# Geas: the good, the bad, the funny



## roguerouge (Oct 25, 2003)

Does anyone have any examples of effective uses of the spell geas? How about examples of ineffective uses of geas? Any stories out there on funny uses of geas by players or npcs?

Best wishes,

roguerouge


----------



## Cerubus Dark (Oct 25, 2003)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any examples of effective uses of the spell geas? How about examples of ineffective uses of geas? Any stories out there on funny uses of geas by players or npcs?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> roguerouge



Had an NPC wizard cast it on a bard to force him to sing while hanging upside down over a pit of spikes.  Needless to say the bard died.  The wizard didn't like the song.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 25, 2003)

My game group has a long running joke concerning a high level Sorceror/Wizard using Geas to order others to get him a sandwich.

Sorceror:  "Hmmm, I am feeling peckish.  You peon, (casts Geas) Go Get Me A Ham Sandwich!"

TTFN

EvilE

PS:  As soon as my Mystic Theurge is High enough to get away with this I shall definitely employ this in the midst of combat...


----------



## Cerubus Dark (Oct 26, 2003)

evileeyore said:
			
		

> My game group has a long running joke concerning a high level Sorceror/Wizard using Geas to order others to get him a sandwich.
> 
> Sorceror:  "Hmmm, I am feeling peckish.  You peon, (casts Geas) Go Get Me A Ham Sandwich!"
> 
> ...



Hehe, I am going to use this now.  I can just see a high level wizard doing this in the middle of combat, Hey you go get me a sandwich!


----------



## Zerovoid (Oct 26, 2003)

Geas is a really cool spell, but I've never seen it used to any effect.  It takes days for the penalties to become a problem, and although the spell can't be gotten rid of by dispel magic, it isn't too hard to remove.

So, I'll I've ever seen the subject of a Geas do is try to remove the Geas.

"Get you a ham sandwhich?  Sure, I'll bring it to your corpse tomorrow."


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 26, 2003)

Several years ago I ran a Dark Sun campaign where the PCs needed to obtain a vital piece of information for one of their quests for the Veiled Alliance.

The problem was they could only obtain this information from a certain female Templar of Nibenay. So they secretly sent a messenger to her offering some sort of exchange the get the information they wanted.

She agreed to meet them on neutral ground in the desert because the PCs were super paranoid about treachery (rightly so when one deals with Templars).
They bargained with her and she agreed to help them in return for a task. She wanted them to eliminate one of her rival Templars.

They tentatively agreed. However, while the players were all arguing about whether to accept her offer, I casually mentioned: "The Templar, tells you she must cast a spell to divine some more information regarding her rival, do you stop her or say anything?"

"No," the players responded, and then ignored her and continued arguing.

"After her spell is complete, she offers her hand for you all to take. And she asks, 'Are you ready to do this task for me?'

"Do you take her hand and agree?" I ask the group. "Yes, we do," they replied.

"'It is done.' She smiles at you all with an evil grin, 'I have placed a spell upon you,' She announces.  'If you fail to complete this task for me, then you shall die a long, slow death.'"

The look of shock on the players faces was awesome. And then the rules-lawyers started scrambling for their PHB's. But there was nothing they could do. None of them had paid attention to the spell she cast and they had accepted her quest of their own free will. No saving throw.

The players started to draw weapons, but her half-giant bodyguards stepped forward protectively. 'Ah, now that is no way to behave,' she scolded them. 'Remember, I have the information you seek.'"

I was loving this. The PCs had lost all bargaining power. They had to do as she asked and there was no guarantee that she would even uphold her side of the bargain. And of course, she had no intention of doing so. Furthermore, she already knew they were working for the Veiled Alliance and the rival she wanted eliminated was a Veiled Alliance spy. The PCs didn't know this at the time, though. But later when everything became clear, and the sheer depth of her treachery became known to them they were totally beside themselves! It was great!

One PC swore revenge upon her and was totally obsessed with getting her back. He finally did get her back, but it literally cost him his soul in the process. Which is another interesting story in its own right.

Anyway, this is an example of what Geas and Quest spells are really good for. Sealing deals that the PCs make with certain powerful NPCs to guarantee that the PCs do what they promise to do.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 26, 2003)

One addendum, in 2ed. D&D, Quest could not be dispelled or removed. And Quest could only be removed by a cleric of higher level and the same deity as the caster.

