(Lesser) Geas/Quest: analysis on the actual effect

[Zeruel]

This may end up being kind of long and controversial, as I saw no discussion on this topic and many people have their mind already set on how compulsory spells work, so let me explain and ask you to consider my point of view with an open mind.

Everyone seems to assume that the spell makes the subject do whatever the caster wants to. But reading the description of the Lesser Geas spell I noticed that, beside it being from the compulsion subschool, there seems to be no obligation for the subject to take the desired course of action, aside from he/she not wanting to take damage from the spell when he/she doesn't do as ordered.

The spell reads:

"A lesser geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself [...], it can cause any course of action. The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed [...]".

Emphasis mine, it's only logical to me that that "must" implies just a duty, something you have to do but may choose not to. And that "cause", why not just plainly saying "the creature makes anything you ask at the best of its possibilities?". This to me reads like "Aside from killing itself, the target may try anything to avoid the damage from the spell".

Remember then that unlike Dominate Person/Monster, which openly forces the actions on the target, this spell only commands the course of activity; like IRL, while you must follow orders and commands, you still can disobey them, though there are consequences for doing it (in regards of this spell, taking damage is the consequence).

Another strong point is this line:

"A clever recipient can subvert some instructions."

How could someone mentally forced to do something try to find ways not to do the thing?

So, my view of the spell and the fact that it is a compulsion effect is that it is like a contract and that it works like an addiction, like someone on drugs: you must do this (do drugs). You may stop doing it, but if you do you suffer damage (withdrawal symptoms).

And on top of all, what would be difference (aside from the spell level) from a Dominate spell, which actually specifies that the target is completely under your control? Nothing if you ask me, but then why not just saying: "This spell functions as the Dominate Monster spell, except it only affects creatures of 7 or less HD and has no ST" or something similar?

Don't want to sound like a whiny party killer, but may this be because people WANT to believe it's so good as a spell? No save abuse-open 6th level spells seem a bit too much. You could say something about casting time for Geas/Quest, but if you absolutely and beyond any reason want to believe it as much powerful you'd probably try to find ways around that anyway, like being a StP Erudite with Linked Power.

That's all for now, but I may have missed some of my points, though I think my position is both clear and understandable. I wait for some confirmation of my analysis or a constructive counter-argument, bye! (^^)/

[Flickerdart]

This has been discussed a number of times. The consensus is that the creature cannot choose to disobey explicitly (otherwise the spell would not be mind-affecting) but can resist in subtle ways. Remember: "The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."

[Zeruel]

This has been discussed a number of times. The consensus is that the creature cannot choose to disobey explicitly (otherwise the spell would not be mind-affecting) but can resist in subtle ways.

Well, it's mind-affecting to me if you agree with the drugs interpretation: you don't actually need them, but your brain reacts painfully at their loss. Besides, mind-affecting effects don't only attack the free will of the subject, the Mind Thrust power being an example, so I don't know if that means something (no offence, of course).


Remember: "The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."

Again, that "must" could be red as "has the duty to", and since that there is no explicit line that states that the target is forced to act as commanded, I'm inclined to assume that interpretation better. I wish WotC focused on improving 3.5 Ed instead of moving on and leave us to our doom and doubts in these forums...

[Flickerdart]

Again, that "must" could be red as "has the duty to"

It could be read that way, but only if you are intent on creating your specific interpretation. Consider that by the time a creature is facing the 6th level spell geas, it's 13th level, and heals 13 hit points after a night's rest. The average damage from the spell is 10.5 - substantially less. So the spell would be literally useless.

Note that the penalties are caused when "the subject is prevented from obeying," not when it chooses to disobey. Under your interpretation, a creature with geas cast upon it could just sit on its tail and do nothing, and no harm would come to it as long as an external force was not preventing it from doing what it was told to do.

[Telok]

I've always viewed it as
1) The victim must attempt to carry out the task
2) The victim gets to choose the manner in which to carry out the task

Now, for anyone with 10+ hit points and access to healing magic or the Heal skill, Lesser Geas is more important and dangerous than Geas. In addition at and after 5th level, Geas is useless against PCs. That being said, Lesser Geas is more likely to make the victim incapable of completing the task. In fact once the penalties from Lesser Geas become great enough to render the task impossible the day/level clause may come into effect.

For example, you should never ever ever set the task to be "Kill the Duke of Foofoo". The victim can walk up to the duke, explain that he's under a geas, and ask the duke to hold still while he beats him to death with a soft pillow. The poor guy will probably be taken away and locked up. If he's under a Lesser Geas the penalties will soon render him unable to escape and complete the task. Further more even if he did complete the task the duke's heir would become the new duke. In fact someone could always be granted the dukedom by the king, so there can always be a duke. Since the task is now impossible and unlimited the spell will run out in a couple of weeks.

[Zeruel]

Sorry for the absence, very spotty internet. Hope nobody gets too much bugged for restoring this...


It could be read that way, but only if you are intent on creating your specific interpretation.

I'm not actually trying to find a flaw in the spell, I swear, it just happened that reading the spell and seeing that it misses the explicit part about the [compulsion] to act that the spell involves, it is arguable that the only real compulsion is the damage, like I said on the previous posts, which then may work like abstinence, that I woud like to point out IRL is a mind effect derived from the compulsion to do what your body demands, doing drugs as said above, is that wrong?


Consider that by the time a creature is facing the 6th level spell geas, it's 13th level, and heals 13 hit points after a night's rest. The average damage from the spell is 10.5 - substantially less. So the spell would be literally useless.

Note that the penalties are caused when "the subject is prevented from obeying," not when it chooses to disobey. Under your interpretation, a creature with geas cast upon it could just sit on its tail and do nothing, and no harm would come to it as long as an external force was not preventing it from doing what it was told to do.

You may have a point on the "prevented" part, but if you consider that that doesn't openly exclude a willing "deserter" to take damage, I could then say that the writers didn't conceived (as you certainly know it's not rare at WotC...) that a target wouldn't try to end the Geas by all means possible, so they left the "...doesn't submit to the order..." part implicit. Since this would be unacceptable because the spell would then be completely useless, my argument seems still on its feet, as I will explain.

And yes, as levels go on it becomes less of a trouble... apparently.

A creature could choose to do nothing and suffer penalties if it decides that that damage doesn't hinder it. However it depends both on the caster and the target:

1. A target may be a squishy one like a wizard, and you know how much the d4 needs to stay out of danger. Ever been in a situation when a handful of HP could mean life or level loss? Not everybody can access cures often as desired, and the damage of Geas may occur at the worst time, who knows, and 10.5 damage is still 2 full HD for a caster with Cos 12, who preferred an extra +1 to hit/AC than an extra +1 to HP (aren't casters supposed to totally not take damage, after all?). And a used Cure Wounds in the morning is always one less spell to cast when you might need one later that day... *evil laught*

2. More importantly, despite rest can be a solution most of the time, you have not considered metamagic: it sounds weird to apply any metamagic to this spell, but that's because you think the target will do everything in its power to not incur in the damage, so you don't want the spell to cause too much hindrance;

consider my view instead, and assume the target is not compelled. If you want to "force" the target to act by your will, you still can! You simply present it with penalties it can't overcome, at least not just by sleeping. A casual example, for someone that is not trying enough, may be maximizing the Geas. No more safe sleeping until level 18! :smallbiggrin:

Let's get bad: a mildly optimized wizard with Easy Metamagic for Maximize and Fell Drain (depending if you rule that it does that every time you take damage or only on the first instance). Now someone may have problems for the next 15 hours every day (or just the first day, for such a lenghty but sporadic effect I'd rule for the continuous damage).

