You would just have a wight according to the spell. In this case it might actually be better to create a juju zombie depending on what that keeps.
As for geas it should work on the undead as long as you use Threnodic spell.
In regards to the instructions, Geas says that it "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." So you could always say that they must refrain from not following your commands as a course of activity.
Be aware though, it also says "A clever recipient can subvert some instructions," so you just want to be careful with your wording. Normally I try to include something in my command about following my commands as I intended them to be followed, or in the spirit in which they were given, to try to cover cases where a geas'ed creature would twist my words.
In the end though, talk with your GM about all of this. If he isn't ok with it or if it unbalances the game he will find a way to break your creature out from under your control and all the clever wording in the world won't help you.
I can't really comment on the rest, but... Geas compels the target to either do a certain task, or refrain from an activity. While "don't attack people" works as an action you can demand they refrain from, "obey my commands" is not a task, and thus it is not something you can command them to do. Additionally, I do not think they will be capable of designating any special circumstances on the geas such as "people I designate". Generally, if you want to control it, you are doing to need to release previously made undead from your control.
I can't really comment on the rest, but... Geas compels the target to either do a certain task, or refrain from an activity. While "don't attack people" works as an action you can demand they refrain from, "obey my commands" is not a task.
True, but I think it depends more on the wording. I think loyally serving someone or something could be a task. I also think that disobeying direct orders issued by the caster, or acting against the wishes and intent of the caster counts as a course of activity (and as such one could have the target refrain from those actions)
|
I can't really comment on the rest, but... Geas compels the target to either do a certain task, or refrain from an activity. While "don't attack people" works as an action you can demand they refrain from, "obey my commands" is not a task.True, but I think it depends more on the wording. I think loyally serving someone or something could be a task. I also think that disobeying direct orders issued by the caster, or acting against the wishes and intent of the caster counts as a course of activity (and as such one could have the target refrain from those actions)
Wishes and intent of the caster, as interpreted by a juju zombie, I.e a evil undead? It seem a recipe for disaster unless you want death and mayhem.
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. A clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
"Obey my orders." depend on me issuing orders and is decidedly open ended.
As I read it that "complete" mean that the task should be something that can be done. As an example a order of "kill all intruders that enter the palace" can't be completed, as the number of intruders can be infinitely replenished by new intruders, and so it will last only 1 day/level. A order of "Kill all the member of the Laplace family." is a order that can be completed, even if the family is composed by thousands of persons, so it will last until the last member of the family is dead.Essentially, geas/quest isn't meant to be a perpetual enslavement.
Wishes and intent of the caster, as interpreted by a juju zombie, I.e a evil undead? It seem a recipe for disaster unless you want death and mayhem.
I think that depends entirely on the intelligence of the zombie. If the creature is intelligent, then it should be able to interpret the intent of the caster regardless of its alignment. If a good character told an evil character to do something, the fact that the second character was evil wouldn't change his or her ability to understand the intent of another person as long as they are given enough context by whoever issues the command.
If he tells his zombie to capture someone and not kill that person because he wants them alive and unharmed, an evil intelligent creature wouldn't misunderstand the intent. The creature might want to do something different, but the compulsion makes that a non issue.
"Obey my orders." depend on me issuing orders and is decidedly open ended.
I thought that's what the poster was trying to do, that is, enslave a monster using the spell for a day per level. If he/she is trying to do it permanently, then that wouldn't work because it is open ended.
If he tells his zombie to capture someone and not kill that person because he wants them alive and unharmed, an evil intelligent creature wouldn't misunderstand the intent. The creature might want to do something different, but the compulsion makes that a non issue.
They would certainly understand the intent. But the spell doesn't go by intent, it goes by instructions. A rebellious thrall could attempt to subvert the intent of the instructions, so long as they were following the letter. And an unintelligent undead would not even be able to understand the intent, and could only obey the letter.
If you tell them not to harm or kill a person, they are not, in any way, obligated to prevent other people from harming or killing the person. They could even ask somebody else to harm or kill the person, or act in a manner reckless enough that the person may come to be harmed or killed purely incidentally.
There are times where wording needs to be very careful. "Do not harm this person" carries a distinct difference to "do not allow this person to be harmed".
They would certainly understand the intent. But the spell doesn't go by intent, it goes by instructions.
If he tells his zombie to capture someone and not kill that person because he wants them alive and unharmed, an evil intelligent creature wouldn't misunderstand the intent. The creature might want to do something different, but the compulsion makes that a non issue.
I see where you're coming from, and I agree that you have to be careful with your wording. But I disagree when you say the spell doesn't go by intent.
If the Geas you've given does involve intent then the spell compels them to include intent as their intelligence level permits them to understand.
For example, say that I cast the spell and gave the following open ended task: "undead, I charge you with refraining from any course of activity, including inactivity, that would be against my wishes or contrary to the intent of my commands."
If I was to do that, then Geas would force the creature to, before taking any action, always ask itself if whatever it was or wasn't doing was against the wishes of the caster or contrary to the intent of of the casters commands.
If the answer to the above question was yes, the undead would have to change its actions such that they were in line with the wishes of the caster or not contrary to the intent of the caster's commands.
As a side note, one might consider adding an order of preference between the two cases (wishes vs command intent) in case the caster was compelled in some obvious way to issue a command that would be against his wishes.