This meant only a higher level Templar of Nibenay could remove the quest. Not bloody likely.


----------



## Felix (Oct 26, 2003)

Something similar to Dragonblade's story happened to me. The party was in the Elven kingdom and making waves there. To handle us, the royals invited us to a meeting. At the meeting, they kept talking about a Formal Agreement with us over what we would have to do to earn our ticket out of the kingdom. 

(Formal Agreement=Geas, and of course, we didn't know this.)

So they brought us into a small room where a circle was inscribed on the floor. After the terms of the Agreement were outlined, they said "Stepping into the circle represents your acceptance of the terms of the Formal Agreement." So we stepped in the circle.

And our DM ruled that we had given up our saving throw against the Geas. Which is lame*.

So we have to go do what the Elves say, and then we have to return: so we might not get out like we hoped. 

Maybe this isn't a funny story of Geas, but it sure as hell altered our game. I guess that's effective.

*It's lame because in order to give up a saving throw, the character has to consciously accept a spell. If the PC is unaware that a spell has been cast, or that it is a spell he is accepting, he is not conscious of the spell, and therefore cannot consciously intentionally fail his saving throw. (the DM agreed afterwards that he had been a little heavy handed, so he "owes us one")


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 26, 2003)

Zerovoid said:
			
		

> Geas is a really cool spell, but I've never seen it used to any effect.  It takes days for the penalties to become a problem, and although the spell can't be gotten rid of by dispel magic, it isn't too hard to remove.



So, in other words, because of a House Rule/rules-interpretation to neuter Geas, you've never seen it used effectively.

What...  a....  surprise.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2003)

"Cherry?  I want you to get me a Pepsi."
"Okay!"



			
				Zerovoid said:
			
		

> Geas is a really cool spell, but I've never seen it used to any effect.  It takes days for the penalties to become a problem, and although the spell can't be gotten rid of by dispel magic, it isn't too hard to remove.




Geas/Quest: As Lesser Geas, except that Geas/Quest affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw.

Lesser Geas:  The geased creature _must follow the given instructions_ until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes.  ... _If the subject is prevented from obeying the geas_ for a whole day, he suffers...

You don't get to decide you're going to suck up the penalties for a few days and then do something about the Geas.  You _must follow the given instructions_.  The penalties start clocking up if you aren't following the geas for a couple of days _because some external force prevents it_.  "'cos I don't feel like it today" isn't being prevented.  You don't get that option.

Go get me a Pepsi.

-Hyp.


----------



## Farland (Oct 27, 2003)

I think you rarely see PCs use Geas effectively because geas is seemingly a narrative tool for DMs to get players to do what they want.


----------



## Oni (Oct 27, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Go get me a Pepsi.
> 
> -Hyp.




Fine.  I'll get you a Pepsi.

Of course how is totally up to the person beyond any specifics given at the time of the Geas.  I have several things I have to do first in order to be able to properly pursue the needed course to get you your pepsi.  Who knows where you might go during that time.  In fact it would probably be easier to bring you your pepsi if I knew your exact location.  Hurm...If I kill you and leave your corpse here it'll be much easier for me to find you and deliver the pepsi you requested.  Excellent we've established step one to your pepsi request...your death.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 27, 2003)

Which brings us back to one of the original questions I had. In light of recent postings, it might be rephrased as: "What are effective uses of geas to force someone to fetch a Pepsi in such a manner that does not end with your death."

I agree with the poster on their reading of geas. The recipient must follow the instructions and receives penalties only if prevented from following the instruction by another. The only thing that balances this no save spell is the cunning target standard, who imprisons the caster to follow the instruction to keep the caster safe.

The appeal for the player and the dm with this spell seems to me to be that it starts a battle of wits: can you outsmart the other while still remaining true to the letter of the instructions vs. can you craft an airtight set of instructions.

What prompted me to post a question on this was the fact that in a recent game, my enchanter geased an opponent, who found a loophole, and thus geased the PC back. Thus began the battle of wits.... As I am inherently at a disadvantage in such battles, both as a player and as a DM, I posted this question!

rougerouge


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 27, 2003)

Which brings us back to one of the original questions I had. In light of recent postings, it might be rephrased as: "What are effective uses of geas to force someone to fetch a Pepsi in such a manner that does not end with your death."

