How many of you allow free Planar Bindings?

[gogogome]

As in freedom from entrapment is enough of a reward for their service.

The service is follow around the caller for 1day per caster level doing as told (mainly killing stuff). Creature in question is max hd of the planar binding, so we're dealing with 6hds, 12hds, and 18hds exclusively. One of my players enjoys pit fiends as a bodyguard.

[Coidzor]

If it's super minor to the point where it's not worth haggling over, maybe.

Usually they'd at least hold out for the equivalent of a pizza, though.

[LTwerewolf]

Depends on the creature in question and the task requested.

Example: "Hey Mrs. Astral Deva. Would you mind flying through that cold trap over a pit of acid to press that button for us so we can go in and murder a necromancer that has been terrorizing a village?"
Asnwer: "Yeah sure."

Example: "Hey Mr Efreeti, give me three wishes exactly how I want them with no funny business and by my great mercy you will be set free until the next time I feel like having free wishes."
Answer: "I will grant you all of what you are deserving of."
Wisher: "Hey why am I a puddle of agony being crushed on all sides by hellfire?"

[gogogome]

Depends on the creature in question and the task requested.

Task in question is follow around the caller for 1day per caster level doing as told (mainly killing stuff). Creature in question is max hd of the planar binding, so we're dealing with 6hds, 12hds, and 18hds exclusively. One of my players enjoys pit fiends as a bodyguard.

[LTwerewolf]

Task in question is follow around the caller for 1day per caster level doing as told (mainly killing stuff). Creature in question is max hd of the planar binding, so we're dealing with 6hds, 12hds, and 18hds exclusively. One of my players enjoys pit fiends as a bodyguard.

Absolutely not. Pit fiends are not lackeys. You are the pit fiend's lackey. We're talking cost in souls (plural) for them to degrade themselves to being some pathetic mortal's pet.

[gogogome]

Absolutely not. Pit fiends are not lackeys. You are the pit fiend's lackey. We're talking cost in souls (plural) for them to degrade themselves to being some pathetic mortal's pet.

Well to be fair, there are lots of literature out there where even demon/devil lords/princes are subservient. I forgot who the guy was that was imprisoned by some female spellcaster for years and they were romantically attracted to each other or something. So one can argue there are vastly different pit fiend personalities where some are deviously subservient while others are downright prideful.

In anycase how about non pit fiends? Like the 6hd and 12hds.

[LTwerewolf]

Well to be fair, there are lots of literature out there where even demon/devil lords/princes are subservient. I forgot who the guy was that was imprisoned by some female spellcaster for years and they were romantically attracted to each other or something. So one can argue there are vastly different pit fiend personalities where some are deviously subservient while others are downright prideful.

In anycase how about non pit fiends? Like the 6hd and 12hds.

Just because Drizzt isn't going to murder you before you can react doesn't mean you should trust all drow. One anecdotal piece doesn't mean all pit fiends immediately forget they're superior to you.

With non pit fiends, it again depends on the creature in question. Some don't mind so long as your goals are something they can get behind. Others are prideful and do not want to serve. A blanket answer doesn't work here. You can pretty much bet any evil creature isn't going to give you a freebie unless they're getting something out of it themselves, and even then it still probably isn't free.

Note: Planar binding doesn't require them to be honest. They can tell you they'll agree to it, then murder you as soon as you let them out.

[Aegis013]

Depends on the game and the group dynamic. I don't really mind an additional monster tagging along and helping out the players for awhile, so after discussing it with the group as a whole, we would decide if this would improve the game experience or not.

However, if the player's intent is to summon an army by expending all of their spell slots, or abusing the 1/d time frame you mentioned, maybe not, just because having a combat in which the DM's turn takes 80x longer than every players' turn is problematic, especially since you know players are going to ask "OK, what's going on?" when their turn comes up as a result so you'll have to explain it 2-3 times every round, just part of a horrible spiral of poor pacing shenanigans. If the medium allows for it, then it falls to other considerations: largely the group dynamic, if everybody is on board, and then if I, as DM, can still provide meaningful challenges in the game world despite this (or whatever) tactic are the determining factors. Also as DM I can always veto things I just really don't like, but I'll always try to give some kind of justification for my ruling.

[LTwerewolf]

Also be aware that a pit fiend would probably allow itself to be called. They have greater dispel, and nothing about the planar binding spell nor the magic circle prevents them from casting it. They're not trapped, they're angry at the hubris of the mortal, and they're looking forward to their open invitation to wreak havok.

[gogogome]

Also be aware that a pit fiend would probably allow itself to be called. They have greater dispel, and nothing about the planar binding spell nor the magic circle prevents them from casting it. They're not trapped, they're angry at the hubris of the mortal, and they're looking forward to their open invitation to wreak havok.

I'm sorry but you're wrong here. The spell explicitly and specifically states that the creature inside cannot for any reason directly or indirectly disturb the circle and free himself.

[LTwerewolf]

They're not dispelling the circle. They're dispelling any forbiddance or dimensional anchor spells. They can greater teleport, they don't need to bother with the circle.

[Troacctid]

In the case of pit fiends in particular, Fiendish Codex II is extremely specific as to what kinds of payment they will or will not accept based on the length and difficulty of the task. There's a whole chart in the sidebar on page 30 with lists of positive and negative modifiers to the opposed Charisma check, and if your modifier is lower than +0 (which it probably will be if you offer nothing), you automatically fail to strike a bargain.

The negative modifiers in the chart, as well as the positive modifiers for GP bribes, seem on point and can (and should) be considered generally applicable even for non-devils.