Intent of party A is to party B a subjective determination filtered through party B's own prejudices and views. It doesn't help. B just had to be able to convince himself, not read A's mind.
"He must have intended that I kill him, because anyone putting a Geas on me clearly has a death wish!" is a perfectly valid interpretive framework.
|
|
If the the undead must ask itself what its master intent was in that situation, most of the time it would stay inactive, trying to second guess its master while having a very different mindset (unless the master is a undead of a kind similar to it).
Geas/Quest don't give any special form of communication or insight in the caster motivations or goals.and you have the usual problem with wishes, they can be thwarted, or the the undead can listen for any comment that can be considered a wish.
"What a nice jewel" is enough for "My master want that jewel, I must slay the current possessor and give it to him."
"Give me some water" for "My master is thirsty, I should slay all the party members so he has enough water to sate himself."
Intent of party A is to party B a subjective determination filtered through party B's own prejudices and views. It doesn't help. B just had to be able to convince himself, not read A's mind.
Again I think it depends on the creatures intelligence and the amount of input.
With a short conversation the player could outline his goals and what his wishes are for his companion. As a GM I would even allow an intelligence or wisdom check to determine if the player communicates clearly in such a way that there is very little room for misunderstanding.
"He must have intended that I kill him, because anyone putting a Geas on me clearly has a death wish!" is a perfectly valid interpretive framework.
I agree that interpretation is subjective, but there is a difference between being subjective and jumping to conclusions. Anything with a reasonable intelligence and/or wisdom score (which young dragons have better than average) is going to quickly realize what the caster likely rationally wishes. A creature trying to convince himself otherwise would be going against the wishes of the caster, and would trip the geas.
The exception would be if the creature was insane in some way
If the the undead must ask itself what its master intent was in that situation, most of the time it would stay inactive, trying to second guess its master while having a very different mindset (unless the master is a undead of a kind similar to it).
Geas/Quest don't give any special form of communication or insight in the caster motivations or goals.and you have the usual problem with wishes, they can be thwarted, or the the undead can listen for any comment that can be considered a wish.
"What a nice jewel" is enough for "My master want that jewel, I must slay the current possessor and give it to him."
"Give me some water" for "My master is thirsty, I should slay all the party members so he has enough water to sate himself."
Those last two examples again involve jumping to conclusions. If a creature is intelligent and/or has some sort of wisdom, and they have some understanding of what kind of person the caster is, they would be able to make the same deductions that you and I would. That unless the player specifically asks to murder something for something else, its very likely that the masters wishes don't involve that murder. Regardless, if this sort of thing starts to happen all the player has to do is inform the creature that the course of action it was taking was against its intent. For example, the player could tell it not to attack others unless instructed to do so, and so on and so forth.
You are correct if the creature is incapable of understanding the mindset of its master, but just being undead doesn't make the creature so utterly alien in its ability to understand the mindset of a player character.
Its also true that there might be a learning period if the zombie retains no memories, but if the creature is intelligent it should be able to learn the general wants and wishes of its master.
It may be such that you can't give the creature such open ended commands, but you can still give them a command. Worst case scenario you quest the creature with obeying your commands to the best of its ability (which is the same thing that the control undead does).
In the end it all really depends on you GM. If he/she wants to have the undead break out, he/she will, because he/she will come up with a contrived excuse. So you should talk to you GM to make sure that he's ok with you doing this. If your GM isn't, then don't do it.
You have to define what "task" is.
Generally, a task is something that has a beginning and an end, and a definitive timeframe besides someone's lifetime... so a command that would be almost perpetual like, "avoid not obeying me until I die," or any variation that would not work.
You have to define what "task" is.
Generally, a task is something that has a beginning and an end, and a definitive timeframe besides someone's lifetime... so a command that would be almost perpetual like, "avoid not obeying me until I die," or any variation that would not work.
Not true, the spell allows for open ended tasks. In the case where the task is open ended the spell lasts a day per level.
OK, I'm not going to verify that, I'll take your word for it. You are right. It ends after the 1 day per level requirement.
So in other words - the task has... a beginning and an end.
This was a nice exercise.
OK, I'm not going to verify that, I'll take your word for it. You are right. It ends after the 1 day per level requirement.
So in other words - the task has... a beginning and an end.
This was a nice exercise.
Just in case you ever do have to verify the link to the spell text is here
and the specific quote I'm interpreting is here:
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.
Thanks for your answers.
I think i'll go the "be a loyal companion killing and destroying what i tell you to do so" road and cast Quest/Geass every weak and make clear I'm the boss.
I have one last question:
My pet lizard used his soul lock ability on the recently deceased dragon creating a soul gem.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/daemons/cacodae mon
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/zombie-juju-cr- 1
Can i still raise him as a juju zombie ? If so the fact i have his soul in a gem could make him more...obedient.
As for the rules, a soul is required to raise the creature back to life. Raising it to Unlife only requires the body, so you shouldn't have any trouble raising the creature.
As for your second question, it isn't really a rules question but here are my thoughts:
The above is important because it means that the thing you raise isn't actually the "person" who died, but is a shell filled with a new intelligence (albiet an evil one) that in the case of the juju zombie has similar skills and abilities.
Since undead don't require souls, and since the soul itself contains the previous inhabitant of the body, not the new one, the gem is unlikely to give you any sway over it