I agree with the poster on their reading of geas. The recipient must follow the instructions and receives penalties only if prevented from following the instruction by another. The only thing that balances this no save spell is the cunning target standard, who imprisons the caster to follow the instruction to keep the caster safe.

The appeal for the player and the dm with this spell seems to me to be that it starts a battle of wits: can you outsmart the other while still remaining true to the letter of the instructions vs. can you craft an airtight set of instructions.

What prompted me to post a question on this was the fact that in a recent game, my enchanter geased an opponent, who found a loophole, and thus geased the PC back. Thus began the battle of wits.... As I am inherently at a disadvantage in such battles, both as a player and as a DM, I posted this question!

roguerouge


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 27, 2003)

evileeyore said:
			
		

> ...Go Get Me A Ham Sandwich!




Oh, what I would have done with:

ham....sand....witch...

nahh...better not


----------



## Voadam (Oct 27, 2003)

*for reference*

from the 3.5 srd:

Geas/Quest
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 6, Clr 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Target: One living creature
Saving Throw: None
This spell functions similarly to lesser geas, except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw.
Instead of taking penalties to ability scores (as with lesser geas), 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 or become sickened. These effects end 24 hours after the creature attempts to resume the geas/ quest.
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.
Bards, sorcerers, and wizards usually refer to this spell as geas, while clerics call the same spell quest.

Geas, Lesser
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature with 7 HD or less
Duration: One day/level or until discharged (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
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, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a lesser geas.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 27, 2003)

lesser geas says must do it, penalty if prevented from doing it.

Geas says same as lesser but then says penalty if don't attempt to do it, implying it is a choice.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 28, 2003)

Argh. Dratted double posts...

roguerouge


----------



## der_kluge (Oct 28, 2003)

You could extrapolate this discussion to the "suggestion" spell, which is similar.  My sorceress had that, and made good use of it.

My friend suggested that buy a Rubik's cube, toss it to the enemy, and "suggest" "Solve this.".

That would keep them busy for a while.  

My favorite suggestion was to tell an ice giant in the arctic to "fetch me a shrubbery".


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 29, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> lesser geas says must do it, penalty if prevented from doing it.
> 
> Geas says same as lesser but then says penalty if don't attempt to do it, implying it is a choice.



That is such a weak rules argument.
If you take this approach (sans common sense), adjudicating D&D can become very hard.

Geas is 3 levels higher of spell. Those 3 levels are because it doesn't have a save. To make it less powerful than a 3rd level spell based on text that is NOT there, is ludicrous.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 29, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> That is such a weak rules argument.
> If you take this approach (sans common sense), adjudicating D&D can become very hard.
> 
> Geas is 3 levels higher of spell. Those 3 levels are because it doesn't have a save. To make it less powerful than a 3rd level spell based on text that is NOT there, is ludicrous.



Voadam's argument is rubbish when you look at the 3.5 rules.

However in the 3.0 rules, it seemed quite clear that you could ignore your quest if you were willing to take the consequences.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 29, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> However in the 3.0 rules, it seemed quite clear that you could ignore your quest if you were willing to take the consequences.




Not at all.  It's arguable, but it's certainly not clear.

On the "can't ignore" side - there's nothing in the Geas text to counter the "You must obey" text of Lesser Geas.  "For each day you do not attempt" only comes into effect under the circumstances that someone _can]/i] not attempt to follow the Geas... which, by the Lesser Geas text, is if they are prevented somehow.

Volition doesn't come into it.

-Hyp._


----------



## Norfleet (Oct 29, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> On the "can't ignore" side - there's nothing in the Geas text to counter the "You must obey" text of Lesser Geas.  "For each day you do not attempt" only comes into effect under the circumstances that someone _can]/i] not attempt to follow the Geas... which, by the Lesser Geas text, is if they are prevented somehow.
> 
> Volition doesn't come into it._



_
On the other hand, without volition, the subject can't attempt to NOT follow the instructions: If you Geas me and send me on a quest to fetch you a ham sandwich, and while I'm en-route to the nearest ham sandwich, I'm waylaid by bandits, tied up, and held for ransom, that doesn't mean I am now unable to *ATTEMPT* to fetch you that sandwich. It's just become very much more difficult, since I must now first escape, and somehow weedle a ham sandwich out of somebody to take back to you. But I can still be attempting to do it, and therefore attempting to fulfill the quest. The only thing that could possibly stop me from attempting, however futilely, to fetch you that sandwich, would be becoming dead, in which case ability score penalties stop being an issue.