Or how about this: the BBEG hires one VERY powerful wizard, who happens to have a thing for Geas, so he has Arcane Thesis (geas), and applies Sudden Maximize, Easy Metamagic Fell Drain (or Enervate, if Drain's off), Empower and Repeat. Now I DO want to get this quest done (or kill that damn wizard...)

I know this seems exaggerated, but not only this is a viable DM's way to make PC do something (like avoiding players fooling around, or better having Evil PCs cooperating with Good ones, nice way to avoid alignment restrictions on campaigns), this can be done by your average "metafocused" Sorcerer, and makes the penalty nasty enough to not want to deal with them (and if you came out with lawyer-proof conditions for the Geas, of course :smallbiggrin: ).

So, it is not something that could always be ignored, depending on the circumstances. And some smart player or good DM may always pull this trick out if needed. That's to prove that, even seeing it may way, it is still a valuable spell and that this may actually be the way RAI intended it, and all I said is even RAW as far I aknowledged. Don't want to sound cocky at all, if any can prove otherwise I'll bury myself with this thread, I promise... :smallbiggrin:


I've always viewed it as
1) The victim must attempt to carry out the task
2) The victim gets to choose the manner in which to carry out the task

Now, for anyone with 10+ hit points and access to healing magic or the Heal skill, Lesser Geas is more important and dangerous than Geas. In addition at and after 5th level, Geas is useless against PCs. That being said, Lesser Geas is more likely to make the victim incapable of completing the task.

For a short term mission that's absolutely unquestionable, of course. :smallsmile:


Since the task is now impossible and unlimited the spell will run out in a couple of weeks.

That's why for such a long term mission, even for PCs still of 7th or lower level, I'd go for the non-lesser version. As I said above, metamagic could be the intended way to extend the lifespan of Geas' usefulness and keep it above Lesser Geas, almost as you would do with a Fireball when you have a Delayed Blast Fireball (sort of).

And of course, the spell's conditions are a foundamental part for creating an annoying Geas. One could be "Avoid casting spells" or "Don't attack anyone and anything", and depending on who it is casted, I see many problems trying to avoid the consequences... :smallbiggrin:
Or, for a more "quest" style: "Meet the red dragon up the mountains, wake him up and fight it until YOU are dead", so that actually killing the dragon doesn't end the spell, not without some clever thought.

_______________________________________________


I would like as much insights as possible on this, especially from the veterans, but any consideration is worth listening to. I really want to know if there is something that could prove me wrong or right, or at least if that is an interpretation as good as the one most assumed.

Please relieve me of this burden...!

[Flickerdart]

Occam's Razor. The spell could work in a sensible way with one reading, or it could work in an insane way with an insane reading. Which one is right?

[Necroticplague]

Emphasis mine, it's only logical to me that that "must" implies just a duty, something you have to do but may choose not to. I'm not seeing the logic in that assumption. I have almost always seen "must" used as an equivalent to "has to" (i.e, "I must go"="I have to go"). And this spell provides no indication that it's using an unusual definition, so I see no reason assume it is.


Remember then that unlike Dominate Person/Monster, which openly forces the actions on the target, this spell only commands the course of activity; like IRL, while you must follow orders and commands, you still can disobey them, though there are consequences for doing it (in regards of this spell, taking damage is the consequence).
Actually, Dominate Person 'only' deals in commands and instructions as well.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).
Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.
Also, (at least, for Lesser), it doesn't say the penalty is a punishment for disobeying. It's what happens "If the subject is prevented from obeying the lesser geas for 24 hours". 'Is prevented', not 'chooses not to'.

Also, you have a wierd definition of 'must'. 'Must' inherently implies a necessity. If you must do something, you don't have the option of not doing it.

[QUOTE=Zeruel;21710738Another strong point is this line:

"A clever recipient can subvert some instructions."

How could someone mentally forced to do something try to find ways not to do the thing?[/quote]
By being very literal about the instructions.You can follow the letter of your gaes while completely ignoring intent.

[Telok]

That's why for such a long term mission, even for PCs still of 7th or lower level, I'd go for the non-lesser version. As I said above, metamagic could be the intended way to extend the lifespan of Geas' usefulness and keep it above Lesser Geas, almost as you would do with a Fireball when you have a Delayed Blast Fireball (sort of).

...
Or, for a more "quest" style: "Meet the red dragon up the mountains, wake him up and fight it until YOU are dead", so that actually killing the dragon doesn't end the spell, not without some clever thought.

Geas maxxes out at 18 + 3d6 for maximize, empowered and enervating. That's about 29 damage a day for a spell with a +7 metamagic adjustment. Pretty much anything else you can add on will only occur once, although jumping through the hoops to apply Born of the Three Thunders could be amusing. I mean, I've got a 11th level wizard in a game right now who would say "Ow, half my hit points went away. I'd better buy two spare Healing Belts to overcompensate." So the hit points aren't a motivator for this spell, it's the sickened condition that lasts from the first failed save to 24 hours after the next time the victim attempts to accomplish the task. Any effort at completing the task clears the penalty. Compare that to Lesser Geas that applies a -2 penalty to all stats per day, up to -8 that only goes away after the subject resumes obeying the order. That's a motivation to get rid of the geas, except for that pesky 7 HD limit. Even so Lesser Geas puts an un-healable 4*HD penalty to max hit points, which is a -28 HP slap to a 7 HD critter but doesn't risk killing it by accident.

And the red dragon thing is a death order which automatically breaks.

Edit: I'm reminded of something. What if the idiot you cast the geas on forgets or misunderstands the order (we have that guy in our group)? I've had players who couldn't remember what city a quest goal was in despite written instructions (they lost them, in real life and in the game). How do we adjudicate that? I'm actually not sure how I'd handle it.

[Jack_Simth]

Also, you have a wierd definition of 'must'. 'Must' inherently implies a necessity. If you must do something, you don't have the option of not doing it. ... just to add fuel to the fire:

In common speech, "must" is very nearly always in reference to some goal (maybe stated, maybe implied). Example: You must eat. The implied goal is "to survive". When your boss tells you "You must get to work on time", there's an implied "to keep getting paid" or similar. When a parent tells a child "you must brush your teeth" the implied goal is "to avoid punishment". And so on. It's possible to find a "must" that does not include a goal (such as "you must eventually die" - not because you want to, but because for practical purposes it's unavoidable), but most uses of "must" have a goal attached.

[NichG]

To me, the words 'must' and 'cause' both imply 'there is no choice'. 'Cause' especially is a very strong word. Generally you never say that you've 'caused' something when that thing ends up not happening.

If the sentence were 'X must do Y, or else Z' then that would suggest an alternate interpretation is intended, but since instead it says 'X must do Y. If X is prevented, then Z' that suggests that X cannot not do Y.

To compare Dominate Person and Geas, I read Geas as 'you can do anything you want as long as it includes Y' whereas Dominate Person is 'you will do Y and only Y' - you could drag your heels about it, but not refuse outright to do it. So if the target is clever, they can find a way to technically satisfy the wording of Y but not the spirit under a Geas ('defeat my enemies for me!', 'okay, I'll start with that guy in town who once stole your seat at the bar, and work up from there'), whereas with Dominate the target has no agency about how the instructions are carried out (but in turn, the instructions must be specific and wouldn't be able to use the target's own intellectual capacities or cleverness).

