PDA

View Full Version : Contractual Magic - for an unnamed vote-created setting



zabbarot
2013-05-23, 07:09 PM
What is Contract Magic?
Contract magic is the ability to create a verbal or spoken agreement, especially one concerning services or transfer of non-tangibles, with another creature that will be upheld by magic. This makes one of two assumptions, either the universe is to some degree inherently lawful and upholds the contract or the contract maker is privy to a very specific form of magic.* Either way, all that matters is that the contract is upheld. There is an exchange of goods or services and the contract is complete.

This is very important, every contract is negotiated with a price. The price can vary widely, from actual coin to intangibles like memories. The only thing that matters is that the price is paid. There are consequences for those who attempt to break a contract, and they are not forgiving.

Now you may already be familiar with some things that resemble contract magic in ways, such as a Vow of Poverty or the ability of Binders, and you would be correct in assuming that these things are related. These things are in some ways just simpler contract magic. For binders the contract is always the same, the use of the binder's sense for the use of the vestige's powers. A Vow on the other hand is a contract with a higher power (usually Good) stating that in return for certain boons, you will refrain from specific actions that the higher power finds unsavory (usually considered a form of self sacrifice).

So what is a contract user?
A user of contract magic goes a step beyond this. He is aware of the laws higher powers operate under and able to broker deals with them to his benefit. Contracts can be as basic as protection from fire in exchange for a bit of lamp oil, or as serious as consigning your soul for power.

The most important thing to remember is the contract user can make deals with just about anything, from a simple imp or lantern archon to the gods themselves and even to (or between) the average people around him. The other thing to remember is that all involved parties must agree to their side of a contract.


*Just fluff but worth conversation, so let's vote on this.

Created for this particular thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274008)
Original Post:
So we voted for contract magic, and just recently voted for a homebrewed contract magic class. So first off what comes to mind when you think of contract magic? One of the major things that comes to mind for me is the lore behind the contracts from Changeling. That a fae somewhere created a contract with the air or envy or some other embodied concept, and has extended the benefits to you.

In my mind a contract magic class should be a savvy business man in a way. If what a binder does could be considered making deals, then the contract magician is the cut throat lawyer who's going to take your for all you've got. They should be all about making that Faustian bargain and using loopholes to be sure they get out clean.

So again, I ask, what would you like to see in this class?

Frathe
2013-05-23, 07:41 PM
I'd like to see something along the lines of the magicians of the Bartimaeus trilogy, who have no magical power of their own, but invoke spirits and djinns to do their bidding. I'd like a wide range of spirits/concepts that compacts can be made with, so that the class can have a wide variety of theming--anything from Mephistopheles (of the Faust legend) to a Fey patron to the Gods themselves, or even abstract concepts (like the thing you mentioned).

A question--is this the quintessential deal with the devil? That is, do you have to give something up, like your soul, or something of comparable value? You mentioned loopholes, but those don't seem like something to put in on purpose. What we can have is a price for entry.

Ninjadeadbeard
2013-05-23, 08:29 PM
A question--is this the quintessential deal with the devil? That is, do you have to give something up, like your soul, or something of comparable value? You mentioned loopholes, but those don't seem like something to put in on purpose. What we can have is a price for entry.

Well, Binders who fail their binding check have to act like the being they are channeling. A binder who channels a Djinn who hated the local sun deity and fails their check will be unable to speak with a sun worshiper without insulting them.

It's a pure RP penalty, but the flavor is just what you're looking for, I think.

Grinner
2013-05-23, 08:41 PM
If you're looking for inspiration, I've always found Ron Edward's Sorcerer good for this sort of thing. Combine Sorcerer's concepts with Changeling's Contracts (i.e. a tangible price, even if just for RP purposes), and I think it would be fine.

zabbarot
2013-05-24, 08:43 AM
I'd like to see something along the lines of the magicians of the Bartimaeus trilogy, who have no magical power of their own, but invoke spirits and djinns to do their bidding. I'd like a wide range of spirits/concepts that compacts can be made with, so that the class can have a wide variety of theming--anything from Mephistopheles (of the Faust legend) to a Fey patron to the Gods themselves, or even abstract concepts (like the thing you mentioned).