The only thing I can think of would completely prevent a target from attempting to carry out the command would be a set of mutually contradictory Geases: You say I must fetch you a ham sandwich, whereas somebody else Geases me as well and says that I must NOT fetch you that sandwich. Therefore, I'd begin accumulating penalties, either for continuing to fetch your sandwich, or for not fetching your sandwich._


----------



## Dark Dragon (Oct 29, 2003)

Geas was rarely used in my group, but when it happened it was mostly quite funny. One wizard used it back in old AD&D times to "convince" captured opponents to search three ioun stones (not the burnt out) for him. 

The other wizard was the target of the halfling's jokes. We were part of a little army that was led by our cleric of tempus (he had a general's title). One day the wizard was sleeping to regain his spells. The halfling searched some ham and put it gently between the wizard's toes. Then she lured the wizard's guard dog (a quite stupid animal) into the tent where the wizard was sleeping. Of course, the dog began licking the ham (the animal was not so stupid to bite at it). The wizard woke up and became quite angry about the disturbance. But he finished his rest first, then searched the halfling and said to her: "I want you to become a good soldier so that you can fulfil your duties while serving in this army."
The wizard walked back to his tent smiling. The halfling became a very good soldier (sometimes she exaggerated), but it was funny anyway.


----------



## roguerouge (Oct 31, 2003)

How's this for a geas: "Aid me in whatever way I require by means that provide maximum benefit to me without harming my allies or aiding BBEG or their allies in any way." (Which sets the duration at 1 day/level. Couldn't one of the later methods of aiding be: accept this spell?)

roguerouge


----------



## The_Universe (Oct 31, 2003)

One of the less-mature players in an old campaign made standard practice of geasing annoying opponents to perform "fellatio"* on themselves, or occaisonally on the BBEG.  

Immature as all Hell, but I'd be lying if I told you that I didn't fall off of my chair laughing the first time he did it.  

*If you do not know what this is, I am NOT explaining.  It's probably for the best.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 31, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> That is such a weak rules argument.
> If you take this approach (sans common sense), adjudicating D&D can become very hard.
> 
> Geas is 3 levels higher of spell. Those 3 levels are because it doesn't have a save. To make it less powerful than a 3rd level spell based on text that is NOT there, is ludicrous.




I'm just pointing out the text of the Geas spell

Here it is again:

Instead of taking penalties to ability scores (as with lesser geas), 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 or become sickened. These effects end 24 hours after the creature *attempts* to resume the geas/ quest.

Now then, saying the spell should not say "attempt" and should say "is prevented from" is a reasonable argument based on the level difference and the clear way lesser geas works i.e. "must follow".

I think geas is self contradictory and inconsistent with lesser geas as written.

However, that is how it is written and I have not seen errata for it yet.

House ruling a contradictory spell to be consistent and reasonable is fine, but saying as it is currently written it is obviously read to be compulsory and not effects for nonattempts seems mistaken.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 31, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Voadam's argument is rubbish when you look at the 3.5 rules.
> 
> However in the 3.0 rules, it seemed quite clear that you could ignore your quest if you were willing to take the consequences.




Here is the 3.0 rules

It seems self contradictory as well, using "must" and then "attempts" 

Geas/Quest
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 6, Clr 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 day/level or until discharged (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
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.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 31, 2003)

*3.0 lesser geas*

Lesser Geas
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature of up to 7 HD
Duration: 1 day/level or until discharged (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
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.


----------



## Norfleet (Nov 1, 2003)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> One of the less-mature players in an old campaign made standard practice of geasing annoying opponents to perform "fellatio"* on themselves, or occaisonally on the BBEG.



Is that even physically possible? What happens if the geased instructions are not physically doable?