[Crake]

The whole point of the planar binding spell is to FORCE creatures to do your bidding. Bargaining with them merely gives you a bonus on the check. If you truely want a bartered service without the target holding a grudge, that's what planar ally is for. In my book, depending on how you look at it, all planar bindings are free, in that you don't have to give the creature a thing in return, but they're all not free in the fact that if the creature is capable of it, they will seek out revenge for the torment and humiliation of having become some mortal's servant.

The other way i tend to allow it to go down is if the caster and the creature have some kind of pre-existing relationship, even if it's just a sending sent via a summone quasit to find someone who's interested and capable of performing services, at which point, you summon them and get straight down to business, like they were just anyone else you wanted to barter a service from. Obviously this requires a level of trust, because they could just double cross you, since there's no magic keeping them from doing so, but that's why you would limit that kind of activity to those you can trus to hold up their end of the bargain.

[Deophaun]

They're not dispelling the circle. They're dispelling any forbiddance or dimensional anchor spells. They can greater teleport, they don't need to bother with the circle.
Yeah, no. They cannot disturb the circle. The dimensional anchor is on the circle. Ipso ergo propter hoc trecorum satis dee, they ain't dispelling it.

[LTwerewolf]

Pretty sure the wording is thus:

You can prevent the creature’s extradimensional escape by casting a dimensional anchor spell on it, but you must cast the spell before the creature acts. If you are successful, the anchor effect lasts as long as the magic circle does.

You're casting on the creature, not the circle.

It continues here

A successful diagram allows you to cast a dimensional anchor spell on the magic circle during the round before casting any summoning spell.

It does not say you're casting it part of the spell, it says you're casting it on the spell.

[Deophaun]

Pretty sure the wording is thus:

You can prevent the creature’s extradimensional escape by casting a dimensional anchor spell on it, but you must cast the spell before the creature acts. If you are successful, the anchor effect lasts as long as the magic circle does.

You're casting on the creature, not the circle.

You wording is wrong:
A successful diagram allows you to cast a dimensional anchor spell on the magic circle during the round before casting any summoning spell. The anchor holds any called creatures in the magic circle for 24 hours per caster level. A creature cannot use its spell resistance against a magic circle prepared with a diagram, and none of its abilities or attacks can cross the diagram. If the creature tries a Charisma check to break free of the trap (see the lesser planar binding spell), the DC increases by 5. The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. However, the creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.

Edit:

It does not say you're casting it part of the spell, it says you're casting it on the spell.
Yes. You are casting it on the thing the bound creature is forbidden from disturbing. That means no dispelling it.

[AnonymousPepper]

Depends on the creature in question and the task requested.

Example: "Hey Mrs. Astral Deva. Would you mind flying through that cold trap over a pit of acid to press that button for us so we can go in and murder a necromancer that has been terrorizing a village?"
Asnwer: "Yeah sure."

Example: "Hey Mr Efreeti, give me three wishes exactly how I want them with no funny business and by my great mercy you will be set free until the next time I feel like having free wishes."
Answer: "I will grant you all of what you are deserving of."
Wisher: "Hey why am I a puddle of agony being crushed on all sides by hellfire?"

I'm with this one. Putting on my GM's cap here, if the player binds a non-evil entity and is courteous and respectful and generally not too demanding (or, if you are making a pretty big demand, willing to pay properly), absolutely. Bonus points if the binder apologies for the potentially unwanted disturbance or similar sorts of things; if the binder is really friendly to the entity in question, they might make a helpful contact in the Outer Planes for their trouble.

On the flip side, if it's evil, or you're a **** to it, you're gonna have a bad time unless you can geas it or something to not come after you or you kill it afterwards. And then its friends might come after you instead (even demons have friends, after a fashion).

[Coidzor]

Task in question is follow around the caller for 1day per caster level doing as told (mainly killing stuff). Creature in question is max hd of the planar binding, so we're dealing with 6hds, 12hds, and 18hds exclusively. One of my players enjoys pit fiends as a bodyguard.

So the most expensive, extensive, and above all risky option?

Yeah, that's not going to fly without payment or some way of truly bending them to the caster's will.

Iggwilv did not get Grazzt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_KP6yUWEw) with Planar Binding alone.

[magicalmagicman]

On the flip side, if it's evil, or you're a **** to it, you're gonna have a bad time unless you can geas it or something to not come after you or you kill it afterwards. And then its friends might come after you instead (even demons have friends, after a fashion).

Demons don't have friends. They're all out to kill each other, usurp each other, and evolve higher than each other. They're friends with each other as long as they are equal in strength. As soon as one shows weakness BAM!

Samething with devils. They're out to demote each other to promote themselves.

I may not have as much experience as the people of this forum, but I believe free planar bindings should be allowed. You are forcing your will (charisma) on them and if you beat their force of will, they should submit.

Few reasons even pit fiends would go along quietly is:
1. Chance to observe the material plane for future corruption.
2. Chance to corrupt the caller
3. Sitting there imprisoned, doing nothing accomplishes nothing, and an especially devious, intelligent, and strategic creature such as a pit fiend would definitely begin #2.

I believe one of the source books even mentions Pit Fiends being subservient to powerful wizards only to win in the end so I know as a matter of fact pit fiends can become wizard's lackeys.

I personally deal with pit fiend vengeance with contingency + geas. As soon as he appears BAM! Geas into almost-dominate. My characters have died to a lot of pit fiends in the past and that's the price you pay dealing with the devil.

edit: I just remembered why the geas thing failed on pit fiends. They have at will magic circle against good, rendering them immune to all mind-affecting spells. Thats how my character died. He forgot about that. That's why he's been using mariliths instead.

[Alex12]

Pit Fiends as unpaid bodyguards? Are you crazy?