To me this sounds a bit similar to what can be accomplished with a planar binding spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm) or general summoning. Instead of having them do your bidding I was imagining that you basically trade them something for a bit of their power, which I guess at some levels could be their direct intervention, depending on what you were contracting. With enough guile you should be able to trick beings into serving you indefinitely.


A question--is this the quintessential deal with the devil? That is, do you have to give something up, like your soul, or something of comparable value? You mentioned loopholes, but those don't seem like something to put in on purpose. What we can have is a price for entry.

I figure the contracts should be based around trades of equal value, but in general be waited in favor of who you're contracting. Then we could have something similar to the binding check. Higher roll, less penalty. So we've abstracted the loophole bit. If they roll well enough their character managed to negotiate it in a way that they don't pay anything(or significantly less, this will be related to balance.)


Well, Binders who fail their binding check have to act like the being they are channeling. A binder who channels a Djinn who hated the local sun deity and fails their check will be unable to speak with a sun worshiper without insulting them.

It's a pure RP penalty, but the flavor is just what you're looking for, I think.

This is where I figure it should start, and negotiating for more powerful abilities would have higher base prices. These could be all kinds of things, but should fit thematically with what you made the deal with. A devil will ultimately want suffering. So they may require you to commit an evil act as payment, or your soul for something much stronger.

Vauron
2013-05-24, 01:12 PM
Something that I think would fit with contractual magic would be the idea of the geis. It'd be an agreement that, if broken, brings ruin upon the one who broke the oath. Meanwhile, keeping to a geis gives you power.

One way of paying contracts should be through service. For instance, Apollo will agree to ensure your rival develops a nasty case of consumption, but you must agree to clear out the den of yeth hounds that have been praying on the herds of a nearby shepherd.

While I have no problem with evil offering easy deals or ones that can be made quickly, the vile should not be the only ones to offer power. It should be entirely possible to contract with a hound archon for the ability to speak in tongues or a water elemental to gain the ability to breath water. Perhaps the darker powers demand less early on, in an effort to make the greater prices seem like just another small step compared to what has already been paid.

Gildedragon
2013-05-24, 02:34 PM
The "evil wants to be played with" angle can be gotten by having the "vestiges" lend more powerful abilities but with a much higher check DC.

Something that'd be good if going the binder angle is proto-vestiges whose power scales by level. You develop a "celestial" vestige, with a number of modular abilities per x levels and special requirements; ditto for other entities; abd voila you get a large number of entities to bargain with.
The ignore special requirements feat needs to get tossed out: fulfilling the reqs is part of the bargain

zabbarot
2013-05-24, 03:25 PM
Here's some ideas I had.


Use the cleric domains to make a list of general things contracts can be formed with.
Contracts have a base price at a base DC, the price will go up or down with DC.
As Vauron said, prices can be services (i.e. good wants good done)
Other other possible things could range from something simple like not eating for a day to something really big like giving them your soul.
Some contracts will have prerequisites (air doesn't like earth, vice versa)
At some Level Contract makers can make contracts with regular people (small bonuses with a geas-like effect)
There should be lots of modifiers to contract making. Such as a penalty for being under duress. (Your soul for an instant teleport sounds better when you're about to get eaten by a dragon.)

zabbarot
2013-06-06, 02:27 PM
Edited the first post with some (fluffy) information, and we have something to vote on.

What binds contracts?
1. The universe is inherently lawful and upholds them.
2. The contract user's magic.


I personally prefer 1. Since a god could easily break a contract if it was just the mortal's will binding it, but I'd love to hear argument for the latter. I'm sure there's a good explanation for why the second could work.

Grinner
2013-06-06, 07:19 PM
1 - Karma does all of the dirty work.

Gildedragon
2013-06-06, 08:55 PM
2.- there might be things inviolable in the world, but it is the power of the ritual and its formulae that bind the entity. Attempting to make a contract with too powerful a being is dangerous, for you might fail spectacularly and get ripped off; or the being might uphold its oath, as long as it furthers their purpose.