----------



## The_Universe (Nov 1, 2003)

Norfleet said:
			
		

> Is that even physically possible? What happens if the geased instructions are not physically doable?




For themeselves: not as far as I know...I suppose if one was missing a few ribs, it might be possible.  But, the spell doesn't say that they have to succeed, just that they have to try. It's a great way to take an ogre or a hill giant out of a fight.  

And, much to the chagrin of the BBEG, I'm sure that it IS possible to have one's minions chasing one around, making every effort to orally polish one's knob.  

--Kennon


----------



## Endur (Nov 1, 2003)

Well, let's see the goal is to "aid you".  You didn't say I couldn't kill you; you only said not to harm your allies.  So, I'll kill your character and aid you on the way to heaven.




			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> How's this for a geas: "Aid me in whatever way I require by means that provide maximum benefit to me without harming my allies or aiding BBEG or their allies in any way." (Which sets the duration at 1 day/level. Couldn't one of the later methods of aiding be: accept this spell?)
> 
> roguerouge


----------



## reapersaurus (Nov 1, 2003)

I detest "Wish language" games.


----------



## SnowDog (Nov 1, 2003)

*Cool quest from Geas*

I've had a character fall victim to a Geas once.  My DM at the time was pretty good at tailoring the events of the campaign to fit the PCs' motivations and whatnot.  My PC was a CG Cleric of Rudd (Greyhawk game).

My PC's best friend, an NPC, had fallen in battle (saving another PC's life).  We rushed the corpse back to Verbobanc in hopes of getting a friendly temple to raise her.  No luck.  Our only chance was to go to the Cuthbertians, who were downright hostile to the party and had at one point been searching for us to arrest us.

My PC took the NPC into the temple while the rest of the party went on making progress on the main quest.  The Cuthbertians questioned the PC at length, and when finally satisfied that the NPC had fallen while fighting evil, were willing to help, but at a high price.   

But it was her friend's life.  So, yes.  The temple raised the NPC from the dead, in exchange for money ... and ... a quest of their choosing to be given to the PC and the now-risen NPC, which they promised wouldn't be completely against the PC's ethos.

The quest was to find and convince the missing Viscount of Verbobanc to return to his post and take up government of the city.  It was great, from a storytelling standpoint, because as a CG character this was completely frustrating -- being forced to go track someone down who was doing what he felt was best and try to convince them to give up their personal ideals in favor of the greater good of society?  Not exactly chaotic good!

It led to a great session as my PC and the now-raised NPC gathered info, followed leads, and then had a lengthy roleplayed conversation with the guy.  She did talk him into returning home, and the geas was satisfied.  It was intense, and a lot more complicated than I just made it sound.

So, there's a good use of Geas.  How's that?

(Man, did we ever hate the Cuthbertians.  We hated them until we died on some random plane in a story we never got to find out the end of .... )


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 1, 2003)

Norfleet said:
			
		

> Is that even physically possible? What happens if the geased instructions are not physically doable?




I think you could break your neck with that, so it fails. But I won't go into detail with that.

As for your bickering about the rules: I just assume that we all follow the spirit of the rules, which is that you have to do this and can't opt to just suck up the damage.



One dwarf in our FR campaign was once quested to fell the whole forest of cormanthor. Wel held him back before he could do any harm to the wood (and, as an afterthought, to himself )

Then there's always the other fun stuff: fill up the Underdark with a spoon, wipe dust in the desert, and so on.

Other fun stuff for geas:
Get a dwarf to shave clean.
Get a prude lady (maybe duchess or something) to lay with every male in the realm.
Get someone to paint the Ebon Tower in bright, merry colors.
Get the snobby elf to cover himself completely in horse manure.
Get the dwarf to plant a thousand trees.
Get the druid to fell a thousand trees....


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 2, 2003)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> *If you do not know what this is, I am NOT explaining.




"Well you know, I'd _like_ to tell you.  But unfortunately, I don't know what _fellatio_ is..."  

The Priest, Rowan Atkinson Live.

-Hyp.


----------



## Bloodsparrow (Nov 2, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Well, let's see the goal is to "aid you".  You didn't say I couldn't kill you; you only said not to harm your allies.  So, I'll kill your character and aid you on the way to heaven.