See, the thing is that simply offering to let the average outsider free is, for all intents and purposes, null-value. They're for all intents and purposes immortal, a few days won't hurt. Eventually, you're gonna roll a 1 on a Cha check, and that's when you have a bad day.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well to be fair, there are lots of literature out there where even demon/devil lords/princes are subservient. I forgot who the guy was that was imprisoned by some female spellcaster for years and they were romantically attracted to each other or something. So one can argue there are vastly different pit fiend personalities where some are deviously subservient while others are downright prideful.

In anycase how about non pit fiends? Like the 6hd and 12hds.

That's Grazz't you're thinking about. He's one of the demon princes. Strongest of the lot in terms of influence and territory controlled, IIRC.

It really does depend on the creature. No bound creature would agree to serve you in a completely undisclosed manner for no payment whatsoever. That's covered in the spell description by the statement that "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

If you bound some kind of demon and promised it blood-shed, yeah he -might- agree to do that with no charge beyond you not restricting how he goes about killing your enemies.

A devil would probably settle for a term of one favor in exchange for services rendered (He's planning to arrange your damnation from the instant he lays eyes on you but that's normal for devils) as long as you're not acting against his masters' interests.

A slaad might go any which way. Pure chaos incarnate after all.

A formian or modron is long-accustomed to working for a master for free. Promising not to call them again after the service is done will probably do.

Any kind of celestial is unlikely to aid you for free unless your cause is just and unlikely to agree to -any- deal you offer that would lead to it doing any kind of evil.

Genies are consumate merchants and traders. They know there's no such thing as 'free.'

Elementals might work for you just to be freed. They're much less ideological and need essentially nothing to live save a reasonable supply of the element of which they're made. Like a formian or modron they -might- ask you not to call them again but they're definitely your best bet for "free" service.

These are generalizations and you should -always- refer to the specific creature's entry for behavioural quirks that might effect whatever deal you offer them.

[AnonymousPepper]

Demons don't have friends. They're all out to kill each other, usurp each other, and evolve higher than each other. They're friends with each other as long as they are equal in strength. As soon as one shows weakness BAM!

Samething with devils. They're out to demote each other to promote themselves.

I may not have as much experience as the people of this forum, but I believe free planar bindings should be allowed. You are forcing your will (charisma) on them and if you beat their force of will, they should submit.

Few reasons even pit fiends would go along quietly is:
1. Chance to observe the material plane for future corruption.
2. Chance to corrupt the caller
3. Sitting there imprisoned, doing nothing accomplishes nothing, and an especially devious, intelligent, and strategic creature such as a pit fiend would definitely begin #2.

I believe one of the source books even mentions Pit Fiends being subservient to powerful wizards only to win in the end so I know as a matter of fact pit fiends can become wizard's lackeys.

I personally deal with pit fiend vengeance with contingency + geas. As soon as he appears BAM! Geas into almost-dominate. My characters have died to a lot of pit fiends in the past and that's the price you pay dealing with the devil.

I meant as in in the fashion that somebody's still going to come after you. In this case, even if they're only temporary, there's nothing from stopping two demons from scheming together for something... and yes, they were probably going to try to betray the other afterwards, but you just threw a wrench in their plan, and they're nothing if not vengeful creatures.

[Xar Zarath]

...It really does depend on the creature...These are generalizations and you should -always- refer to the specific creature's entry for behavioural quirks that might effect whatever deal you offer them.

Agree with this. If your DM can roleplay them well, each planar Outsider has their own price and obligations.

Might I make a suggestion? For devils, beware. Treat devils like the bureaucrats they are. They want to demote each other and you can usually talk them into service because they're willing but remember they will force you into a contract. That's how they get you. Now, if you decide to go with "screw you and serve me" they will take revenge on you. Wait out how long, building a record on you and your fellows until they decide to take full murder themselves or they sell the info to the highest bidder.

As for demons they are different. Law of the jungle kind of thing. They obey you because of your power. You could kill one and summon another because they are infinite and are personally invested in only themselves. Even the demon lords are looking out for numero uno. Of course, one day they might decide to kill you but that's ok. Bind a few, kill them and if your DM is ok with it treat it as a very stylised Intimidate check. Demons fear/respect power or at least the appearance of it. As long as you have it, they follow you.

[magicalmagicman]

It really does depend on the creature. No bound creature would agree to serve you in a completely undisclosed manner for no payment whatsoever. That's covered in the spell description by the statement that "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."


I remember you. This is where we agreed to disagree (or at least I did).

Unreasonable commands are suicidal commands and such. If a command can be done for a price, its a reasonable command. 1day per caster level bodyguard duty is a service attainable with money, so its a reasonable command.

Working for your own freedom is neither unreasonable nor impossible. I'm sure every prisoner in jail would take a deal to leave jail forever after 2 weeks of work. The called creature failed its will save and was lured into the trap, so its partially its fault for being so weak willed. It is a prisoner and the only way its going to get out of the prison is by working for a week or two. Seems like a good enough, not impossible and not unreasonable trade.

At least it is to me. To you it's not so that is where we disagree. Personally I think you have a slight bias due to balance issues with this spell XD, and I probably have a bias too due to the fact I want permanently free and expendable minions.

The "comeback later for vengeance" thing though, I don't think anyone on this forum ever disagreed with that and I think this alone is a good enough balancing thingy for this spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I remember you. This is where we agreed to disagree (or at least I did).

Unreasonable commands are suicidal commands and such. If a command can be done for a price, its a reasonable command. 1day per caster level bodyguard duty is a service attainable with money, so its a reasonable command.