Ninjadeadbeard
2013-06-06, 09:41 PM
1. The very Universe itself abhors a broken contract, and will "eject" any offenders.

Vauron
2013-06-06, 11:08 PM
I'd prefer 1, frankly. While oathbreakers would be interesting, they should have to come up with cunning plans to weasel out of their oaths. That isn't so possible when raw power is a viable path.

Acanous
2013-06-07, 12:06 AM
2. It follows with the ruleset already in play, and we *Know* the universe is not inherantly lawful (In fact, there's far more chaos than law.)
Perhaps have there be a penalty to your save scaling with how bad the breach of contract was, but it should not be an impossibility.
Further, Wizards tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down regularly from level one. If the Universe enforced these contracts, Spellcasters would laugh as Mundanes struggle.

zabbarot
2013-06-07, 08:14 AM
Alright so right now we're the voting stands at:

1. ||||
2. ||

I'll close that out tomorrow morning, because that's when I check these things. Like Noon GMT, for those who need a solid deadline.

I like the arguments for and against we've gotten so far :D

Gnorman
2013-06-08, 03:36 AM
So I find this a very interesting idea, but I have a question:

Is the goal to contract (1) with entities, or (2) for services?

For example, if I want to become more resistant to fire, do I call up one of a wide variety of entities that might offer such a boon, be they devil or efreet or angel? Or do I call up an efreet first, and then negotiate for fire resistance as part of a larger package deal?

Some spitballing below:

Entity: Whom (or what) you're contracting with. Perhaps there is a token price just to bring them to the table, much like a spell component. To entice the imp to even consider your offer, you've got to bring some rancid meat for him to snack on.
Contracting DC: The DC to make the contract, obviously. What is the DC based on? An Intelligence check? A Charisma check? Diplomacy? Bluff? What kind of modifiers can you get? What are the benefits/penalties, if any, for spectacular success or tragic failure? How many contracts can you have at any one time? Are some contracts mutually exclusive?
Benefit: What you get when you successfully make the contract. I like the idea of using cleric domains here - maybe you get a "contract power" no matter what your contracting result was, and certain spell-like abilities if you succeed. For example, you make a contract with an efreet for his services. The DC is 25. Even if you fail the DC, you get Fire Resistance 10 for the day. If you meet the DC, you get to use Fireball 1/day as a spell-like ability. If you beat the DC by ten or more, you get to use it 3/day. Your skill at contracting allows you to negotiate better deals for the price.
Price: What you have to pay for the benefit. I think services are better than items or gold (more interesting effects), but you could easily throw a wide range of payments here. An efreet might exact as payment: "Set fire to an inhabited structure today." Negative payments could be possible too - a dryad might exact as payment: "Do no harm to any plants today." Actually, the latter might be more interesting, as the efreet's requirement affords a lot of latitude in putting off the payment until the end of the day.
Breach: What happens if you don't pay the price. Could be as simple as "the entity refuses to contract with you again for a week," or as dire as "the universe strikes you down for refusing to conform to its laws, take 4d6 CON damage."

zabbarot
2013-06-08, 07:27 AM
First things first, voting is closed. So the universe enforces contracts, people just learn how to make them.

Moving one.

So I find this a very interesting idea, but I have a question:

Is the goal to contract (1) with entities, or (2) for services?

For example, if I want to become more resistant to fire, do I call up one of a wide variety of entities that might offer such a boon, be they devil or efreet or angel? Or do I call up an efreet first, and then negotiate for fire resistance as part of a larger package deal?

I would say the goal is to contract for whatever services you need. If you can get a fire effect just as easily from any of those three entities it should be more about which on you'd rather deal with, which gave me an idea I'll go into below.



Entity: Whom (or what) you're contracting with. Perhaps there is a token price just to bring them to the table, much like a spell component. To entice the imp to even consider your offer, you've got to bring some rancid meat for him to snack on.
This makes me think of a middle eastern custom. Usually a merchant will offer gifts so people feel obligated to return the favor by purchasing something. I think something like this could be a good optional price for a bonus to the contract making check.



