| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Aug 2014 : 02:38:32
|
If I wanted a variant of the Geas/Quest spell which could not work on a resisting subject*, how would that affect the spell?
Is there such any such spell written up in D&D or Realmslore?
I'm looking for a way to enforce what Kimbel, in Masquerade, had done to him. He was subjected to a life-long geas (as an alternative to death), which bound him to the service of a certain family and prevented him from harming anyone of that family or in their service.
It sounds like a cool spell for priests of Lawful Evil deities to use, as well as a reasonable alternative to death or imprisonment as a punishment, even for non-evil creatures.
A fixed term under a geas, bound to work off your crimes in some way, might be a more moral alternative to execution or other punishment. Certainly, it would be a better use for the talents of a gifted character with an unfortunate proclivity for larceny than an equivalent period of solitary confinement, and it's at the very least no less likely to rehabilitate him.
If a variant of Geas/Quest could exchange the feature of working against resisting targets for a greatly lengthened duration, without becoming higher in level, it would almost be within the reach of trusted NPC caster allies of the PCs in my campaign.
Which would be good news for a larcenous hafling of the Grayclaws of Tantras, just captured after trying for the second time to rob the noble Lady Cathone, fiancé to one of the PCs.
Said PC is angry enough to kill him, but charitable and compassionate enough to be swayed by nearly any display of contrition, fear or weakness. On the other hand, just letting a violent armed robber go to practice his trade on more innocents will stick in the craw of the PC, no matter how lightly he usually views matters of law and order.
The ability to enforce a magical geas where the robber promises to use his abilities for the benefit of the PCs (and a suitably heroic mission, e.g. 'ending slavery and bringing a new enlightened government to Unther') for maybe 5-10 years would be just the ticket.
*Or anyone under a magical compulsion, though coercion, intimidation, trickery, seduction and other chicanery is fine
|
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2014 : 05:44:17
|
| I see no reason not to create such a spell... Sounds to me like the "Unbreakable Vow" from Harry Potter. There have been variations on geas, but I don't know of one specifically for only willing targets. |
 |
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2014 : 07:22:46
|
| It's a great idea but I would caution that such spells do have limits. If one is able to twist (or creatively interpret) the meaning of the 'vow' they could get up to all sorts of mischief. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2014 : 23:44:05
|
I might be mistaken ...
But my understanding is that geas and quest already require a willing (or at least non-resisting) target?
Those Purple War Wizards of Cormyr willingly submit to a geas (about protecting Cormyr and her crown, etc) administered by their order. Not sure if this is a standard geas or a variant - the War Wizards are technically capable of either, but the 2E FRA sourcebook would have probably said *special* or *variant* geas if necessary, I think. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2014 : 00:46:25
|
The only conditions for the geas spell WERE:
"The creature must be intelligent, conscious, under its own volition, and able to understand the caster."
Therefore it could be cast on an unwilling subject.
However, the geas, like other charm/suggestion spells could not force the target to kill itself. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2014 : 04:09:45
|
| I interpret *under its own volition* as meaning the creature willingly accepts the spell, not attempting to Save or resist, choosing to accept the spell, allowing the spellcasting, etc. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2014 : 06:52:07
|
| Interpret "under its own volition" instead to mean a creature who is not being controlled already. In other words, you can't place a geas on a creature that has been charmed or dominated by a different spellcaster without first breaking the control. |
|
|
|
Akantor
Acolyte
France
24 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2014 : 10:13:37
|
If it's only changing target to One Willing subject, I would lower by one level like between benign transposition and baleful transposition, or polymorph and baleful polymorph.
You can also look at Familial Geas in heroes of horror http://dndtools.eu/spells/heroes-of-horror--70/familial-geas--1434/ |
English is not my primary language so forgive me for any mistake, I do my best (and spend skill point at my next level) |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2014 : 14:12:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I interpret *under its own volition* as meaning the creature willingly accepts the spell, not attempting to Save or resist, choosing to accept the spell, allowing the spellcasting, etc.
I'm under the same presumption here as Ayrik.
By the definition of volition: an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made
Therefore, the intent of saying "under their own volition" would mean, having made a decision to accept the geas/quest.
