does the corpse have to answer your questions in a useful manner? My interpretation of the spell has always been that while the spell lets you interrogate someone, the corpse can answer with "screw you" if it wants. (Or, more properly, if that's what the imprint left on it by the soul that formerly inhabited leads it to do.)

Granted, that makes the save a bit pointless... but that'd hardly be the first odd thing in D&D.

[KillianHawkeye]

Wait -- does the corpse have to answer your questions in a useful manner? My interpretation of the spell has always been that while the spell lets you interrogate someone, the corpse can answer with "screw you" if it wants. (Or, more properly, if that's what the imprint left on it by the soul that formerly inhabited leads it to do.)

Granted, that makes the save a bit pointless... but that'd hardly be the first odd thing in D&D.

That is entirely up to DM interpretation. I would say that the corpse should answer as briefly, honestly and literally as possible unless I had a good reason for not wanting my players to get the information.

[Talic]

The imprint thing just shows that it can't learn new stuff. Think of it as the person, forever trapped at the moment of their death.

And yes, they could fail the save. However, the corpse will have no idea who's casting the spell, so would likely have no reason to voluntarily fail.

The identity of the caster is "new information". The corpse is prohibited by the spell from learning it.

[starburst98]

what if your party has different alignments like belkar in the order, and one of them is a cleric that does have speak with dead, would it be too far of a leap to think that is them?

[The Glyphstone]

The corpse can't make intuitive leaps either, as that would still be gaining new information, or at least assuming it.

[Immutep]

If we work on the premise that the corpse (or imprint of your companion exactly as it was at the point of their death) was able to recognise the caster (spirits and souls are tricky ground) then it should be up to the player of the PC to decide to automatically fail or to try to succeed to save.

I think this is very open to debate though, since i've never been in the position of being an imprint of the soul of a dead person who's friend was trying to communicate with me through the use of magic. Try to get the DM to see the arguement from your point of view and explain the reasons why you think you should (he might be more inclined to be supportive because of you showing innitiative).

[Talic]

I see that as a bit of a stretch, though possible.

I see this as a spell where the husk left behind is unable to make intuitive leaps of any kind. Unable to deduce even the most basic things (such as the person casting that spell is Johan Silverstein, the party cleric). Yes, he'll know everything he knew about Johan. But he won't be able to make the connection between that figure in his memory, and the person in front of him asking questions.

That's the way I see it at least, though this spell does leave room for interpretation. I feel this interpretation keeps it as close to the original as possible, and requires the least convoluted balanced solution to the problem.

[Jasdoif]

And yes, they could fail the save. However, the corpse will have no idea who's casting the spell, so would likely have no reason to voluntarily fail.

Further, the corpse won't have any idea what spell is being cast on it.

[Immutep]

Both fair arguements against, the rule does have a level of uncertainty to it (given the fact we don't know what it's like to be in their shoes) but an arguement for could be made on the basis that

A) you grant the semblence of life and intellect to a corpse

Meaning that you could argue on that wording that whilst the corpse isn't aware of anything, if it is able to have knowledge of it's life and intellect, it may be able to recognise things around it

B) It can speak with all knowledge the creature had while it was alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information. Indeed, It can't even remember being questioned.

Which could suggest that the corpse simply loses all knowledge gained after the spell wears off (dead and unable to retain the new information once the magic stops)

I'm certainly not saying this is open and shut. I'd seriously reccomend seeing what your DM says about it.

P.s. Talic, I've just read about your character, how does he play in a party with that kind of backstory?

[Immutep]

Just thought of the big killer for the arguement i put forward for saying maybe yes. It requires the spell to be already working by then, which it obviously wouldn't until the save had been rolled.

So, sorry, but no!

[Devils_Advocate]

The question itself is new information, as is the corpse's interpretation of the question (without which the question is just meaningless noise). So obviously the "can't learn" restriction can't be absolute. Producing an answer to even the simplest of questions involves some acquisition of information and reasoning.

The spell description doesn't specifically say that the corpse answers questions to the best of its ability, and indeed says that "Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive." On the other hand, it doesn't say that the corpse can forgo answering at all if it wishes to, and if it can that sort of defeats the point of the spell, and the point of the Will save. On the third hand, there's no indication that the corpse answers honestly, either.

Could the corpse respond with anything at all? Like, say, "Raise me, you stupid bastard"? Does it know that it's dead? Does it know and care that it's being questioned while dead?

It looks like it's up to the DM to decide the corpse's precise intellectual capabilities and motivation. Frankly, I'd rather toss out the alignment check, that part is weird.

[Immutep]

No it wouldn't know it was dead, since that information would never be available to it before it died. On the off-shoot, I just got the funniest picture in my head of somebody casting the spell, then getting nothing but "OH MY GOD I'M GONNA DIE" out of the corpse.

[Thane of Fife]

For a frame of reference, the 2nd edition version of the spell says that a dead creature which saves successfully can refuse to answer questions. So, saving successfully would never be a bad thing.

As that seems to answer both of the questions people have, I think that that's a pretty good interpretation.