Contracting DC: The DC to make the contract, obviously. What is the DC based on? An Intelligence check? A Charisma check? Diplomacy? Bluff? What kind of modifiers can you get? What are the benefits/penalties, if any, for spectacular success or tragic failure? How many contracts can you have at any one time? Are some contracts mutually exclusive?

Diplomacy is my first thought, but skill modifiers can vary so widely and are too easy to minmax. So I'm thinking it should probably be based on class level like the binder's check. I'm imagining this as a magic system to replace vancian casting completely for the setting we're using it in, so I'd like to see the check based on level and then Int, Wis, or Cha based on the flavor of the particular class using it.
So far possible modifiers I'm thinking are things like:

The number of contracts you're already in.
If you've upheld previous contracts.
If you've defaulted on previous contracts.
Your alignment.
What other entities you've contracted with.
Stress at time of contract making. (combat or imminent doom)

So in some ways you'll kind of have a cosmic credit score to manage. I imagine making contracts should be a noncombat action, like a wizard preparing his spells. Bonuses or penalties for criticals have yet to be determined mostly because the base effects haven't really been figured out either, but I feel that their severity should be based on what else a primary contract making class can do. If they're 1/2 BAB and full of miserable saves, we should probably keep the penalty from being too much so it doesn't become russian roulette. The max number of contracts you can have active also depends on their strength, but I was thinking it should get harder to form new contracts while you are under others. Like each additional contract past a certain point would have add an increasing negative modifier to your contracting check. And I'm not sure if some contracts should be mutually exclusive or some suppliers should be mutually exclusive. Ie you could get fire and water both from some flavor of archon, but you can't get one from a demon and the other from an archon.



Benefit: What you get when you successfully make the contract. I like the idea of using cleric domains here - maybe you get a "contract power" no matter what your contracting result was, and certain spell-like abilities if you succeed. For example, you make a contract with an efreet for his services. The DC is 25. Even if you fail the DC, you get Fire Resistance 10 for the day. If you meet the DC, you get to use Fireball 1/day as a spell-like ability. If you beat the DC by ten or more, you get to use it 3/day. Your skill at contracting allows you to negotiate better deals for the price.

This is definitely a possibility, we haven't actually nailed down what the contracts should do.



Price: What you have to pay for the benefit. I think services are better than items or gold (more interesting effects), but you could easily throw a wide range of payments here. An efreet might exact as payment: "Set fire to an inhabited structure today." Negative payments could be possible too - a dryad might exact as payment: "Do no harm to any plants today." Actually, the latter might be more interesting, as the efreet's requirement affords a lot of latitude in putting off the payment until the end of the day.

Being able to put off they payment just gives a larger chance that the contract will be breached, and the penalty is probably in favor of the entity you made a deal with.(Like a credit card :smalltongue:) But here is the idea I got earlier the contract will be arrayed by type (most likely using cleric domains) and by level of effect. Multiple entities could all give you fire, war, or light, but each would want a different price. So I'm thinking the payments will be linked to the entity you are contracting with and the level of the effect instead of the domain of the effect. So there will probably be some chart making involved in this... but I feel like that's probably a better way to break this down. The other idea I've had is to leave some payments a little open to interpretation by the DM. Like if a demon would like you to kill some people, he may want you to burn them up if you bargain for fire. Thematic interpretation, I guess.



Breach: What happens if you don't pay the price. Could be as simple as "the entity refuses to contract with you again for a week," or as dire as "the universe strikes you down for refusing to conform to its laws, take 4d6 CON damage."

This is very much in line with what I was thinking.

Grinner
2013-06-08, 10:19 AM
So I find this a very interesting idea, but I have a question:

Is the goal to contract (1) with entities, or (2) for services?

For example, if I want to become more resistant to fire, do I call up one of a wide variety of entities that might offer such a boon, be they devil or efreet or angel? Or do I call up an efreet first, and then negotiate for fire resistance as part of a larger package deal?