Also, to note, in other instances where they state that the person needs to have their own free will, they state things like "the person must be under no magical coercion", etc.... that are less nebulous. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 00:06:19
|
You have to take it in context though. The list that includes "under its own volition" is a list of things necessary to cast the spell. If you could only cast the spell on willing creatures then there would be no saving throw to resist the spell. Its that simple.
Beyond that - it would make the spell useless. What caster would cast a spell to control the actions of a person who is willing to do what he says anyways, even upon penalty of death. That would be dumb, and in a campaign with components ludicrous.
In the ORIGINAL 1973 rules, this was the description:
Geas: A spell which forces the recipient to perform some task (as desired by the Magic-User casting the Geas). Any attempt to deviate from the performance of the task will result in weakness, and ignoring the Geas entirely brings death. The referee must carefully adjudicate the casting and subsequent performance of the geased individual when this spell is used. Duration: Until the task is completed. Range: 3".
A decade later when they were publishing the new set of rule books, some slight additions/clarifications were added:
Geas: Range: 30’ Duration: Until completed or removed Effect: Compels one creature
This spell forces a victim either to perform or avoid a stated action. For example, a character may be geased to bring back an object for the caster; to eat whenever the chance arises; or to never reveal certain information. The action must be possible and not directly fatal or else the gem will return and affect the caster instead! The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect. If the victim ignores the gem, penalties (decided by the DM) are applied until the character either obeys the geas or dies. Suitable penalties include minuses in combat, lowered ability scores, loss of spells, pain and weakness, and so forth. Dispel magic and remove curse spells will not affect a geas.
The language has evolved over time. But I think it is OBVIOUSLY ("forces" "victim") not a voluntary spell.
It's clear to me that during that time someone tried to geas someone into killing themselves and it started a debate so a clarification was made. Later someone tried to geas a charmed or dominated person and that started a debate so another clarification was made. Simple. |
Edited by - The Masked Mage on 23 Aug 2014 00:11:19 |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 00:13:45
|
| I have also often thought, some such changes are made purely to fill up white space on a page and to make rulebooks seem meatier than they are. You might not spend 15 dollars on a 40 page rulebook, but 60 or 80 it seems more reasonable... if there is actually not any substantial difference that is not a problem for TSR/WOTC :P |
Edited by - The Masked Mage on 23 Aug 2014 00:15:06 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 00:41:19
|
Disagreements over definition aside,
Can a person be affected by more than one geas at any given time? Would subsequent castings of geas negate, overwrite, or reinforce previous one(s)? And - without resorting to other spells and divinations - is the caster aware of whether or not his geas casting succeeded or failed?
I can see small potential for abuse with the one-geas-per-person approach. A wizard capable of casting the spell could install a harmless geas on himself which (discounting sadistic DM manipulations) realistically is never at risk of being violated ("I swear an oath to never eat halfling flesh garnished with strawberry Fruit Loops while dancing naked in an air-conditioned swimming pool on the world of Athas") and thus render himself virtually immune to any future geasa. Unethical characters would routinely prepare themselves in such a manner before "voluntarily" (ie, with volition) agreeing to submit to another caster's geas. You would think Cormyr's War Wizards would be well aware of this fact, if it is true. In fairness, an argument can be made that a wizard capable of casting geas is able to defend himself better against it - but the flaw in this argument seems to be that wizards are not able to immunize themselves to other enchantments (or indeed to any spell of any type) simply by merit of being capable of casting such spells themselves.
I prefer the every-geas-layers-onto-the-person approach. This can produce rather exciting roleplaying challenges when the conditions for multiple geasa cannot be met simultaneously, or when they actually oppose each other. Those agreeing to geas after geas are setting themselves up for problems, methinks, magically-enforced oaths and enchantments should not be taken lightly.
Either way, I point out that AD&D 2E rules had few spells which could detect geas. Things like true seeing and aura reading, which were generally of similar spell level to geas itself. ESP might detect a geas, given a clever caster able to direct the thoughts/psychology of a less-clever target, at least if he specifically knows what he's looking for. A geas is apparently considered a "permanent" condition, much like a permanent magical item would be, it cannot be removed by means of dispel magic or anti-magic shell (although it can be negated for the duration), although more powerful magics such as alter reality, limited wish, and Mordenkainen's lucubration have varying chances of removing it. Psychic surgery can also be used to directly alter a person's aura; removing or changing an active geas, deactivating a geas, or even leaving a geas intact while "hiding" it from detection. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 04:52:35
|
1st - you can't geas yourself.