In terms of why subverting instructions is directly related to 'if this doesn't happen, penalties accrue', one example might be 'kill my enemies for me!', 'okay, I'll start with someone much stronger than me who will take me prisoner, therefore resulting in the goal not being accomplished through no direct inaction of my own'.

That leaves a logical role for a third line of spells which make the target want to do their best to make you happy, but without enabling specific instructions. That would be the 'Charm' spells.

[Seto]

Emphasis mine, it's only logical to me that that "must" implies just a duty, something you have to do but may choose not to. And that "cause", why not just plainly saying "the creature makes anything you ask at the best of its possibilities?". This to me reads like "Aside from killing itself, the target may try anything to avoid the damage from the spell".

To me, the kind of non-coerced moral obligation you're talking about is modalized by "should", not "must". "Must" is stronger and implies necessity. "I should kill you..." is usually followed by "... but I'll let you go this time." "I must kill you", however, means "I have no choice, it is out of my hands" (however hypocritical that idea may be).
Similarly, the connotation of a "cause", by contrast with "reason", is mechanical rather than willful. When I decide that I won't drink because I must get up early tomorrow, I have a reason for my behavior. My behavior is informed by that reason, not "caused". However, if I do drink without measure and end up falling down the stairs, ebriety is the cause of my fall. It conveys that sense of passivity. Natural laws function with causes and consequences - choices functions with reasons.
I'll admit that in both cases, there is overlap in the actual use of those words. So let's move on to the next strong point...


Another strong point is this line:

"A clever recipient can subvert some instructions."

How could someone mentally forced to do something try to find ways not to do the thing?

Well, precisely. I read this line as a strong point indeed, but against your argument. Why would you need to resort to clever subversion, if you can just do whatever you want and flat-out not care about the order (provided you can shrug off the penalty)? However, you do have a point, in that it proves that the spell's effect is different from both Charm Person and Dominate. So...


And on top of all, what would be difference (aside from the spell level) from a Dominate spell, which actually specifies that the target is completely under your control? Nothing if you ask me, but then why not just saying: "This spell functions as the Dominate Monster spell, except it only affects creatures of 7 or less HD and has no ST" or something similar?

That's a good point. I think we can induce from this a typology of different mind compulsions:
- Charm Person is a personality rewrite. It doesn't force you to do anything, but it makes you want to do it, because "your friend" asked, and you like your friend. Suggestion would also arguably be placed in that category - making you extra receptive to a reasonable-sounding idea.
- Dominate is a personality wipe/overwrite. It not only forces you to do the thing, but it makes it impossible for you to want anything else.
- Geas sits somewhere between those two. It forces you to do the thing, but it doesn't make you want it. It also differs from the two previous spells in a fundamental respect: you're aware of having been cursed. The combination of those three elements (it forces you to do something, it doesn't make you want it, and you're aware of the compulsion), results in the "a clever creature can subvert instructions" line. You must do the thing, but it doesn't turn you into a single-minded creature. As long as you're following the instructions, you're fine. Your quest is to reach the summit of Mount Doom and throw the ring? Fine. You're also free to pick flowers along the way, as long as you move a little in the right direction each day.

That's how, according to me, it differs from Dominate. If you're asking why, my answer is that they serve different purposes: one is designed to take over someone as a slave. It's brutal and messy, and requires some micro-managing. The other is a ritualistic spell designed to ensure someone, while retaining their identity, keeps moving in a direction you want. They don't need to be managed. Honestly, although the ethics of mental compulsion are dubious at best (and as a nonlawful, I oppose it), the two spells really don't have the same implications either. In my world, Aboleths use Dominate. Lawful Good churches routinely use Geas to "encourage" consenting atoners to keep walking the righteous path towards a better life. It's renewed as long as the subjects are willing.


So, my view of the spell and the fact that it is a compulsion effect is that it is like a contract and that it works like an addiction, like someone on drugs: you must do this (do drugs). You may stop doing it, but if you do you suffer damage (withdrawal symptoms).

It's a defensible view, but I'm unconvinced. My view is that you don't have a choice, but you have wiggle room, due to retaining your personality and being able to interpret orders. The reason I have this view is that I don't share you semantic readings of "must", "cause", "a clever recipient can subvert some instructions" - so I don't suscribe to your arguments. Moreover, I do see some arguments from the other side (the "if a creature is prevented from following the Geas" idea, for example) that I find convincing.

But I'll give you that: the idea of someone being forced to do something they don't want to, and knowing they're forced to, but given their own space anyway, raises a lot of questions. It's unlike anything we can see irl, where you can be either brainwashed so that you want to obey, or coerced into obeying (a gun to your head, or your family held hostage), in which case - unlike Geas - you can still disobey if you accept the dire consequences. So I can see where you're coming from. Your drug analogy is interesting, in that it portrays two opposites desires within the self: get the drug - your body wants it, a part of you needs it, and it feels like a compulsion, but you're aware that it's bad for you -, or get clean. It may not be mechanically right, but it feels psychologically accurate.
To formulate it a bit differently, building on your anaolgy, Geas is a drug so strong that it will win every time even if you want to get clean, thus denying you the freedom of rehab (barring going to a spellcaster who can remove the effect, which might be instant rehab).

[Telok]

Riddle me this: if the subject is compelled, without any choice but to attempt to follow orders, then why are there penalties to being prevented from carrying out the orders?

Logically if the subject is attempting to follow the order then the caster wants them to be able to do so to the best of their ability. If the subject is attempting to disobey then the caster wants them punished. But what we have here (with the 'must' compulsion being absolute) is a subject who, upon encountering a setback or delay, becomes less able to carry out the order. Indeed it's possible, since the subject never stops trying regardless of whether or not they make progress, that either the penalty never kicks in or it risks preventing the subject from ever succeeding.

So if the compulsion is absolute and irresistable the penalty is likely self defeating or never comes up. Yes?

[NichG]

Riddle me this: if the subject is compelled, without any choice but to attempt to follow orders, then why are there penalties to being prevented from carrying out the orders?

Logically if the subject is attempting to follow the order then the caster wants them to be able to do so to the best of their ability. If the subject is attempting to disobey then the caster wants them punished. But what we have here (with the 'must' compulsion being absolute) is a subject who, upon encountering a setback or delay, becomes less able to carry out the order. Indeed it's possible, since the subject never stops trying regardless of whether or not they make progress, that either the penalty never kicks in or it risks preventing the subject from ever succeeding.

So if the compulsion is absolute and irresistable the penalty is likely self defeating or never comes up. Yes?

Presumably the penalty is a side effect of placing an impossible demand on a body, in lieu of being able to force the subject to kill themselves by attempting the impossible. The penalty shouldn't come up, but since the subject can try to be clever they might arrange for the geas to become impossible to progress without them taking suicidal actions. In which case, it grounds out as stress on body and mind.

[Necroticplague]

Riddle me this: if the subject is compelled, without any choice but to attempt to follow orders, then why are there penalties to being prevented from carrying out the orders?