Ummm....both? You've got to make a deal with someone, and the idea is that they do something for you. Whether they break into the castle to collect intelligence or grant you a blessing is your decision.


Entity: Whom (or what) you're contracting with. Perhaps there is a token price just to bring them to the table, much like a spell component. To entice the imp to even consider your offer, you've got to bring some rancid meat for him to snack on.

Any entity worth negotiating with should be fairly powerful and unique. I suppose you could contract an imp for simple services, though. In any case, the possible benefits an entity can provide should scale with their power.


Contracting DC: The DC to make the contract, obviously. What is the DC based on? An Intelligence check? A Charisma check? Diplomacy? Bluff? What kind of modifiers can you get? What are the benefits/penalties, if any, for spectacular success or tragic failure? How many contracts can you have at any one time? Are some contracts mutually exclusive?

Nothing. You can initiate the contracting process anywhere and anytime with the appropriate preparations. Each party should state their requirements, and after both parties have accepted the terms of the agreement, the contract goes into effect. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

You do need to roll when one party disputes the other's terms. I guess that could be a simple Diplomacy roll, but I think the process for negotiating disputes should be laid out a little more clearly. What if the player wishes to use Intimidate or leverage some kind of lean?

Also, the prices various entities require for various services should be more or less standardized, for the players' sake.


Benefit: What you get when you successfully make the contract. I like the idea of using cleric domains here - maybe you get a "contract power" no matter what your contracting result was, and certain spell-like abilities if you succeed. For example, you make a contract with an efreet for his services. The DC is 25. Even if you fail the DC, you get Fire Resistance 10 for the day. If you meet the DC, you get to use Fireball 1/day as a spell-like ability. If you beat the DC by ten or more, you get to use it 3/day. Your skill at contracting allows you to negotiate better deals for the price.

If the negotiations fall out, they fall out, and you don't get any prizes for showing up. A skilled negotiator should be able to argue for better terms, though.


Price: What you have to pay for the benefit. I think services are better than items or gold (more interesting effects), but you could easily throw a wide range of payments here. An efreet might exact as payment: "Set fire to an inhabited structure today." Negative payments could be possible too - a dryad might exact as payment: "Do no harm to any plants today." Actually, the latter might be more interesting, as the efreet's requirement affords a lot of latitude in putting off the payment until the end of the day.

Agreed.


Breach: What happens if you don't pay the price. Could be as simple as "the entity refuses to contract with you again for a week," or as dire as "the universe strikes you down for refusing to conform to its laws, take 4d6 CON damage."

Some kind of ongoing punishment made as long as the contract remains broken.

I want to say a permanent penalty (worth determined in gold in accordance with the magic item creation chart), but that might seem a bit harsh to some.

Frathe
2013-06-08, 12:38 PM
Price: What you have to pay for the benefit. I think services are better than items or gold (more interesting effects), but you could easily throw a wide range of payments here. An efreet might exact as payment: "Set fire to an inhabited structure today." Negative payments could be possible too - a dryad might exact as payment: "Do no harm to any plants today." Actually, the latter might be more interesting, as the efreet's requirement affords a lot of latitude in putting off the payment until the end of the day.The problem with negative payments is that you could get a bunch of negative payments that you didn't expect to come up ("hurt no plants"; "hurt no reptiles"), and then, unless you're unlucky or your DM intentionally puts those things in, you essentially didn't pay a price. Edit: My brother just pointed out that you'd technically hurt plants just by walking on grass, but the other example still stands.

zabbarot
2013-06-08, 03:28 PM
It would probably make the most sense for negative payments to be either only for lower level effects or very long term. Like eat no meat for a month, or even permanent like the druids vow not to use metal. That particularly ties into my idea to rebuild/fluff other magic using classes into contract users. Things like the paladins' code of conduct could be part of a permanent contract for their smite ability.

Vauron
2013-06-08, 04:38 PM
I think its worth addressing the scope possible of contract magic, specifically of duration. From the sound of things, a few of you are thinking similar to the binder, where the pact is just for a day. My thoughts were often turned to longer term contracts, or contracts that last until a deed has been accomplished.