2nd - I would say it is possible to cast a geas on someone already under the effects of a previous geas, as long as the two to not come into conflict. If they do, the latter would fail in casting.
There are direct and lethal consequences to the geas spell. It would be an unfair usage if a wizard could layer two mutually exclusive geas spells on a victim ensuring no matter what one geas or the other will kill the victim. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 21:57:49
|
I expect that normal characters in ordinary circumstances wouldn't accept a spell cast upon them if they know or expect it would kill them. Of course D&D is filled with abnormal characters and extraordinary circumstances.
Can we agree that a geas won't work on a person who objects to the terms? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 22:35:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
You have to take it in context though. The list that includes "under its own volition" is a list of things necessary to cast the spell. If you could only cast the spell on willing creatures then there would be no saving throw to resist the spell. Its that simple.
Beyond that - it would make the spell useless. What caster would cast a spell to control the actions of a person who is willing to do what he says anyways, even upon penalty of death. That would be dumb, and in a campaign with components ludicrous.
In the ORIGINAL 1973 rules, this was the description:
Geas: A spell which forces the recipient to perform some task (as desired by the Magic-User casting the Geas). Any attempt to deviate from the performance of the task will result in weakness, and ignoring the Geas entirely brings death. The referee must carefully adjudicate the casting and subsequent performance of the geased individual when this spell is used. Duration: Until the task is completed. Range: 3".
A decade later when they were publishing the new set of rule books, some slight additions/clarifications were added:
Geas: Range: 30’ Duration: Until completed or removed Effect: Compels one creature
This spell forces a victim either to perform or avoid a stated action. For example, a character may be geased to bring back an object for the caster; to eat whenever the chance arises; or to never reveal certain information. The action must be possible and not directly fatal or else the gem will return and affect the caster instead! The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect. If the victim ignores the gem, penalties (decided by the DM) are applied until the character either obeys the geas or dies. Suitable penalties include minuses in combat, lowered ability scores, loss of spells, pain and weakness, and so forth. Dispel magic and remove curse spells will not affect a geas.
The language has evolved over time. But I think it is OBVIOUSLY ("forces" "victim") not a voluntary spell.
It's clear to me that during that time someone tried to geas someone into killing themselves and it started a debate so a clarification was made. Later someone tried to geas a charmed or dominated person and that started a debate so another clarification was made. Simple.
Just wondering, which edition of the game are you actually looking at? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Akantor
Acolyte
France
24 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2014 : 22:46:56
|
| For two contradicting geas on the same person, I would rule as DM that the higher spellcaster level spell prevails. In cas of equality, a spellcaster check every morning would tell what will be the geas of the day. (For 3.5) |
English is not my primary language so forgive me for any mistake, I do my best (and spend skill point at my next level) |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2014 : 00:34:19
|
| My ruling would be less charitable, lol. A person who now faces dire conflicts after (foolishly) accepting contradictory geasa requirements really must simply face the consequences of poor and foolish choices. Improvident planning, accepting short-term rewards and conveniences and comforts against the risk of life throwing you Bad Things. Conflicting geasa happen to someone who played the odds and lost. It turns moderate setbacks into insurmountable calamities. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2014 : 01:15:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just wondering, which edition of the game are you actually looking at?
Both the 1973 publication and the 1983 publications were old D&D. The original. The 1973 was the first time the spell was published - as it was the first time ANYTHING is D&D was published by Gary G.
The first time the term "under its own volition" was included in the spell description was the AD&D 1st Edition Players Handbook, also by Gary. As I said before, I assume this is because in one of his games someone tried to geas a charmed person and it led to a debate.
I understand why that is confusing some people which is why I provided for everyone the earlier versions of the spell, so they could see its development progressing over the years.
