Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ozmar" data-source="post: 3329365" data-attributes="member: 8021">Maybe the "attempt" means that the penalties are even less binding than those in the lesser geas?In lesser geas, the subject must follow the orders. If he is prevented, he takes damage.In geas, the subject must follow the orders. If he is prevented, and does not attempt to follow them, he takes damage.So suppose we place a lesser geas and a geas on two goblins to go jump in a lake. And then we lock them in a cell. The lesser geased goblin starts taking damage each day, because he's prevented from jumping in a lake. The geased goblin is also prevented, but he starts trying to escape. He is attempting to jump in a lake, so he doesn't take any damage.Aha! You say. He has a choice. He might sit in his cell quietly, and since he's not attempting to escape, he takes damage. Thus, he has a choice about whether or not to obey the geas. I disagree.I think he must try to escape and go jump in a lake. But then how could the "attempt" clause ever come into effect? If the goblin were dominated or magically compelled to avoid water, then he could not even attempt to jump in a lake, and then he would take damage.I admit, this seems like a weak argument to me. Its a possible interpretation. Personally, I prefer to use the "must" comply interpretation, because it doesn't seem to make any sense to me that a more powerful spell like geas could be voluntarily ignored for such little consequence.YMMV, BOCTAOE, etc...Ozmar the Green</blockquote>

Verification