Working for your own freedom is neither unreasonable nor impossible. I'm sure every prisoner in jail would take a deal to leave jail forever after 2 weeks of work. The called creature failed its will save and was lured into the trap, so its partially its fault for being so weak willed. It is a prisoner and the only way its going to get out of the prison is by working for a week or two. Seems like a good enough, not impossible and not unreasonable trade.

At least it is to me. To you it's not so that is where we disagree. Personally I think you have a slight bias due to balance issues with this spell XD, and I probably have a bias too due to the fact I want permanently free and expendable minions.

The "comeback later for vengeance" thing though, I don't think anyone on this forum ever disagreed with that and I think this alone is a good enough balancing thingy for this spell.

Aways gratifying to leave an impression. :smallamused:

What's reasonable isn't up to you. It's up to the DM and -maybe- to the creature being bound. It's also inherently subjective. We could go back and forth for pages and pages without ever coming to an agreement on what's reasonble without either of us being categorically, provably correct.

In any case, it's bad form to expect something for nothing and just plain dumb to think you can cheat an intelligent being out of its time and energy and not have it retaliate. More importantly, planar bound creatures can -dramatically- affect how capable the party is. A DM must take this into account and, in all likelihood, will assess some kind of payment for services rendered just as though you had acquired a minion/cohort in some other way. To do otherwise would be harmful to the game.

The quoted text from the spell description is the RAW answer to "The RAW says I get services, so gimme." It's a specific, get out of rules-lawyering free card that was added precisely because of the nature of these spells.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer based on my understanding of the rules, the GM's place within the game, and what makes the most sense to me based on the game's lore. Do with it what you will.

[Âmesang]

So would it be a good rule-of-thumb to never bind creatures you can't kill? :smalltongue: It's why I stick with demons and hordlings; no pesky regeneration. Plus working with shadow demons makes me feel like Venger.


Usually they'd at least hold out for the equivalent of a pizza, though.
Paladin: "What do you want on your tombstone?"

Pit Fiend: "Pepperoni and cheese!"

[AnonymousPepper]

I would amend that to "don't bind non-good creatures you can't kill" unless you yourself are evil or you have no party face character in which case even binding a good creature might still get you wrecked.

[gogogome]

Ok thanks. I will do the following:
1. If the creature has a chance to escape via charisma check, it will never agree to free service.
2. If the creature doesn't even have even a 5% chance of escaping, I'm inclined to agree that freedom alone is enough of a price.

Thanks.

[AnonymousPepper]

Ok thanks. I will do the following:
1. If the creature has a chance to escape via charisma check, it will never agree to free service.
2. If the creature doesn't even have even a 5% chance of escaping, I'm inclined to agree that freedom alone is enough of a price.

Thanks.

I'm not entirely a fan of 1 as a blanket rule simply because sometimes the players will make a request of whatever entity they bound that it would be in favor of anyway. If they're reasonable with it and the action they're requesting is one the creature might perform anyway, particularly if the action is trivially easy, and bonus points if the players are of similar alignment (or the same, if from an aligned plane), it's fully possible the creature might agree to do it for free.

[gogogome]

I'm not entirely a fan of 1 as a blanket rule simply because sometimes the players will make a request of whatever entity they bound that it would be in favor of anyway. If they're reasonable with it and the action they're requesting is one the creature might perform anyway, particularly if the action is trivially easy, and bonus points if the players are of similar alignment (or the same, if from an aligned plane), it's fully possible the creature might agree to do it for free.

Oh yeah, i agree with that. If your interests coincide with theirs they should do it for free. What I said is more for unwilling creatures.

[Sahleb]

Personally, I had a lot of fun with taking a malconvoker on the Expedition to the Demonweb pits.

I bound a Barbed Devil(could've sprung for an Ice Devil, but its cha and sense motive were scary at the time), telling it that we'd be killing lots and lots of demons and drow, and that it were to follow my orders for the duration of the spell.

It worked out pretty good. It almost got away from me once, when I hasted it and told it to chase down a fleeing demon. That was a bit of a scare, but beyond that, I think it was cool. I'd totally allow something like that in game.

Personally, I think the bindings should either be something that the creature would want to do anyway, or it should accept payment in some type of information. Something that is not obviously harmful to tell the creature, but might well come back to bite it in the ass. Eventually.

Personally, I'd also be a bit stricter with the calling process, probably requireing some research into the things name, at least. But this would be most entirely fluff, and should be doable by the equivalent of hitting up the library. Maybe wizards charge 25*CR^2gp for telling you the true name of a stadard outsider, stuff like that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ok thanks. I will do the following:
1. If the creature has a chance to escape via charisma check, it will never agree to free service.
2. If the creature doesn't even have even a 5% chance of escaping, I'm inclined to agree that freedom alone is enough of a price.

Thanks.

Then you're never going to have a creature agreed to free service. There is always a 5% chance that the Caster will roll a natural one on his Charisma check.

[noob]

There is ways to reduce the number of ones.
Like Fickle Finger of Fate(with one fate-spinner you have only 1/400 chance of failing and with 2 you have 1/8000 chance of failing)

[gogogome]

Then you're never going to have a creature agreed to free service. There is always a 5% chance that the Caster will roll a natural one on his Charisma check.

Creatures can try to escape the circle in 3 ways: spell resistance, teleport, and charisma check. The special diagram disables the first two, and the last method requires a charisma check of DC (15 + 5 (special diagram) + half of caster level + charisma modifier) which if sufficiently high enough nets a 0% chance of escape. This is what I meant, not the escape on a roll of 1 during negotiations.