The version I first referred to, as is my custom, is 2nd Ed. For me all things go back to 2nd Ed. Including 5th Ed. :D
The entire wording of that version is as follows:
A geas spell places a magical command upon a creature (usually human or humanoid) to carry out some service, or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by the spellcaster. The creature must be intelligent, conscious, under its own volition, and able to understand the caster. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that are likely to result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of action. The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed. Failure to do so will cause the creature to grow sick and die within 1d4 weeks. Deviation from or twisting of the instructions causes a corresponding loss of Strength points until the deviation ceases. A geas can be done away with by a wish spell, but a dispel magic or remove curse spell will not negate it. Your DM will decide any additional details of a geas, for its casting and fulfillment are tricky, and an improperly cast geas is ignored.
In this you see some clear words again "command" "compel" indicating it is not a voluntary spell. It is an enchantment forcing your will upon a victim. |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2014 : 01:18:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I expect that normal characters in ordinary circumstances wouldn't accept a spell cast upon them if they know or expect it would kill them. Of course D&D is filled with abnormal characters and extraordinary circumstances.
Can we agree that a geas won't work on a person who objects to the terms?
Definitely not. Geas is designed to be cast on unwilling creatures who have no say in the terms. The caster places a geas to get his way. It is pretty much the ultimate suggestion spell, accept it is not a suggestion any more - it is a command. This spell makes someone the caster's bitch, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2014 : 01:30:36
|
If you look into 3rd edition rules - which drives me a little crazy - you get more to back this up. In 3rd Ed. they made a lesser variant of the geas spell, cleverly named lesser geas. This allowed a saving throw and was limited to creatures with 7HD or less.
The full fledged geas was merged with the quest priest spell - and my head throbbed a little reading that brilliance. It modifies the penalties to HP. Fine. It also allows more spells the power to dispel a geas than before. Fine. It also imposes duration limits on open ended instructions. NOT FINE. That modification comes from nowhere and drastically weakens the spell. If that's the case it should not be 6th level anymore.
3rd edition removed the "under its own volition" bit - obviously because it had caused undue confusion as it has here.
I'm not going to bother looking at what stupidity 4th E brought to the spell. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2014 : 02:19:43
|
Ah, then we basically disagree entirely about the underlying intent (and thus the application) of the geas spell, TMM.
I understand the spell acts as a way to magically enforce promises, oaths, and contracts. The subject of the spell voluntarily agrees to the terms. He is not enchanted or otherwise magically compelled to agree, of course. And he must "of his own volition" not resist the geas spellcasting in any way, of course. Although ... he might be compelled through other methods ("Agree to these terms or your companion dies, mwoohahaha, etc.)
Your interpretation seems to be more along the lines of the spellcaster deciding the terms of the geas. Inflicting the enchantment upon a target in a way not unlike a curse (no matter how benign the geas conditions might be). This isn't unjustifiable - it is a powerful 6th level enchantment after all - it just seems counter to the way I read the spell description. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2014 : 09:02:19
|
That is a very good comparison that I never considered for an example - it is almost like a gypsy's curse.
Like most of the things included in D&D, the geas spell comes from real world history/mythology/folklore... in this case Irish. I am of Irish descent, so I had heard the term long before ever reading a world of published D&D in the stories of my grandparents. It is a common occurrence in such tales - like leprachauns and pooka and banshee. If you'd like to read an example that is sure to be easy to find you can search for the story of Cú Chulainn and the crone (which happens to be a situation where he was under 2 at the same time). The little people can also place one under a geas.
Just a couple notes about it since it seems a hot topic this week. It is pronounced GESH not JEEZ or GAYASS or something like that (I heard more than a few pronunciations from players who never heard of it before), and in plural it is GESHA. You can thank gaelic for the unusual plural form :P
Also, there is a major difference between this folklore and the d&d spell, and that is this: in the folk tales, fulfilling your geas kind of earns you spiritual strength... The best comparison I can think of here is karma - fulfilling a geas gets good karma, fighting it or breaking it bad karma.
Hope that all makes sense. |
Edited by - The Masked Mage on 26 Aug 2014 09:18:33 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2014 : 22:34:27
|
I guess that answers Icelanders OP query, lol.
There are priest enchantments from the Law and Chaos spheres which will only work on willing targets or which will never work on nonwilling targets. Also some magical items (like those lawful quills and contracts whose names I cant recall) which require willing participants, others which will basically function like domination spells. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Voluntary Geas / Unbreakable Contract spell