Lame.

That is a huge streach even under the best of conditions.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 2, 2003)

Bloodsparrow said:
			
		

> Lame.
> 
> That is a huge streach even under the best of conditions.




I've had it done to me.

We were trying to rescue the princesses from the castle of giants.

So I geased the sergeant-giant of the gate guards - I don't remember the exact words, but it was basically "Cooperate with us to rescue the princesses."

The DM decided that since the simplest way for us to rescue the princesses would be to kill every giant in the castle, and the geasee was a giant, he'd cooperate with us by attacking us, forcing us to kill him... which brought us one step closer to "kill every giant in the castle".

I _still_ can't make the connection between "Cooperate" and "Attack".

-Hyp.


----------



## Bloodsparrow (Nov 2, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The DM decided that since the simplest way for us to rescue the princesses would be to kill every giant in the castle, and the geasee was a giant, he'd cooperate with us by attacking us, forcing us to kill him... which brought us one step closer to "kill every giant in the castle".
> 
> I _still_ can't make the connection between "Cooperate" and "Attack".




Yeah, time to get a new DM.

It's one thing to make people be carefull what they wish for, and and quite annother thing to be an idiot... Or just really really lazy.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 2, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've had it done to me.
> 
> We were trying to rescue the princesses from the castle of giants.
> 
> ...




This is a suicidal course, and doesn't work.....

And your DM did walk away from that session?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 2, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> And your DM did walk away from that session?




PbEM 

-Hyp.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 2, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> PbEM
> 
> -Hyp.




Huh?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 2, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> Huh?




The game in question was Play-by-Email, so I suspect the DM had little fear of physical injury resulting from the ruling 

-Hyp.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 3, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The game in question was Play-by-Email, so I suspect the DM had little fear of physical injury resulting from the ruling
> 
> -Hyp.




Too bad urban arcana isn't real. Online spellcasting would come in so handy in situations like these.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 3, 2003)

The sense that I'm getting from the posts is that geas and lesser geas are broken in their actual use. The spells are only successfully used, it seems, by the DM to enforce a linear plotline, by a player on PCs who are good sports, or they automatically backfire.

This, quite frankly, is not good. These two spells are the holy grail of players who like enchanters. If they don't work, then enchanters in general don't work, because the problems cited with these spells are certainly going to be there for charms and suggestion. That would cripple any enchanter, from first level onward. That means bards are even weaker than they already are and that wizards/sorcerers move one step closer to the boring "arcane cannon" style.

If this pattern holds true, enchantment spells need to be fixed. The question I ask now is: how?

roguerouge


----------



## Kesh (Nov 3, 2003)

Norfleet said:
			
		

> Is that even physically possible?




It is possible, though a bit uncomfortable.

*cough*


----------



## Delemental (Nov 3, 2003)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> The sense that I'm getting from the posts is that geas and lesser geas are broken in their actual use. The spells are only successfully used, it seems, by the DM to enforce a linear plotline, by a player on PCs who are good sports, or they automatically backfire.
> 
> This, quite frankly, is not good. These two spells are the holy grail of players who like enchanters. If they don't work, then enchanters in general don't work, because the problems cited with these spells are certainly going to be there for charms and suggestion. That would cripple any enchanter, from first level onward. That means bards are even weaker than they already are and that wizards/sorcerers move one step closer to the boring "arcane cannon" style.
> 
> If this pattern holds true, enchantment spells need to be fixed. The question I ask now is: how?




The problem with enchantment-type spells is not so much in mechanics, but lies in the fact that any player is going to naturally resist being forced to take actions they don't want to do, just as any DM is going to resist having his NPCs do things he doesn't want them to.  When you're dealing with mind-control type powers, you have two choices - either leave the effects open to interpretation (which can lead to the problems you see described above), or layer on clauses and limitations to define as many contingencies as possible (which limits the flexibility of such spells).

I think that if you are going to make use of enchantment magic, or mind-affecting psionics, or whatever, there has to be an agreement of some sort (either implied or openly negotiated) between the players and DM.  Either both sides have to agree to play by the spirit of such abilities, or agree to play by the letter of such abilities.  If your DM casts a geas on your PC and you start pulling the "the best way for me to get you a ham sandwich is to kill you" trick, expect the DM to do the same.  If this is the kind of game that you are going to run, then probably it would be better to just ignore the enchantment school altogether, because the results will always disappoint.