Logically if the subject is attempting to follow the order then the caster wants them to be able to do so to the best of their ability. If the subject is attempting to disobey then the caster wants them punished. But what we have here (with the 'must' compulsion being absolute) is a subject who, upon encountering a setback or delay, becomes less able to carry out the order. Indeed it's possible, since the subject never stops trying regardless of whether or not they make progress, that either the penalty never kicks in or it risks preventing the subject from ever succeeding.

So if the compulsion is absolute and irresistable the penalty is likely self defeating or never comes up. Yes?

How about the other way around: If there's no absolute compusion, why isn't there some punishment written for just ignoring your gaes? After all, the penalty is specifically only for if you're prevented from completing it, not if you fail to even try.

[Gemini476]

Consider that by the time a creature is facing the 6th level spell geas, it's 13th level, and heals 13 hit points after a night's rest. The average damage from the spell is 10.5 - substantially less. So the spell would be literally useless.

ECL goes up to +5 over the party's average level by default, and down to including critters of -8 the party's average level. (Not to mention stuff like the static fact that most guards in towns are first-level Warriors, or that there's a ton of low-level casters even in the biggest cities if going by DMG demographics. Or that low-HD critters can get into high places in general.)

3d6 damage is a bit more scary to a sixth-level character. And Sickened is non-trivial at that duration.

Also, -13hp can lead to any prospective combat being even more deadly - and consider that being subdued in combat is not unlikely to prevent them from following the Geas! Capture the Geassed(?) mook in the hope of getting intel and they bite the metaphorical cyanide pill.

Also, well, remember how Atonement refers to you first being sent on a Quest? Yeah.

[Flickerdart]

Riddle me this: if the subject is compelled, without any choice but to attempt to follow orders, then why are there penalties to being prevented from carrying out the orders?

Your question answers itself. The subject must obey, but if he is prevented from following through, he takes penalties. It is an incentive to get around (N)PCs saying "I tried to assassinate the king, now they put me under house arrest, I guess I'm free from the influence." Nope, the compulsion still exists, you have to try and break out, and to encourage you to do so here's a big fat penalty.

[Segev]

The answer is in the part the OP quoted:

"A lesser geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself [...], it can cause any course of action. The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed [...]".

There is no option to say, "eh, I'll just suck it up and walk off the damage." The creature must obey. That is the Compulsion.



I've always viewed it as
1) The victim must attempt to carry out the task
2) The victim gets to choose the manner in which to carry out the taskThis is largely how I view it, and I think is both the RAW and the RAI.

Specifically, the character is compelled to act towards the goal. He is compelled to do so to the best of his ability. He cannot walk up to the Duke of Foofoo and tell him what he's been geased to do, because that would not be trying to achieve the goal. I'd even go so far as to say that he must do his best to come up with a workable plan. He is not allowed to half-bake it. He works towards it as if it were his top priority and most important goal.

He is not required to abandon all other concerns, except where they actively prevent him from working on his geas, but he can't put off his geas, either. If Bob the Accountant can fulfill Drake the Enchanter's geas while going to work, doing his job, and spending time with his family in between, Bob is free to do all of those things while he's also working towards that geas. If that geas requires Bob to spend time away from work and his family, however, Bob is absolutely required to abandon work duties and family obligations where the geas's needs demand.

Note: unless maintaining secrecy is something that occurs to Bob as critical to successfully completing his assignment, he's under no obligation to create a cover story for his sudden change in behavior. That said, if people investigating him would interfere with his geas and he knows it, he would be required to take steps to prevent that.

The "creativity" clause comes in to HOW he does it. If he could achieve his geas by sacrificing his best friend's firstborn son, or by building a megachurch with himself as the prime pastor, he's free to pursue the latter goal, even if the first would be over "faster." Not only is it up to him HOW he does it (as long as he's not actually sabotaging nor dodging it), but he could reasonably reason that a highly illegal activity has a high risk of being caught out before he could succeed and that the megachurch plan puts him closer to success in the long run.

In essence, he can pursue his quest however he likes, but he must genuinely be pursuing it. He can even deliberately tip people off, as long as that won't decrease his chances of success. Some amount of "fooling yourself" could be involved, too. Doublethink and rationalization can let him make some deliberate long-term sabotaging moves (particularly when he's relying on others picking up on clues) while convincing himself he's doing it for a good reason. But this is tricky, and not to be relied upon.


Riddle me this: if the subject is compelled, without any choice but to attempt to follow orders, then why are there penalties to being prevented from carrying out the orders?Because the subject can be PREVENTED from doing it.

Imagine the following scenario: Robbie Rogue is spying on Ned Necromancer's evil sanctum, when he sees Princess Penelope tied up on an altar. Robbie witnesses Ned geasing Penelopey to marry him legally before her whole court, and sees the tears streaming down her face as she feels the compulsion take hold. She bitterly expresses her disgust at it as the necromancer frees her from her physical bonds, but conversation as to her plans reveal that she knows she'll have to be convincingly content with it in front of others for it to work.

Robbie sneaks off to tell the King, who has his daughter confined to her quarters so that she can't wheedle and politick for something he knows she doesn't want.

She is now prevented from pursuing her task. She begins to suffer the penalties.


Logically if the subject is attempting to follow the order then the caster wants them to be able to do so to the best of their ability. If the subject is attempting to disobey then the caster wants them punished. But what we have here (with the 'must' compulsion being absolute) is a subject who, upon encountering a setback or delay, becomes less able to carry out the order. Indeed it's possible, since the subject never stops trying regardless of whether or not they make progress, that either the penalty never kicks in or it risks preventing the subject from ever succeeding.

So if the compulsion is absolute and irresistable the penalty is likely self defeating or never comes up. Yes?As long as the subject is CAPABLE of taking actions to pursue it, he won't suffer the penalty because he WILL take those actions.

If Bob Barbarian is geased to protect Princess Penelope from all harm, but he's dominated into harming her (or standing by and letting her come to harm), the fact that the opposed Charisma checks of the two Compulsions had dominate winning out prevents him from fulfilling his geas, but the penalty clause from geas still kicks in for his failure.


Your question answers itself. The subject must obey, but if he is prevented from following through, he takes penalties. It is an incentive to get around (N)PCs saying "I tried to assassinate the king, now they put me under house arrest, I guess I'm free from the influence." Nope, the compulsion still exists, you have to try and break out, and to encourage you to do so here's a big fat penalty.
Yep. There's a penalty for being prevented from taking meaningful action to pursue it. This is why Penelope is hit with the injury when placed under house arrest: even if she TRIES, there's no way she can convince those who know she's magically compelled that she really wants this. She has to find a way to actively work towards the goal - some way to sneak out messages, or exert influence, or otherwise make it incrementally more likely to happen - or she takes damage.

Note that trying and failing isn't enough to trigger it. If your efforts had a legitimate chance of working, trying is enough to avoid the penalty. The compulsion forces you to keep trying and trying your best. It's only when even trying your best, you have practically zero chance of succeeding that you're "prevented." But it certainly is an encouragement to her father, the King, to reconsider, knowing that his efforts to protect his daughter from this marriage she doesn't want may well be killing her.

[Telonius]

Taking an example from Jessica Jones (Netflix version): the Purple Man gives a command to a woman to "put a bullet in your head." He might have intended for her to shoot herself, but instead she sits down with the bullet and tries to force it into her own forehead. (Jessica saves the day by taking the bullet and putting it in her mouth - "It's in your head now.") That's pretty much how I'd interpret the "subversion" clause: it's possible to turn the meaning of words upside down. If the Geas is carefully worded, there's a lot less wiggle room.

