I think I have to read those rules again, but this is hilarious.

Exactly. This'd earn a four-edition-stack-upside-the-head-GM-show-of-disaproval. I rarely use it, but this warants it.

Ha! I like that one, too!
And you know, I'm such a lovable GM I'd even let them talk incessantly in their sleep, just so they're not forced to break their geas daily.
Seriously, having to talk constantly would be limiting enough in a game about stealth and subterfuge, I don't have to be any meaner.

Under which category of geasa would that be? Under Incantation, OK. under any other category - sorry, not a canon example.

Actually, I thought it was funny, and in a cheesy sort of way. I just thought it would be even funnier if a player trying to exploit a loophole was told "sure" and subsequently discovered he had an actual geas, because he failed to specify the correct term for the intended geas (loophole -- it's funny because it is ironic).

I am presuming, since there is no other discussion of category, that your comment was directed to my post. Since I specifically suggested combing two categories, I wasn't exactly going for canon per se, but since I love to debate, I'll respond anyway.

A geas of speaking is likely to be inferred as an incantation geas, but since the terms "geas of speaking" isn't written in canon, it isn't a necessary interpretation. For example, imagine the following conversation:

GM: Can you explain a geas of speaking?

Player: Sure, it's a ritual geas requiring me to speak within every 24 hour period to fulfill.

In this case, however, an Incantation geas would NOT be canon. A geas, by defintion, per canon, is a restriction. Since an incantion geas does not in any way limit a power that can be used only be speaking, it is not a restriction on that power, and therefore, not a geas.

Since the likely interpretation of a geas of speaking is not canon, we must turn to the alternate, less likely, interpretations. The first possibility is the ritual geas suggested above. Once again, as a ritual geas, it isn't a restriction because it would be immediately fulfilled upon the use of the power (although you might argue a technical restriction because speaking and use of magic would be simultaneous, and might require at least one non-magical word first). You might, of course, modify the interpretation by requiring the adept to speak words of prayer, or speak to a specific person (perhaps a relative, or even the adept himself).

Another possibility is a condition geas in which the person must be in a condition of speaking, or more specifically, a condition of constant rambling. This, of course, is a quite different geas of speaking than an incantation geas, because it does not have requirements of speaking "clearly and audibly." Actually, this could be a very effective limitation. The use of commanding voice requires the target to be able to hear and understand the adept, so a geas of speaking requiring the adept to be whispering or rambling in a low voice could be an effective restriction, greatly limiting the distance over which the power can be used. If you want a canon geas of speaking over the power of commanding voice, make it a condition geas.

Of course, I needed a geas of speaking that would be an actual restriction on three separate powers, so I went for a non-canon combination of a ritual (which I mistakently called special action) and condition geas.

Now look what you've done. You made me argue that a geas of speaking in this case couldn't be an Incantation geas. But if it can't be an incantation geas, then I didn't exploit a loophole. No loophole = no irony = not funny.

Non canon discussion? Your GM can house rule all he wants then.

Incantation Geas: The charactor has to speak, chant or sing in a loud voice to make magic.

Anyway, if you apply Incantation Geas to the 3 abilities, then you can kiss the subtle approach goodbye if you want to use it. There is your limitation.