[Elxir_Breauer]

Kelb, the problem with that last bit is that you don't auto-fail a check on a nat 1 (or auto-succeed on a nat 20), that only applies to Attack rolls and Saving Throws in general. Unless there's language stating otherwise in the Planar Binding rules that I'm unfamiliar with, of course.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kelb, the problem with that last bit is that you don't auto-fail a check on a nat 1 (or auto-succeed on a nat 20), that only applies to Attack rolls and Saving Throws in general. Unless there's language stating otherwise in the Planar Binding rules that I'm unfamiliar with, of course.

From the spell description "If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you."

[Deophaun]

From the spell description "If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you."
Question: If you have a check modifier >10 more than the creature you have bound, why are you rolling at all? Did you really planar bind the creature on a pitching and rolling ship during a storm that you can't take 10? Then I think you have more to worry about than just a natural 1.

[Tvtyrant]

I just replace planar binding with the planar ally rules and call it a day.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Question: If you have a check modifier >10 more than the creature you have bound, why are you rolling at all? Did you really planar bind the creature on a pitching and rolling ship during a storm that you can't take 10? Then I think you have more to worry about than just a natural 1.

This isn't a take 10 situation, IMO. The consequence of failure is an unbound creature of some significant power that you just dragged away from his own buisness. That seems like a pretty stressful circumstance to me. I've also never heard anyone say that contract negotiation wasn't stressful. If your DM is generous enough to let you take 10 here, sure. I wouldn't count on it though.

Besides, you're talking about getting a 10 difference over the check modifier of generally high charisma creatures. That's no mean feat.

[Coidzor]

So would it be a good rule-of-thumb to never bind creatures you can't kill? :smalltongue: It's why I stick with demons and hordlings; no pesky regeneration. Plus working with shadow demons makes me feel like Venger.


Paladin: "What do you want on your tombstone?"

Pit Fiend: "Pepperoni and cheese!"

Or part of your common name. Or a single character of your true name. Or the name of the world you've summoned them to or are from and a bottle of blood/wine/bloodwine. Or what your ethos is. Or the name of your organization. Or a few mice, living or soulform. Or a nice meal of curried axebeak with extra pepper and chilies.

I think a Pit Fiend's Pizza would probably involve pepperoncini or habaneros. Or sulfur and basalt flakes.

[Deophaun]

This isn't a take 10 situation, IMO. The consequence of failure is an unbound creature of some significant power that you just dragged away from his own buisness. That seems like a pretty stressful circumstance to me. I've also never heard anyone say that contract negotiation wasn't stressful. If your DM is generous enough to let you take 10 here, sure. I wouldn't count on it though.

Besides, you're talking about getting a 10 difference over the check modifier of generally high charisma creatures. That's no mean feat.
First, there is no qualification that the task cannot be stressful. The only things preventing taking 10 are distraction (which you are not, as by definition a task cannot distract from itself) and being threatened (which again, you are not, as none of the creature's abilities can cross the summoning circle). Stress does not enter into it at all. You can take 10.

Second, getting a one time bonus of +10 above a creature is not nearly as difficult as you may thing.

[magicalmagicman]

I agree. Just like taking 10 v.s. disarming traps, taking 10 shouldn't be a problem when you're talking to a creature that you know for a fact cannot harm you.

If you say the character is shaking in his boots, quivering with fear, or loses some kind of intimidate check the creature gives then I can agree with you that you can't take 10. I'd say bluff check works too. He can bluff the caller saying he can break free from the circle.

But if the caller is calm and confident then yes, I think you can take 10.

I'm a start taking 10s now for this! Didn't know i was an option.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First, there is no qualification that the task cannot be stressful. The only things preventing taking 10 are distraction (which you are not, as by definition a task cannot distract from itself) and being threatened (which again, you are not, as none of the creature's abilities can cross the summoning circle). Stress does not enter into it at all. You can take 10.

Second, getting a one time bonus of +10 above a creature is not nearly as difficult as you may thing.

Stress -is- a distraction and every instance of skill mastery uses the phrase "may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

[Troacctid]

The rules only allow you to take 10 on a skill check, not an ability check. You can't take 10 here.

[Deophaun]

Stress -is- a distraction and every instance of skill mastery uses the phrase "may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."
You can't eat your cake and have it to. Either stress is a distraction and skill mastery isn't proper rules text by stating that they are two separate things, or it's not... and skill mastery still isn't proper rules text because stress is not one of the things that is stated to prevent you from taking 10. Yup, you get skill mastery and you can take 10 even when stressed. Of course, you could do that without skill mastery, so it's not contradicting anything. It's just a redundant ability.

This is the standard mewling "You can't take 10 to Climb the cliff because you might fall" or "You can't take 10 to Perform in front of a crowd because you might be embarrassed" or "You can't take 10 to Balance across an icy chasm because there's sharp spikes below" or "You can't take 10 to stabilize a dying party member because he might die" that's designed to reduce PCs into incompetent balls of failure. It's all stress, and it's all stuff that only applies to taking 20, not 10.

Besides, who in Baator do you think you are that you think you can determine what causes my character to feel stress? If you want to roleplay a PC, get out from behind the DM screen.

The rules only allow you to take 10 on a skill check, not an ability check. You can't take 10 here.
Wrong.

The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply to skill and ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.

[magicalmagicman]

You guys have to compare traps and this. How is the stress of talking to a creature you know as a matter of fact can't hurt you in the slightest while he is trapped in that circle versus the stress of potentially triggering a trap that would splatter you on the floor?

I'd say former is less stressful, and since you can take 10 on a disable device, you can take 10 on this IMO

[Troacctid]

The rules only allow you to take 10 on a skill check, not an ability check. You can't take 10 here.

Wrong.