Personally, I would rather play in a game where if I cast a _geas_ to have the bad guy get me a ham sandwich, then the bad guy would do his level best to get me a ham sandwich.  But if in return the bad guy geased me to get him a Pepsi to go with his sandwich, I'd do my level best to get his Pepsi.  I guess the term I'd use is 'necessary and sufficient'.

As far as that part about 'clever recipients subverting instructions',  what I would say to that was that if my character happened to have a slab of salt pork and a couple of chunks of moldy bread in the bottom of my pack, I could slap them together and fulfill the geas;the quality of the delivered product was not defined.

There is one argument I saw that I think bears examination.  In the case where someone was saying "I can't deliver your sandwich if I don't know where you are, so I'll kill you so you'll be right here" - I think this is obviously a gross violation.  However, what I would say is that in order for the _geas_ to be considered closed-ended, the geased character must be able to actually deliver.  Thus if I were charged with said sandwich quest, and the caster then immediately vanished and I had no way to track them down, then I'd say that it was now an 'open-ended' geas, and would only last 1 day/level.  If the caster said "I'll be waiting in my fortress on the seventh layer of Hell" and vanishes, well, then...

I suppose that if I were going to 'fix' _geas/quest_ and the lesser version, I would change one thing; increase the casting time to something like a minute.  It sounds like the main problem encountered with these spells are when they are used in the heat of battle, whene there isn't time to fully spell out your  request.  On the other hand, the successful examples I've seen come from situations where there's not a combat going on, and the PCs are in the midst of negotiations.  I say save _geas/quest_ for those type of situations, and for those combat scenes, stick with _suggestion, command_, etc.


----------



## Zerovoid (Nov 3, 2003)

As the person who posted several days ago that geas is useless, I'm glad to find out I was wrong.  Its really cool if the spell can be used.  My only question is, if the subject is compelled to obey the geas, instead of simply being threated by a set of penalties if they don't, then when do the penalties actually occur?

We've never had any problems with players/NPC's being willing to go along enchantment spells.  Its just that its really unclear how geas works.


----------



## Oni (Nov 4, 2003)

Delemental said:
			
		

> Personally, I would rather play in a game where if I cast a _geas_ to have the bad guy get me a ham sandwich, then the bad guy would do his level best to get me a ham sandwich.  But if in return the bad guy geased me to get him a Pepsi to go with his sandwich, I'd do my level best to get his Pepsi.  I guess the term I'd use is 'necessary and sufficient'.
> 
> As far as that part about 'clever recipients subverting instructions',  what I would say to that was that if my character happened to have a slab of salt pork and a couple of chunks of moldy bread in the bottom of my pack, I could slap them together and fulfill the geas;the quality of the delivered product was not defined.
> 
> There is one argument I saw that I think bears examination.  In the case where someone was saying "I can't deliver your sandwich if I don't know where you are, so I'll kill you so you'll be right here" - I think this is obviously a gross violation.  However, what I would say is that in order for the _geas_ to be considered closed-ended, the geased character must be able to actually deliver.  Thus if I were charged with said sandwich quest, and the caster then immediately vanished and I had no way to track them down, then I'd say that it was now an 'open-ended' geas, and would only last 1 day/level.  If the caster said "I'll be waiting in my fortress on the seventh layer of Hell" and vanishes, well, then...




The thing is slapping together a ham sammich out of your provisions isn't exactly a subversion.  Geas is incredibly potent as written, you just have to be very careful with it.  The fetch me said item is a poor way to use it if you ask me (ok, not poor, but if your going to leave it at that your certainly shouldn't expect your safety to be guaranteed as they happily hop off to do your bidding).  However I thought the good soldier example given above was very well done.  Geas in supposed to be an incredibly literal spell, as long as your in some justifiable way working toward the given goal you can get away with anything (within context of the spell).


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 4, 2003)

Zerovoid said:
			
		

> My only question is, if the subject is compelled to obey the geas, instead of simply being threated by a set of penalties if they don't, then when do the penalties actually occur?