[Segev]

Taking an example from Jessica Jones (Netflix version): the Purple Man gives a command to a woman to "put a bullet in your head." He might have intended for her to shoot herself, but instead she sits down with the bullet and tries to force it into her own forehead. (Jessica saves the day by taking the bullet and putting it in her mouth - "It's in your head now.") That's pretty much how I'd interpret the "subversion" clause: it's possible to turn the meaning of words upside down. If the Geas is carefully worded, there's a lot less wiggle room.

Precisely. "Strangle your daughter" is a pretty horrific geas, but at least it doesn't mean you have to kill her. Just strangle her a little, then let her go. Horrible for the poor girl, and for you, but far better than it might have been if he'd just said, "Kill your daughter."

You have to do as ordered, and you have to do it to the best of your ability. You don't necessarily have to do what the caster WANTED you to do. Or do it in a way that pleases them.

[Telok]

I wonder if you guys are misunderstanding me. See, I'm OK with the subject having to try to carry out the order, that's in the spell, although "to the best of their ability" is not in the spell. But once something happens to delay or prevent the subject then you get the penalties. That makes it less and less likely for the subject to be able to carry out the order. That means that if the caster wants the order done, instead of just screwing with the subject, then the penalty is self defeating because whatever is stopping the subject gets harder to overcome.

So if the penalty makes the subject unable to overcome the obstacle we're looking at maybe applying the "can't complete" clause which will end the spell. If the penalty kills the subject then the order is never completed. So the penalties make the spell more likely to fail in the objective of forcing the subject to do something. Now you can certainly come up with some way to use the penalty to be useful, but we've also weaponized Locate City and found other truly unintended uses for other spells. The goal of the spell is to force someone to do something and the penalty included in the spell makes that less likely to happen. This is the part that doesn't make sense.

Two last things. Competing mind control effects are dealt with in the rules. Either the subject follows both or there's opposed charisma checks by the casters. And I'm still not sure on what to do if the character/player misunderstands the order.

[Flickerdart]

I wonder if you guys are misunderstanding me. See, I'm OK with the subject having to try to carry out the order, that's in the spell, although "to the best of their ability" is not in the spell. But once something happens to delay or prevent the subject then you get the penalties. That makes it less and less likely for the subject to be able to carry out the order. That means that if the caster wants the order done, instead of just screwing with the subject, then the penalty is self defeating because whatever is stopping the subject gets harder to overcome.
If you steal to feed your family, and I fine you $100, it is more difficult for you to feed your family than it was before. The lesson here is "don't steal in the first place."

[Segev]

I wonder if you guys are misunderstanding me. See, I'm OK with the subject having to try to carry out the order, that's in the spell, although "to the best of their ability" is not in the spell. But once something happens to delay or prevent the subject then you get the penalties. That makes it less and less likely for the subject to be able to carry out the order. That means that if the caster wants the order done, instead of just screwing with the subject, then the penalty is self defeating because whatever is stopping the subject gets harder to overcome.That is a risk; it behooves a caster to make sure his subject is ABLE to carry it out. "To the best of his ability" is implied by the fact that he's compelled. Without that, we wind up with "Oh, I tried to get you the keys to the vault, but I couldn't find them when I looked for them. Sure, I know the Treasurer always carries them, and I didn't look anywhere he happened to be nor anywhere near his quarters, but I totally looked everywhere else and that's trying!"

A better way to look at it might be not as them being forced to do it "to the best of their ability," but "as if it was something they actually wanted to do." Even that's a little off; they're not required to act happy about it unless hiding their true feelings is needed to make it happen. Think of all the times you've seen a character doing something they don't want to do, but they have to "or else." In this case, there is no "or else" (because they can't choose the penalty on purpose), but otherwise it is similar. They really are doing their best at it. They cannot fail to work towards it.

It doesn't have to be all-consuming; they can (provided it isn't getting in the way) have lives and other goals. But they can't refuse to do it, and they aren't able to "game" it with a token effort. They really are compelled to treat it like a major, driving goal which they MUST choose when it is made a matter of choice.


So if the penalty makes the subject unable to overcome the obstacle we're looking at maybe applying the "can't complete" clause which will end the spell. If the penalty kills the subject then the order is never completed. So the penalties make the spell more likely to fail in the objective of forcing the subject to do something. Now you can certainly come up with some way to use the penalty to be useful, but we've also weaponized Locate City and found other truly unintended uses for other spells. The goal of the spell is to force someone to do something and the penalty included in the spell makes that less likely to happen. This is the part that doesn't make sense.Well, that's part of why it's a lesser geas that gives the more debilitating penalty, perhaps.

But the real answer is that the penalty is there to discourage others who care about this person from preventing this person from fulfilling the geas. Note that the penalties go away if he resumes his efforts to pursue the goal. Once no longer prevented from even trying, he can put forth effort (albeit depleted) and recover in 24 hours. Narratively, one could view it as him gradually regaining his strength as he's permitted to work towards that goal.


Two last things. Competing mind control effects are dealt with in the rules. Either the subject follows both or there's opposed charisma checks by the casters.Right. And if there is a competing mind control effect that prevents him from fulfilling the geas, and that competing effect wins the opposed Charisma check, the subject is prevented from fulfilling the geas. As such, the penalty clause kicks in, because there's no conflict, there.


And I'm still not sure on what to do if the character/player misunderstands the order.Somewhat a DM call, here, but since it's language-dependent, presumably any ill wording that makes it confusing allows for more of that subversion of the task. Where the DM call comes in is whether to clarify it for the player on the grounds that the character could not have misunderstood it the way the player did. And whether the "misunderstood" interpretation is a valid way to interpret the words, whether through twisting or otherwise.

[zergling.exe]

I wonder if you guys are misunderstanding me. See, I'm OK with the subject having to try to carry out the order, that's in the spell, although "to the best of their ability" is not in the spell. But once something happens to delay or prevent the subject then you get the penalties. That makes it less and less likely for the subject to be able to carry out the order. That means that if the caster wants the order done, instead of just screwing with the subject, then the penalty is self defeating because whatever is stopping the subject gets harder to overcome.

So if the penalty makes the subject unable to overcome the obstacle we're looking at maybe applying the "can't complete" clause which will end the spell. If the penalty kills the subject then the order is never completed. So the penalties make the spell more likely to fail in the objective of forcing the subject to do something. Now you can certainly come up with some way to use the penalty to be useful, but we've also weaponized Locate City and found other truly unintended uses for other spells. The goal of the spell is to force someone to do something and the penalty included in the spell makes that less likely to happen. This is the part that doesn't make sense.

Two last things. Competing mind control effects are dealt with in the rules. Either the subject follows both or there's opposed charisma checks by the casters. And I'm still not sure on what to do if the character/player misunderstands the order.

I think the problem comes from trying to be true to historical geasa, and also changing it. Historically, geasa were optional things, however breaking one incurred severe penalties while following it made you stronger. Look at Cu Chulainn for an example. He was covered in geasa and was unbeatable until he was forced to start breaking them.

[Doctor Awkward]

To the OP:

Geas is a mind-affecting compulsion. It's hedged out by Protection from Evil. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm)

The spell is not going to break your game.

[Segev]

To the OP:

Geas is a mind-affecting compulsion. It's hedged out by Protection from Evil. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm)

The spell is not going to break your game.