The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply to skill and ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.

I stand corrected. Carry on then.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You can't eat your cake and have it to. Either stress is a distraction and skill mastery isn't proper rules text by stating that they are two separate things, or it's not... and skill mastery still isn't proper rules text because stress is not one of the things that is stated to prevent you from taking 10. Yup, you get skill mastery and you can take 10 even when stressed. Of course, you could do that without skill mastery, so it's not contradicting anything. It's just a redundant ability.

Or you could read it in the plain english that the PHB was writtten in and realize that there's no seperation created by that 'and.' Stress is a specific distraction and there are other distractions, such as weather, the pitching of the cart or ship on which you're standing, a loud concert going on behind you, etc. Stress is worth noting specifically because it's not as obvious as those other things.


This is the standard mewling "You can't take 10 to Climb the cliff because you might fall" or "You can't take 10 to Perform in front of a crowd because you might be embarrassed" or "You can't take 10 to Balance across an icy chasm because there's sharp spikes below" or "You can't take 10 to stabilize a dying party member because he might die" that's designed to reduce PCs into incompetent balls of failure. It's all stress, and it's all stuff that only applies to taking 20, not 10.

There's an -enormous- degree of difference in the complexity of climbing and trying to negotiate a contract or stuff somebody's guts back into them (which I also don't see as a take 10 situation, btw). Careful measured concentration can allow you to put your hand where it needs to go on the ciff you're climbing. No ammount of concentration can accuratey predict how another creature will react to your posturing and words.


Besides, who in Baator do you think you are that you think you can determine what causes my character to feel stress? If you want to roleplay a PC, get out from behind the DM screen.

Stress is not a feeling you can choose to have or not. It's something you can try to controll. By that logic you should never be disallowed from taking 10 on anything because you're so cool and collected at all times.

[Alex12]

Speaking personally, I'd rule that due to the specific "natural 1 auto-fails" component, that you can't take 10 on this check, any more than you can take 10 in attack rolls and saving throws. It's baked into the game that there's certain things that, if you roll a 1, you automatically fail, no matter how good you are, and the spell's text calls this instance out as one of them.

[magicalmagicman]

Speaking personally, I'd rule that due to the specific "natural 1 auto-fails" component, that you can't take 10 on this check, any more than you can take 10 in attack rolls and saving throws. It's baked into the game that there's certain things that, if you roll a 1, you automatically fail, no matter how good you are, and the spell's text calls this instance out as one of them.

You're confusing take 10 with take 20. Take 20 specifically says you can't use it if failure results in harm, such as destroyed materials. You can take 10 even if a natural 1 is devastating. You can take 10 for crafting. You can take 20 for trap searching, etc.

[Alex12]

You're confusing take 10 with take 20. Take 20 specifically says you can't use it if failure results in harm, such as destroyed materials. You can take 10 even if a natural 1 is devastating. You can take 10 for crafting. You can take 20 for trap searching, etc.

I'm aware you can take 10 for crafting. I'm not talking about failure in general being devastating. But Craft, like other skill checks, does not have the specific proviso that a natural 1 always fails. Not a roll that's too low, not a result that's 5/10/whatever below the target DC. A natural 1.

To use your comparison of Crafting, if your Craft skill is high enough, your dice roll isn't "do you succeed" but "how much do you succeed by?" In this instance, if Alice has no training in Craft (weapons) or any relevant attributes, and just lands a natural 20 but has no modifiers, and Bob has a 12 ranks and a +7 Int modifier, and he rolls a 1, those two results are mechanically indistinguishable.
However, in the case of planar binding, a d20 result of 1 is mechanically different than a roll of 10, regardless of what the user's ranks, Cha score, and the like are.

[Deadline]

You're confusing take 10 with take 20. Take 20 specifically says you can't use it if failure results in harm, such as destroyed materials. You can take 10 even if a natural 1 is devastating. You can take 10 for crafting. You can take 20 for trap searching, etc.

No, you can take a 10 if you aren't under stressful conditions, or you have an ability that lets you do so anyway. The stressful conditions bit is up to the GM. For my games, I wouldn't allow taking 10 on the Charisma check for Planar Binding without some ability that said otherwise. Of course, I wouldn't generally allow "free" binding either. Winning the check does get you service, but without some sort of reasonable deal, you won't get great service. And yes, I make sure my players know that Planar Binding's results are a judgement call based on RP before they take or try it. It's not a consequence free RAW minion factory. This has led to my players doing some fun stuff to manipulate one side into a deal, like playing two bound creatures off each other to haggle down or extort a good deal price for one of them to serve. Sure, there are RP implications, but it's certainly been more fun (for my players) to run it that way. It's not even that hard to offer something in exchange for service, just appealing to the bound creature's nature is usually enough.

Heck, this can even reduce prices for the decidedly more costly Planar Ally spells. In the last game I played, we were doing our best to destroy several cache's of Thinuan weapons belonging to a cadre of Paladin's of Heironyous. In the campaign setting we were in, trapping souls and preventing them from going where they belong was a big no-no amongst the gods. The Paladins, having grown weary from the constant battle against the forces of Hextor (who were often being raised to fight again) went against this ideal, thinking to finally end the conflict. We were sent in (charged by an Order that worked to keep souls going where they were supposed to) to destroy the Thinuan weapons. We had rust monster wands, but couldn't get to all the weapon caches in time before the battle would begin at dawn. So after one handy Planar Ally spell was cast, we negotiated with the celestial (a Deva of some sort I think) to take out the cache's we couldn't get to. Since we were doing the bidding of his deity, he was super receptive, we got a hefty discount and a minion who led to us getting a successful mission completion. It was fantastic, and so memorable that we continue to talk about it today.

