Can you Mage's Disjunction a curse from a person

[kinathis]

So there is this powerful blood curse affecting a princess in the campaign i'm running. And the party has access to a very powerful wizard who possibly could be asked to remove the curse. Mage's Disjunction is a very powerful spell that destroyes magic effects in the area. Could a Mage's Disjunction be used to destroy a curse by unraveling the very magic that its made of?

I mean, a wish spell of Miracle would work just as well i suppose.

[Necroticplague]

No. Bestow Curse specifically says only a few, certain spells can remove it. Disjunction isn't on that list, so it can't.

[BowStreetRunner]

The key here is that with regard to spells and spell-like effects, Mage's Disjunction states that it ends the effect "as a dispel magic spell does". So if dispel magic has no effect on a curse, neither does Mage's Disjunction.

[Zanos]

No reason a 17th+ level wizard wouldn't have access to the fairly common remove curse spell, though.

[khadgar567]

İf its item them maybe disjunctioning woks as it destroys item of question

[Zaq]

By the rules, what has been said in this topic is correct, assuming that the "blood curse" is actually from the Bestow Curse spell (or a spell that shares language with Bestow Curse). Your use of the term "blood curse," though, makes me think that this sounds more like a plot effect than like something that stems from the same kind of spell that any old 5th level Cleric can cast, at which point it's basically up to the GM.

If the GM (and I can't tell if that's you or not) feels like this curse works like Bestow Curse, then it would only take Remove Curse (or maybe Break Enchantment) to get rid of it, even though Disjunction wouldn't actually work. I wouldn't at all be surprised, though, if the GM says that this curse is bigger/badder/stickier than what you get out of a third-level spell, so then the Bestow Curse rules wouldn't apply. (This does mean that Disjunction would theoretically work so long as the GM's idea of the curse doesn't specifically stop it, since it's the specific language in Bestow Curse that prevents Disjunction from working, but again, it's up to the GM.) A plot-inflicted curse usually takes more than a single spell to break it, but if it took some sort of effort on the players' part to get access to Disjunction, I don't see it as being unreasonable to let one of the most powerful "magic goes away now" effects in the game make the magic go away.

Potentially interesting side-note: would this "blood curse" still apply in an antimagic field or a null magic zone? Does the princess always ping on Detect Magic as a result of the active curse on her? Just how closely does this curse follow the normal rules of player-accessible magic?

[Âmesang]

On a related note would that infer that Mordenkainen's disjunction couldn't bring down permanent personal range spells if said spells were cast at a higher caster level than the disjunction?

[Sagetim]

Apart from the rules, from a sense making stand point it would make sense if disjunction could remove a curse. Because modrenkainen's disjunction is apparently so powerful that it has a percentage chance to destroy artifacts in it's area of effect. That's some crazy potency there. As a GM, I would be willing to let players use disjunction break a curse even if it doesn't work by RAW. However, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be consequences.

Also, I'm pretty sure that you can't use Wish to cast Miracle. In addition to that, remove curse, or break enchantment would probably be the most valid choices for dealing with any given curse. More importantly than just breaking it immediately though, do we know what the curse does and what the consequences of breaking it might be?

Is this curse a punishment from the gods for betraying an important contract in ages past? (say, expelling the elves when your ancestor had specifically told them they would have asylum in his lands)

What effects does this curse have on the people suffering from it? (if they can't tie their own shoes you can leave it in place and have a servant handle that, you're royalty)

Is the curse somehow load bearing? (if you remove the curse from the princess will it unravel a binding on some ancient evil, or will the former targets of the curse be killed by it's removal and raised as some horrible form of undead)

Is the curse actually a curse, or is it a blessing that has become regarded as a curse due to changing attitudes and morals? (Growing stronger from eating the hearts of your enemies regularly but growing weaker until you die if you don't would be a blessing in a more savage time, while it would come to be regarded as a curse with more delicate sensibilities).

[Zancloufer]

By RAW Disjunction doesn't always counter, though that might be more a RAW dysfunction than what was intended.

Consider that Disjunction can:
A) Remove any spell, or Spell like ability with a on-going duration (I would argue that includes permanency spells as the still have a "duration" just that duration is indefinite).
B) Destroy Magic Items
C) Nuke ARTIFACTS.
D) End ANTI-MAGIC FIELDS.

So well by RAW an instantaneously applied curse from a spell or SLA, or one from a Supernatural ability isn't nukable, curse items, totally screwed. Just choose to make the will save yourself and fail if purposely for the cursed item. Bam curse gone, even better than the Remove Curse spell it's self does it.