This actually raises an interesting question. If you're not compelled to obey the geas (thanks to protection from evil or similar effects), but you're not technically prevented, does the penalty clause kick in? I'd say it probably does; your own choices can be said to be "preventing" you from doing it.

So protection from evil allows you to resist the geas's compulsion effect, but you still have to endure the penalties. Which, as we've seen, is pretty easy for a high-level character, particularly with the non-lesser geas.

[Necroticplague]

I think the problem comes from trying to be true to historical geasa, and also changing it. Historically, geasa were optional things, however breaking one incurred severe penalties while following it made you stronger. Look at Cu Chulainn for an example. He was covered in geasa and was unbeatable until he was forced to start breaking them.

That's not what the Gaes/Quest spell is for. For stuff like that, you want the various Vows, or something built off of them (i.e, vow of poverty, vow of abstinence, vow of purity).

[zergling.exe]

That's not what the Gaes/Quest spell is for. For stuff like that, you want the various Vows, or something built off of them (i.e, vow of poverty, vow of abstinence, vow of purity).

Yes, but such stories are where geas comes from and likely a contributing factor to its design. If geas was closer to the mythological versions when written then we wouldn't be having this conversation. And besides, a geas is a taboo, so this "you have to do this!" doesn't make a lot of sense in that aspect.

[Jack_Simth]

Geas is a mind-affecting compulsion. It's hedged out by Protection from Evil. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm)
The parenthetical note in PfE is "including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person"

Geas is Enchantment(Compulsion), no doubt about it... but does it qualify as "ongoing control over the subject"? Sure, they're stuck with the mission you gave them, and "must" attempt to make it happen... but you can't turn around and say "Kill Duke Ederoth" when the original Geas was "Kill Dutchess Ratoonie" like you can with Dominate Person.

[Segev]

The parenthetical note in PfE is "including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person"

Geas is Enchantment(Compulsion), no doubt about it... but does it qualify as "ongoing control over the subject"? Sure, they're stuck with the mission you gave them, and "must" attempt to make it happen... but you can't turn around and say "Kill Duke Ederoth" when the original Geas was "Kill Dutchess Ratoonie" like you can with Dominate Person.

It's ongoing control. If it weren't ongoing, it would be over with before it was meaningful. A geas can take months.

[Jack_Simth]

It's ongoing control. If it weren't ongoing, it would be over with before it was meaningful. A geas can take months.
There's a reason I phrased it as a question.

Ongoing control may mean "has a non-instant duration" like you seem to be interpreting. I can't say that's an invalid reading.

It's not the only valid reading, however. Take something from real life:
You control where a bullet goes when you point the gun and pull the trigger. If it is going a sufficiently far distance, it may be quite some time before the bullet stops going. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, though, you have no further control over the bullet's path - it's set by physics, you can't control it anymore. In that sense, you have no "ongoing control" of the bullet's flight.

Take Suggestion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm): once you've made the Suggestion, you have no further influence over the subject. The target is stuck with whatever course of activity it was, and you can't change it (barring exploits like "I'm your rightful lord, so you should do everything I tell you today" of course). In the same sense that you don't have ongoing control of a fired bullet, you don't have ongoing control over the target of a Suggestion.

The example spell that PfE uses is Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm). That one pretty indisputably grants "ongoing control" (you can change your orders very nearly whenever you feel like it, until such time as the spell ends).

If "ongoing control" means "You can continue to give orders", then (Lesser) Geas / Quest is not stopped by Protection From Evil (nor is Suggestion, Hold Person, and quite a few others). If "ongoing control" means "has a non-instant duration", then you've got a 1st level spell that shuts down roughly 95% of the Enchantment school.

I'm much more fond of the "you can continue to give orders" interpretation for "ongoing control" than I am the "has a duration" interpretation of "ongoing control" - but that's just me.

[Necroticplague]

What's more relevant, however, is that those are examples, not an exhaustive list. Even if they aren't ongoing control, they can still fall under the group of "exercising mental control". Of course, what exactly 'mental control' is, is a bit vague. Is it control over a mind, or control with a mind? The former would include Gaes, while the latter would not.

[NichG]

This is why a savvy geas-user should always include a clause in the instructions about not permitting the geas to be interfered with or circumvented.

Protection from evil might block it, but then the subject has to actively avoid situations where that might happen.

[rel]

As far as I can tell the RaW of Lesser Geas compels action, the target has no choice. This seems counter to the way a geas tends to work in mythology and makes the penalties for not acting written into the spell rather pointless. It also makes Geas Quest (which allows no save) too strong and generally seems unfun.
So I houserule the spell as follows:

Lesser Geas
<stuff as normal>
A lesser geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you. The creature must have 7 or fewer Hit Dice and be able to understand you. The Geas is not mind control, the subject still has free will including the will to refuse your request. Instead, the Geas uses the threat of a powerful curse to compel action.

The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes.

If the instructions involve some open-ended task that the recipient cannot complete through his own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level.

Requests that would result in certain death cause the spell to fail.

A clever recipient can subvert poorly worded instructions.

The subject can choose to disobey the geas at any time but whenever a concious choice to do so is made by the subject it immediately suffers a -2 penalty to each of its ability scores. These penalties are cumulative and can stack up to a total of a -8 penalty to each score but no ability score can be reduced to less than 1 by this effect. Also, the target can suffer no more than one -2 penalty to its ability scores in a 24 hour period.
The ability score penalties are removed after the subject obeys the lesser geas for a full 24 hours.

As soon as the spell is cast the subject is aware of the sorcerous nature of the lesser geas and the general price but not the specific penalty for disobedience. Further the subject can perfectly recall the exact wording of the lesser geas for its duration and is aware of the spell as long as it remains in effect.

Geas Quest is likewise modified since the terrible price of 3D6 damage is no longer scary now that Con is added onto HP every level:

Geas, Quest
<stuff as normal>
This spell functions similarly to lesser geas, except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw.

The price of breaking the Geas is a -4 penalty to each ability score (instead of -2 as with lesser geas) and 1d6 points of damage per caster level. As with the ability score penalty, the damage afflicts the subject at most once every 24 hours and cannot reduce the subject below 1 hit point.
The damage dealt by the geas doesn’t heal naturally and resists healing spells. A character attempting to cast a conjuration (healing) spell on a creature damaged by the geas must succeed on a caster level check with a DC of 10 + the CL of the geas spell or the healing spell has no effect on the injured character.

A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do.

[Gemini476]

If you want to understand the reasoning behind why Geas is the way it is, you might want to look at the ways WotC changed it from how it used to be:

(If you're going to quote this, I recommend that you cut away all the non-relevant quotes to make things easier for yourself.)

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 task entirely brings death. The referee must carefully adjudicate the casting and subsequent performance of the geased individual when this spell is used.

This is similar to the Geas, except that the character sent upon a Quest by the Cleric is not killed by failure to carry out the service. However, the Cleric may curse him with whatever he desires for failure, and the referee should decide if such a curse will take effect if the character ignores the Quest, basing the effectiveness on the phrasing of it and the alignment and actions of the character so cursed.