You want free disposable minions that are consequence free, that's what Summoned monsters are for.

[RoboEmperor]

The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

There you go. 2nd sentence of the spell description. It doesn't say "hold creature in a trap in order to negotiate a fair deal", it says "imprison creature for eternity until it performs one service." Planar binding is meant to be free. I cannot emphasize that enough. Planar Ally is the one that requires xp, gold, or common goals.

Rewards are for people who can't make the check. Fiendish Codex I believe expanded upon planar binding to include negative charisma for hard tasks with no rewards, but even that book never said payment is mandatory.

You are also not distracted, not in combat, and completely safe from the trapped creature, therefore you can take 10 for your charisma check. The whole point of taking 10 is so that you don't get unlucky and screw up horribly despite having something like an 80% success rate, so failure on a natural 1 doesn't prevent you from taking 10. The whole point of taking 10 is so you don't get screwed by a natural one.

Anyways, this is an absolute fact. DMs who do not allow free planar bindings or take 10 in the charisma check are house ruling for balance reasons. There is no debating this absolute fact, but house ruling in this case is justified, considering this spell chain, even lesser planar binding, can completely break the game.

I admit that I am an optimizer, power gamer, and rules lawyers who kind of fudge rules to my liking, and as a result when i calm down I kind of regret what I said on this forum and reverse my decision (charm monster for example), but this spell, no matter how much I look at it, I am not wrong.

[Troacctid]

Fiendish Codex I believe expanded upon planar binding to include negative charisma for hard tasks with no rewards, but even that book never said payment is mandatory.
Fiendish Codex II has that system. It does say that if your modifier is below +0, you automatically fail the check. So you are required to appease the devil in some way, although not necessarily with gold. (You can get a bonus to the check if you have enough minions present for the binding, for example.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

There's your deal right there. You don't get jack until it agrees. You can make your cha check once per day for as many days as you have caster levels but the DM assesses bonuses based on what, other than its freedom, which will likely be necessary for it to perform any service, you offer it in exchange for the proposed service. He can also declare any command unreasonable, at his discretion, and just flat shut it down until the duration expires, the creature breaks free, or you banish/dismiss it.

This is a spell that -explicitly- calls for the DM to make judgement calls on how it plays out. You can't just ignore that because you want free stuff.

[RoboEmperor]

There's your deal right there. You don't get jack until it agrees. You can make your cha check once per day for as many days as you have caster levels but the DM assesses bonuses based on what, other than its freedom, which will likely be necessary for it to perform any service, you offer it in exchange for the proposed service. He can also declare any command unreasonable, at his discretion, and just flat shut it down until the duration expires, the creature breaks free, or you banish/dismiss it.

This is a spell that -explicitly- calls for the DM to make judgement calls on how it plays out. You can't just ignore that because you want free stuff.

Yes, it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

In other words...
Payment = Its freedom
Charisma Check = You persuade it to take the payment.
Creature doesn't like it? It spends a day in his cell.
Repeat Forever.
Creature doesn't want to stay in prison for all eternity and wants to get out? It takes the deal, which is him agreeing to do one service for its freedom,

If your charisma sucks then you might want to sweeten the deal, but that's it. Minimum payment is its freedom. Maximum payment is whatever you want it to be. That quote clearly states you got to get the creature to agree to a payment of freedom.

[LTwerewolf]

"...unreasonable demands are never agreed to." That's a judgement call as to whether freedom itself is enough. Eventually they're going to get out, since a magic circle isn't going to last forever.

[Troacctid]

I think the guidelines for binding devils set a pretty good standard of what constitutes an unreasonable bargain. Up to -8 to your check depending on length of service. Up to -8 depending on difficulty of the task. Up to +8 if you offer gold. Other bonuses for various circumstances. Total modifier must be +0 or better or you automatically fail.

[Segev]

The whole point of the planar binding spell is to FORCE creatures to do your bidding. Bargaining with them merely gives you a bonus on the check. If you truely want a bartered service without the target holding a grudge, that's what planar ally is for. In my book, depending on how you look at it, all planar bindings are free, in that you don't have to give the creature a thing in return, but they're all not free in the fact that if the creature is capable of it, they will seek out revenge for the torment and humiliation of having become some mortal's servant.This is exactly the point that needs to be made. Planar binding is intended to be, "You, thing, you're my slave now. Do as I say."

If you bargain, you make it easier because you make the service more palatable. But it is absolutely supposed to be a pitting of your will and arcane might against the will of the fiend (or whatever) and breaking it to your service.


The other way i tend to allow it to go down is if the caster and the creature have some kind of pre-existing relationship, even if it's just a sending sent via a summone quasit to find someone who's interested and capable of performing services, at which point, you summon them and get straight down to business, like they were just anyone else you wanted to barter a service from. Obviously this requires a level of trust, because they could just double cross you, since there's no magic keeping them from doing so, but that's why you would limit that kind of activity to those you can trus to hold up their end of the bargain.
This is also a good point; it makes it almost like planar ally (and, honestly, planar ally should allow for this, too, if you have a pre-arranged deal). In Exalted 2e, certain courts of Elementals had bargains with sorcerers who would summon them to pre-arranged deals, even bindings which were very light as payment for agreed-to service in order to protect them from other sorcerers' summonings.

Similar can work here.


Also, don't forget that the creature is THERE. If you call them with a planar binding, you can try other control methods. Dominate monster on anything that can't protect against it, for example.

This also works on dragon ally. The spell talks about the costs and negotiations, but it fails to recognize that you just conjured the dragon to your locale. Whammy it rather than bargain; it might want to fight, but if you're confident in your whammying ability...