As an example, one might make a contract with a pixie to have it guide you safely through the demense of an very unfriendly frostwind virago. The contract would be completed once you were safely through and paid the price. Alternatively, one might make a pact with an archon to gain the tongues ability, with the price being the founding and funding of an orphanage. So long as you keep funding said orphanage, you keep the tongues.

Ravens_cry
2013-06-08, 04:58 PM
Dang, I was hoping for some crunch.

Gnorman
2013-06-08, 05:10 PM
In order to keep 1st level characters from signing away their souls for gamebreaking power (at least, for 1st level), it may be a good idea to include some sort of Patron Level, much like vestiges.

A 1st level Drafter should be making pacts with pixies and imps for minor power. A 10th level Drafter should be making pacts with glabrezus and astral devas.

I don't think it should be based on price alone - there should be some kind of skill or ability check to prevent it from being governed by DM fiat. Standardized prices are a necessity in my mind.

Maybe you only get a certain number of negotiations per day, or you can only have a certain number of contracts in existence at one time. To get a new one, you have to break or complete an old one.


Dang, I was hoping for some crunch.

I might have a proof of concept up within the next couple of days.

zabbarot
2013-06-08, 06:02 PM
I'm glad this is taking off, I was worried I'd be making the whole thing myself :P

Ok, so I figure when you make a contract you just need to have a representative who can make that contract with you. It's probably easier to keep this part a little abstract. At low level a low level representative will likely show up but the amount of power they are willing to give you is related to how much they feel you can handle (read as your level). So in that way it would still be similar to other existing magic systems.

Also I figured there would be 3 primary types of contracts:
Indenture - basically a long term summon, they stick around and help you.

Service - a one time deal; probably something emulating a specific spell; short duration

Title - a permanent gain of some sort; higher price; these could be class abilities and you would only every get a few.

I pulled the names from and mimicked them after contract law.

Grinner
2013-06-08, 06:07 PM
I pulled the names from and mimicked them after contract law.

I think we should be pulling a lot of things from contract law. :smallwink:

zabbarot
2013-06-08, 06:48 PM
I think we should be pulling a lot of things from contract law. :smallwink:

I've been doing a lot of reading on contract law :P think I went through all the relevant wikipedia pages. The only law classes I took in college were more on the side of criminal law so I don't have any relevant books.

Gnorman
2013-06-08, 07:11 PM
I lived and breathed contract law for six months, so I'm happy to provide input on that front.

We definitely need to work in efficient breach (allowing you to get out of a contract without paying its price), assignment (allowing party members to benefit from your contracts), and perhaps a new unblockable damage type, "liquidated damage."

Oh dear, I think I may have gone and decided to make a whole new subsystem based on law.

TuggyNE
2013-06-08, 07:25 PM
Oh dear, I think I may have gone and decided to make a whole new subsystem based on law.

Now your journey to the dark side is complete. :smalltongue:

zabbarot
2013-06-08, 07:34 PM
Oh dear, I think I may have gone and decided to make a whole new subsystem based on law.

If it makes you feel better that's what I wanted.

Grinner
2013-06-08, 08:03 PM
I've been doing a lot of reading on contract law :P think I went through all the relevant wikipedia pages. The only law classes I took in college were more on the side of criminal law so I don't have any relevant books.

That's good. I've learned that doing too much research inhibits creativity.

Gnorman
2013-06-08, 08:15 PM
That's good. I've learned that doing too much research inhibits creativity.

Though sometimes you have to come up with crazy creative scenarios to keep yourself sane when cramming.

Vauron
2013-06-08, 09:36 PM
As far as reasons to limit the contracts you can make early on, how about this:


The mighty are proud entities who don't care enough to answer a low level supplicant. You have to prove yourself first somehow or force them to the negotiation table. Perhaps something like the Special Requirements of a vestige, but no feat should ever be printed to get around it.
More powerful effects require more powerful patrons.