A geas spell places a magical command upon the creature (usually human or humanoid) to carry out some service, or refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by the spell caster. The creature must be intelligent, conscious, and under its own volition. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself, or to perform acts which are likely to result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of action. The spell causes the geased creature to follow the instructions until the geas is completed. Failure to do so will cause the creature to grow sick and die within 1 to 4 weeks. Deviation from or twisting of the instructions causes 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 will not negate it. Your referee will instruct you as to any additional details of a geas, for its casting and fulfilment are tricky, and an improperly cast geas is null and void immediately (cf. wish).

Geas: The casting time is also the total time the magic-user has to word the geas spell. [ed. 4 segments, or 24 seconds] It is otherwise similar to a quest (q.v.).

The quest is a spell by means of which the cleric requires the affected creature to perform a service and return to the cleric with proof that the deed was accomplished. The quest can, for example, require the location and return of some important or valuable object, the rescue of a notable person, the release of some creature, the capture of a stronghold, the slaying of a person, the delivery of some item, and so forth. If the quest is not properly followed due to disregard, delay, or perversion, the creature affected by the spell loses 1 from its saving throw dice for each day of such action, and this penalty will not be removed until the quest is properly discharged or the cleric cancels it. (There are certain circumstances which will temporarily suspend a quest, and other which will discharge or cancel it; your Dungeon Master will give you appropriate information as the need to know arises.)

Quest: If the person quested agrees to a task, even though this agreement might have been gained by force or trickery, then any chance of avoiding the quest (the saving throw) is negated! Those of the same religion as the cleric are not able to avoid a just and deserved quest either, and even those of the same alignment must have a -4 if they wish to avoid it. A quest can be negated by a cleric of a greater level than the one which placed the spell, if the cleric so doing is of the same religion as the quested creature. Some artifacts can probably negate the spell, and any deity can do so, but only directly.


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.

The quest spell enables the priest to require the affected creature to perform a service and return to the priest with proof that the deed was accomplished. The quest can, for example, require that the creature locate and return some important or valuable object, rescue a notable person, release some creature, capture a stronghold, slay a person, deliver some item, and so forth. If the quest is not properly followed, due to disregard, delay, or perversion, the creature affected by the spell loses 1 from its saving throw rolls for each day of such action. This penalty is not removed until the quest is properly pursued or the priest cancels it. There are certain circumstances that will temporarily suspend a quest, and others that will discharge or cancel it. The DM will give you appropriate information as the need to know arises.

If cast upon an unwilling subject, the victim is allowed a saving throw. However, if the person quested agrees to a task--even if the agreement is gained by force or trickery--no saving throw is allowed. If a quest is just and deserved, a creature of the priest's religion cannot avoid it, and any creature of the priest's alignment saves with a -4 penalty to the saving throw. A quest cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by a priest of the same religion or of higher level than the caster. Some artifacts and relics might negate the spell, as can direct intervention by a deity. Likewise, an unjust or undeserved quest grants bonuses to saving throws, or might even automatically fail.


A geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by the character. The creature must be able to understand the character. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that would result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of activity. The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes. If the instructions involve some open-ended task that the recipient cannot complete through his own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
If the subject is prevented from obeying the geas for a whole day, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage each day he does not attempt to follow the geas/quest. Additionally, each day he must make a Fortitude saving throw or sicken. A sickened creature moves at half his normal speed and suffers –4 penalties on both Strength and Dexterity. He heals damage at one-tenth his normal rate and cannot benefit from any magical healing effects. A sickened creature must make a Fortitude save each day or become crippled. Once crippled, the subject is effectively disabled (as if he had 0 hit points) and can’t choose to take strenuous actions. These effects end 1 day after the creature attempts to resume the geas/quest.


A geas (and all penalties) can be ended by limited wish, remove curse (only if the remove curse’s caster level is at least two higher than the character’s caster level), miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a geas.


Wizard and bards usually refer to this spell as geas, while clerics call the same spell quest.

A lesser geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by the character. The creature must have 7 or fewer HD and be able to understand the character. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that would result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of activity. The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes. If the instructions involve some open-ended task that the recipient cannot complete through his own actions (such as "Wait here" or "Defend this area against attack"), the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions. For example, if the character orders the recipient to protect the character from all harm, it might place the character in a nice, safe dungeon for the duration of the spell.


If the subject is prevented from obeying the lesser geas for a whole day, he suffers a –2 penalty on each ability score. Each day, another –2 penalty accumulates, up to a total of –8. Abilities are not reduced below 1. The ability penalties end 1 day after the character resumes obeying the lesser geas.


A lesser geas (and all ability penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a lesser geas.




This spell functions similarly to lesser geas (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/geasLesser.htm), except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#savingThrows).


Instead of taking penalties to ability scores (as with lesser geas (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/geasLesser.htm)), the subject takes 3d6 points of damage each day it does not attempt to follow the geas/quest. Additionally, each day it must make a Fortitude saving throw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#fortitude) or become sickened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#sickened). These effects end 24 hours after the creature attempts to resume the geas/quest (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/geasQuest.htm).


A remove curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeCurse.htm) spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm) does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm), miracle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm), and wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) do.


Bards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/bard.htm), sorcerers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer), and wizards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard) usually refer to this spell as geas, while clerics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) call the same spell quest.



A lesser geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you. The creature must have 7 or fewer Hit Dice and be able to understand you. While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that would result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of activity.


The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes.


If the instructions involve some open-ended task that the recipient cannot complete through his own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level. A clever recipient can subvert some instructions:
If the subject is prevented from obeying the lesser geas for 24 hours, it takes a -2 penalty to each of its ability scores. Each day, another -2 penalty accumulates, up to a total of -8. No ability score can be reduced to less than 1 by this effect. The ability score penalties are removed 24 hours after the subject resumes obeying the lesser geas.


A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm), limited wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm), remove curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeCurse.htm), miracle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm), or wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). Dispel magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) does not affect a lesser geas.

TL;DR: Geas went from working on anyone to needing a willing participant (ten minute casting time, ho), for reasons I'm not entirely sure on. Player abuse? (The OD&D one is most likely to be used on the PCs during Wilderness Adventure, since it's the standard response of non-hostile Wizards who can't get a toll from the players.)
The penalty, meanwhile, went from outright death to just taking damage and a debuff.
Note, however, that you had free will in whether you wanted to obey or die originally - I'm not sure at what point, if any, it went over to mind control.
Also, take a look at that 3.0 version. Apparently sicken meant that you healed at one-tenth the rate, which explains how the damage can still be effective - the "crippled" status effect is also very nasty.
Overall it seems like a spell that got royally screwed up in the translation from 2E to 3.0 to 3.5?

Quest went from cursing nonperforming questers to taking saving throw penalties to just being Geas, and had a weird period in the middle where it's clearly just a DM sledgehammer made to get the PCs in line.

EDIT: Also, for those wondering, Geas is pretty much straight out of Vance. There's a magic-user who puts a magical command on a thief to return a magical item or die, which is literally the same thing you get in the OD&D wilderness adventure rules.

[Segev]

There's a reason I phrased it as a question.

Ongoing control may mean "has a non-instant duration" like you seem to be interpreting. I can't say that's an invalid reading.

It's not the only valid reading, however. Take something from real life:
You control where a bullet goes when you point the gun and pull the trigger. If it is going a sufficiently far distance, it may be quite some time before the bullet stops going. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, though, you have no further control over the bullet's path - it's set by physics, you can't control it anymore. In that sense, you have no "ongoing control" of the bullet's flight.Context is important, here. A bullet in flight is not in anybody's control, not even its own. Replace the bullet with a Halfling under the effects of a fly spell, and you have a more analogous situation: you may impel that Halfling via Fastball Special, but when you release your instantaneous control, he can choose to ride it out or to adjust his flight.

