Planar Binding: Reasonable Commands

[Mushroom Ninja]

Planar Binding is a very flavorful and potentially extremely powerful spell. However, it suffers from rather vague wording in a few sections. Most troublesome, for me at least, is the clause "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to". Now, the impossible demands section makes enough sense -- no ordering a dretch to kill the Tarrasque or bring about global peace. But the "unreasonable commands" section is a wee bit confusing. What exactly should be considered unreasonable? Now, as with most wordings of this sort, this question is unanswerable through the careful examination of RAW, so this is a highly subjective question. What do you, fellow playgrounders, make of this? What sort of commands do you rule as reasonable in your campaigns?

[Gamer Girl]

Anything I don't like?

After a command does not have to be impossible to be unreasonable.

Commanding the creature to say ''find me ten rings of wishing'' is unreasonable.

[Gurgeh]

What's reasonable and what's not reasonable would vary depending on what you're binding. A bearded devil might view a command to slaughter all of the commoners in a village as reasonable; a lemure would consider it unreasonable because it would find the task too difficult, and a lantern archon would consider it unreasonable because the task fundamentally conflicts with its alignment.

It's also influenced to a degree by the individual personality of whatever's been bound. Some outsiders might be particularly generous or stingy, some might be overconfident while others might be paranoid. Get into the shoes of the creature that's being asked to do all of this and decide for yourself what would or would not be reasonable.

[Jack_Simth]

What's reasonable and what's not reasonable would vary depending on what you're binding. A bearded devil might view a command to slaughter all of the commoners in a village as reasonable;
"Bearded devils are aggressive and love to fight. They revel in their battle frenzy, spreading mayhem among their foes. " - yeah. Getting them to fight? Not really a problem.

a lemure would consider it unreasonable because it would find the task too difficultI don't know... I figured a lemure wouldn't be able to complete the task due to the lemure's mindless nature, thus getting bound to the task for 1 day per caster level, as it can't complete the task... only being able by it's description to attack anything it sees...

, and a lantern archon would consider it unreasonable because the task fundamentally conflicts with its alignment.
Agreed.


It's also influenced to a degree by the individual personality of whatever's been bound. Some outsiders might be particularly generous or stingy, some might be overconfident while others might be paranoid. Get into the shoes of the creature that's being asked to do all of this and decide for yourself what would or would not be reasonable.
Don't forget the Efreeti, which have a racial hatred of servitude ... and so likely won't agree to *any* task without payment under that clause.

[NNescio]

Don't forget the Efreeti, which have a racial hatred of servitude ... and so likely won't agree to *any* task without payment under that clause.

"I have an interesting business preposition for you.

I want one Wish, granted fully in accordance with the letter and spirit of my wording.

In return, I agree to use two of your wishes on your behalf.

I'll make the first wish on your behalf (up-front payment), you'll grant my wish on the second, and I'll make the final wish on your behalf, again."

Sounds like a rather lopsided deal in favour of the Efreeti, which he has no reason to refuse.

Standard DM fiat would be to put some sort of pact or contract in place to prevent Efreeti from bartering away wishes just like that. Which is quite reasonable, since otherwise practically any spellcaster would be doing the same.

Alternatively, the particular Efreeti being called could have exhausted his allotment of wishes for the day, but this makes less sense if it happens all the time.

[Zaq]

"I have an interesting business preposition for you.

I want one Wish, granted fully in accordance with the letter and spirit of my wording.

In return, I agree to use two of your wishes on your behalf.

I'll make the first wish on your behalf (up-front payment), you'll grant my wish on the second, and I'll make the final wish on your behalf, again."

Sounds like a rather lopsided deal in favour of the Efreeti, which he has no reason to refuse.

Standard DM fiat would be to put some sort of pact or contract in place to prevent Efreeti from bartering away wishes just like that. Which is quite reasonable, since otherwise practically any spellcaster would be doing the same.

Alternatively, the particular Efreeti being called could have exhausted his allotment of wishes for the day, but this makes less sense if it happens all the time.

I'd be wary of anything that gives an efreeti a tool that it could conceivably use against you. Even if it comes out "ahead" on the deal, they inherently hate and resent being forced to grant mortal wishes, and I would not call BS on a GM who says that the efreeti uses one of its wishes to make something very nasty happen to you. (I don't think that wishes should automatically result in bad things happening to the player, but when efreeti are involved? Yeah, good luck.)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

'Guard this area from intruders' is also a good 'reasonable command' that doesn't require them to leave the immediate vicinity. Although you'd best delineate a time frame. And be sure to exclude yourself from the 'intruders' category. Extraplanar critters tend to be picky about details like that.

[LordBlades]

I'd be wary of anything that gives an efreeti a tool that it could conceivably use against you. Even if it comes out "ahead" on the deal, they inherently hate and resent being forced to grant mortal wishes, and I would not call BS on a GM who says that the efreeti uses one of its wishes to make something very nasty happen to you. (I don't think that wishes should automatically result in bad things happening to the player, but when efreeti are involved? Yeah, good luck.)

What if he's not forced? Offer him a free choice: he either takes the deal, or he's free to go.

Also, offer to call him every day for the same deal if he doesn't screw you over. This way he's actually doing himself a disservice if he does.

If you're in a threatening mood, add that if he does screw you over, you'll use Contact Other Plane to find out the name of the being he hates most, call that being with Planar Binding and let him/her do whatever they want to the bound efreet.

All of the above should be plenty of reasons to get a sane efreet collaborate

[Jack_Simth]

Sounds like a rather lopsided deal in favour of the Efreeti, which he has no reason to refuse.Actually, he does. An Efreeti literally cannot fail an Intimidate check against a fire Memphit to coerce the Fire Memphit to do what the Efreeti wants. Additionally, in such circumstances, he's under no obligation to actually grant the wishes, so if the Fire Memphit decides to try and by tricky, the Efreeti simply doesn't grant the wish, then beats the Fire Memphit to death, and tries it again with a *different* slave. Sure, he can't use the Wishes directly himself, but he can force a slave to do so, and have the benefit of all three, rather than just two. And they have a racial hatred of servitude. Combine the two, and you're not offering him a good deal at all.

[Pickford]

Impossible: Something the monster is incapable of doing.
Unreasonable: Doing something that would end the creatures existence or cause absurd hardship. (i.e. Eternal indentured servitude with no escape clauses.)

In any event, with Planar Binding the player isn't required to offer anything at all, and granting three wishes to a player using it's 1/day ability is well within the realm of the reasonable. The player could just as easily make the request: 'You will serve me for 2 minutes.' or, per the spell "If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions (such as "Wait here" or "Defend this area against attack"), the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free."

Given that open ended requests are "reasonable", it stands that virtually anything which won't cause death/permanent and/or certain disability to the creature is reasonable.

[Psyren]

It depends on the DM; for myself, just about anything that cannot be "subverted by a cunning recipient" would fall under that clause. Binding Efreeti should never yield straightforward results in my book.