If someone keeps you from your work. If the paladin is geased to murder all children in town, his peeps will restrain him, mind you. And to give the friendly restrainers a headache, the victim will suffer if you keep him from doing his work.


----------



## fido_usernameinuse (Nov 4, 2003)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> How's this for a geas: "Aid me in whatever way I require by means that provide maximum benefit to me without harming my allies or aiding BBEG or their allies in any way." (Which sets the duration at 1 day/level. Couldn't one of the later methods of aiding be: accept this spell?)
> 
> roguerouge




Ahh a challenge...

The flawed word here is "require". *What you require* is subjective, and thus subject to interpretation.

A victim of this geas would thus have to accompany the caster until such time that he deems his interference is required.

When this happens the victim is released from his service (since the wording of the geas doesn't specify that the victim should continue to assist him after he has given his aid.).

The caster specifically requesting aid at a given time would not necessarily lead to him receiving any (at that time) because the victim might think the caster could manage on his own.

OT:
Another potentially difficult word is maximum, or rather maximum benefit, because (not knowing the future) there is no way to know what would benefit the caster the most. 


Conclusion:
Geas in it's present state sucks badly, houserules is required (or a DM's judging). I find that defining each geas specifically opens for too much contention(?) and rules-lawyering.


----------



## TheBrassDuke (Feb 17, 2016)

I know it's severe thread necromancy, but I have an answer, and it comes from the top. 

While Lesser Geas implies that you must obey your given instructions, Geas/Quest has that little bit saying "attempt". Do you know why?

I do. 

Okay, so you've been prevented from continuing on with your Geas; still with me on this? You've been halted. You have begun taking damage and are slowly withering away. You are still under Geas, but are being penalized for not being able to continue on. This brings in your choice. You're going to die eventually, but since you have been forced to stop your quest and took damage, you are slightly free from the compulsion. You're still obligated to press on, but you really don't have to do it on their terms anymore--so long as you're willing to die sooner. You've already taken damage, what's a little more? Originally, no. You have to follow the Geas. But not after you've taken damage. You should so that you don't die, and eventually you'll have to, but you're not being forced to live anymore.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 17, 2016)

So, I'm on the side of the target can choose not to cooperate.  If they do so, they take the penalty.  Thus, you can't really make effective use of this as a combat spell.

Additionally, as I would rule on it, the geas must be worded as a goal to strive to accomplish, not as a suggestion of what to do.

So a geas that said, "Cooperate with me to try to rescue the princess", would fail on two grounds.  First, that's a suggestion not a quest, and secondly as soon as the target cooperated even once the goal of the quest would be completed.  So for example, if the target said, "She's being held in the topmost tower", he's now completed the quest because the explicit goal here is only to "cooperate with me", which is fulfilled as soon as he does it.   On the other hand, "Rescue the princess" would be a legitimate quest for the target of a geas, which would only be fulfilled when the princess was rescued (no wiggling around it), but certainly would not preclude the target killing the caster and then taking the princess back to her father for the reward himself rather than seeing the PC's claim the reward.

A much better quest to achieve the desired result would be, "Serve me as a slave for one year."  However, since I'm on the side of "you may choose not to cooperate if you are willing to bear the consequences", again this is not as useful as the player may want it to be.  One thing geas certainly is not is Dominate Person with no saving throw.

Likewise, to cite the vulgar example, you could geas a minion with the quest, "'Perform fellatio on your master'", and he would be under the geas to do so until he succeeded, but you couldn't with such a quest compel a minion via a geas to chase his master around the battlefield rather than for example buying candies and flowers and offering candlight dinners or trying to win his master's favor by killing those annoying heroes.  

Geas as I read it is therefore a subtle spell used to avenge yourself on someone you don't believe can hurt you, to further blackmail someone, or to trick a person into obeying you by giving him a task which seems to them less onerous in its consequences than bearing the consequences of resisting your will.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 17, 2016)

roguerouge said:


> How's this for a geas: "Aid me in whatever way I require by means that provide maximum benefit to me without harming my allies or aiding BBEG or their allies in any way."




NPC: "What to you require, my master"
PC: "Tell me where the princess is?"
NPC: "She's at the top of the tallest tower." *ping* <QUEST CONDITIONS COMPLETED!>


----------