A sapient, normally-free-willed creature under non-ongoing control would be compelled to start your quest, but the instantaneous nature of it would mean you get, at most, a round's worth of compelled compliance (i.e. "his next action," taking command or the effects of a Bluff or Intimidate check's minimal successful results). It requires ongoing control to continually override his free will and choices where he would deviate from your commanded goal.

This is why I disagree that you can reasonably say it is not ongoing control. You may have no ongoing ability to alter the goal, but you have cast a spell that is exerting ongoing control of the subject. He has, outside of the fact that your spell prevents it, ability to deviate from or abandon your set goal. Since the spell prevents this, it exerts ongoing control.


As far as I can tell the RaW of Lesser Geas compels action, the target has no choice. This seems counter to the way a geas tends to work in mythology and makes the penalties for not acting written into the spell rather pointless.The penalties aren't pointless; they're inflicted if the subject is prevented by some force outside his control from pursuing the goal. Other mental control effects, unconsciousness, incarceration, and other means his allies might use to stop him from doing something they know he doesn't want to do all qualify. It also means that any allies trying to help him like that watch him get hurt repeatedly.


It also makes Geas Quest (which allows no save) too strong and generally seems unfun.It is also a mind-affecting compulsion, which has a number of counters. But most importantly, its lengthy casting time pretty much means that the subject has to either be willing or bound and unable to escape. This is a spell you use on somebody you've already got under your power, not something you spring on an otherwise free to act foe.


Geas went from working on anyone to needing a willing participant (ten minute casting time, ho), for reasons I'm not entirely sure on. Player abuse?They removed the save and replaced it with requiring a willing or helpless (well, at least bound-immobile) target. It's deliberately harder to use in combat, and requires you to have already "beaten" the target such that it's under your power. At least insofar as being unable to run away.

Why they made this shift is another question. I suspect it probably has to do with not liking it being used as a combat spell. Player abuse may well be a key part of it. Making it a longer-duration dominate monster was probably common. "I command you to travel with me and do as I say!"


(The OD&D one is most likely to be used on the PCs during Wilderness Adventure, since it's the standard response of non-hostile Wizards who can't get a toll from the players.)Indeed. It's been reformulated into something you use on captives rather than on random passers-by.


Also, take a look at that 3.0 version. Apparently sicken meant that you healed at one-tenth the rate, which explains how the damage can still be effective - the "crippled" status effect is also very nasty.
Overall it seems like a spell that got royally screwed up in the translation from 2E to 3.0 to 3.5?Good points. I had not thought of that, but yes, 3d6 damage per day when you heal at 1/10 normal is actually threatening...unless your party cleric has cure moderate wounds. So... I guess that doesn't make THAT big of a difference for adventurers.

[Jack_Simth]

Context is important, here. A bullet in flight is not in anybody's control, not even its own. Replace the bullet with a Halfling under the effects of a fly spell, and you have a more analogous situation: you may impel that Halfling via Fastball Special, but when you release your instantaneous control, he can choose to ride it out or to adjust his flight.

A sapient, normally-free-willed creature under non-ongoing control would be compelled to start your quest, but the instantaneous nature of it would mean you get, at most, a round's worth of compelled compliance (i.e. "his next action," taking command or the effects of a Bluff or Intimidate check's minimal successful results). It requires ongoing control to continually override his free will and choices where he would deviate from your commanded goal.

This is why I disagree that you can reasonably say it is not ongoing control. You may have no ongoing ability to alter the goal, but you have cast a spell that is exerting ongoing control of the subject. He has, outside of the fact that your spell prevents it, ability to deviate from or abandon your set goal. Since the spell prevents this, it exerts ongoing control.The spell might ... but that's not the wording. That particular line from PfE is "that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject" (emphasis added). Post-casting, the caster can't do diddly about controlling the subject without expending further resources. Ditto for Suggestion, Hold Person, and quite a few others.

Besides: How much stopping power do you really want a 1st level spell to have?

[Segev]

The spell might ... but that's not the wording. That particular line from PfE is "that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject" (emphasis added). Post-casting, the caster can't do diddly about controlling the subject without expending further resources. Ditto for Suggestion, Hold Person, and quite a few others.Arguably, since the caster placed the geas and chose what it compels the target to do, he is the one whose control is ongoing. But I do see the distinction you're making, hence only "arguably."


Besides: How much stopping power do you really want a 1st level spell to have?

Geas does have a consequence if you use the spell to resist.

[rel]

It is also a mind-affecting compulsion, which has a number of counters. But most importantly, its lengthy casting time pretty much means that the subject has to either be willing or bound and unable to escape. This is a spell you use on somebody you've already got under your power, not something you spring on an otherwise free to act foe.


As written, Geas Quest is castable via limited wish as a no save, unlimited duration in combat dominate that cannot be escaped once it is cast.

Now, maybe that is appropriate for an 8th level spell with an XP component and limited wish is an entirely different spell and so on.
However, I think an anaysis of the geas spell line should not ignore the existence of that particular combo.

[Jack_Simth]

Arguably, since the caster placed the geas and chose what it compels the target to do, he is the one whose control is ongoing. But I do see the distinction you're making, hence only "arguably."



Geas does have a consequence if you use the spell to resist.

Had a long weekend...

It's not just Geas I'm talking about in this regard.

With the definition you're using for ongoing control... how many Core Enchantment spells don't qualify? Are you sure you want Protection From Evil, a 1st level spell, to shut down around 90% of a school of magic, plus a smattering of others?

[Segev]

Had a long weekend...

It's not just Geas I'm talking about in this regard.

With the definition you're using for ongoing control... how many Core Enchantment spells don't qualify? Are you sure you want Protection From Evil, a 1st level spell, to shut down around 90% of a school of magic, plus a smattering of others?

My instinct would be that it's any spells which are not Compulsions. Which does leave the charm line, out, I think, which is questionable, but still. And a quick perusal of spells makes me think "Compulsion" isn't the right keyword to key off of, anyway.

Applying no heuristic that I am able to articulate right this second, offensive Enchantment spells in the PFSRD that I think protection from evil should NOT protect you against include:

daze
aphasia
bungle
delusional pride
memory lapse
sleep (this one's arguable, but doesn't feel 'right' for it)
unprepared combatant
arcane disruption
compassionate ally (again, arguable)
compulsive liar (ditto)
daze monster
heckle
hidden presence
hideous laughter (also debatable)
oppressive boredom
qualm
seducer's eyes (questionable)
touch of idiocy
touch of mercy

And that's just going up through 2nd level spells. I used the PFSRD because I have trouble getting the 3e SRD to stay open with this computer.


This list is not innately obviously coherent, and has a lot of judgment call in it. Looking it over and examining my reasoning, I think my criteria amount to two points:

1) The control lasts longer than 1 round (because "1 round" is about as immediate as controlling another's actions gets, and thus doesn't really qualify for "ongoing"), and
2) the control involves the caster actually dictating an action, goal, or otherwise exerting guiding control of his choice. This means that spells which impose a compulsion that are not of the caster's choice (outside of casting the spell) don't qualify, which is why sleep and hideous laughter and the like penetrate protection from evil, to my mind.

Does that make sense?