Or, heck, just kill it if you can. You've called it to a place of your choosing. Kill it and butcher it for parts. Maybe hunt down its now-abandoned hoard later.

[Deadline]

The whole point of taking 10 is so you don't get screwed by a natural one.

You don't autofail skill checks on a natural one. Rolling a one doesn't generally mean you get screwed on either skill checks or ability checks, unless stated otherwise (which Planar Binding does).


Anyways, this is an absolute fact. DMs who do not allow free planar bindings or take 10 in the charisma check are house ruling for balance reasons. There is no debating this absolute fact, but house ruling in this case is justified, considering this spell chain, even lesser planar binding, can completely break the game.

There's obviously plenty of debate on these points. Can you compel the creature into performing a service with just the Charisma check? Yes, as per the spell. Offering payment is more likely to get you service (or better service). The nature of said service isn't spelled out in the rules, so you'll need to work with your DM to determine what that entails. Keep in mind that open-ended services are more dangerous (they grant the creature a chance to immediately break free), and that this spell involves a great deal more DM fiddling than you seem to want to admit:


Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

This is why I stated that offering rewards or bargaining gets you better service.

Also the conditions for taking 10 are not in the hands of the player to decide. The only mechanism I know of for that is the various class abilities that specify you can always take a 10 for certain checks. Otherwise, you run into DM interpretation territory yet again.

So, for a spell that requires DM interpretation to work, has built-in language indicating you don't get free disposable minions who do your bidding exactly as you want, and requires a check where your DM sets both the modifier and determines whether you can take 10 on, you've made some very bold claims. I'm not convinced that it is as straight forward as you claim.

[RoboEmperor]

"...unreasonable demands are never agreed to." That's a judgement call as to whether freedom itself is enough. Eventually they're going to get out, since a magic circle isn't going to last forever.

Magic circle lasts virtually forever if you do it right. Do it in some secret basement in a secret base, there might be a good chance they won't get out for 10,000 years. Only something like an earthquake shaking enough dust to cut off the circle can free them.


You don't autofail skill checks on a natural one. Rolling a one doesn't generally mean you get screwed on either skill checks or ability checks, unless stated otherwise (which Planar Binding does).

I don't get why failing on a natural one is even an argument. I have craft 10. If I roll 9 or lower I will fail the masterwork DC, so I take 10, so I DON'T fail the check and succeed EVERYTIME. How the hell is failing when you only roll a 1 such a bigger deal than this? Because you can eventaully succeed 100% of the time? Well news flash, lot of people don't advance their craft skill beyond what they need after a take 10.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said. Just like geas/quest, minion subversion is a real thing and can get you killed which is the trade off compared to summon spells, along with them never committing suicide.

Also, everything in the game is DM-interpretation territory, which is why I'm arguing solely with RAW. Some DMs change how things work thinking "that's not how they're supposed to work, that sentence is worded wrong" which is fine, planar binding is very susceptible to that, but by RAW you can take 10 and you can get freebies.

[Deadline]

I don't get why failing on a natural one is even an argument. I have craft 10. If I roll 9 or lower I will fail the masterwork DC, so I take 10, so I DON'T fail the check and succeed EVERYTIME. How the hell is failing when you only roll a 1 such a bigger deal than this? Because you can eventaully succeed 100% of the time? Well news flash, lot of people don't advance their craft skill beyond what they need after a take 10.

Mostly because when you fail a craft check, you don't have your metal working tools leap from your hands and try to murder you and destroy your workshop in their haste to escape the tyranny of your control.

I'm fairly certain that if that were a thing that happened on a natural 1, you probably wouldn't be able to take a 10 on your check.

[RoboEmperor]

Mostly because when you fail a craft check, you don't have your metal working tools leap from your hands and try to murder you and destroy your workshop in their haste to escape the tyranny of your control.

I'm fairly certain that if that were a thing that happened on a natural 1, you probably wouldn't be able to take a 10 on your check.

With craft you ruin your base materials, costing you more gp so...

Earlier in this thread someone posted something about taking 10 in disarming traps, which can end with your death, which is no different for planar binding, yet you can still take 10 for that.

If you're arguing the proportion of the penalties for failure matters then I'm going to point you to the above example.

If you're saying checks with failure on a natural 1 that results in penalties disqualifies you from taking 10, I'm going to have to ask you for a source on that, because failing with a roll 5 or lower when disarming traps is much worse than that in my opinion, and that is allowed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Magic circle lasts virtually forever if you do it right. Do it in some secret basement in a secret base, there might be a good chance they won't get out for 10,000 years. Only something like an earthquake shaking enough dust to cut off the circle can free them.

Okay seriously, you did see where a magic circle only lasts for 1 day/ CL when used with planar binding, right? It's right there in the spell text.

Here,
When focused inward, the spell binds a nongood called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle. The creature cannot cross the circle’s boundaries.

and here
A successful diagram allows you to cast a dimensional anchor spell on the magic circle during the round before casting any summoning spell. The anchor holds any called creatures in the magic circle for 24 hours per caster level.

Unless your CL is 365000, you're not holding it there for 1000 years.


Also, everything in the game is DM-interpretation territory, which is why I'm arguing solely with RAW. Some DMs change how things work thinking "that's not how they're supposed to work, that sentence is worded wrong" which is fine, planar binding is very susceptible to that, but by RAW you can take 10 and you can get freebies.

Everything is subject to DM's making houserules but not everything -explicitly- calls for DM interpretation. Planar binding is among the few things that falls into the latter category. That a DM must roleplay the called creature and adjudicate bonuses and penalties based on the services requested and the payment offered -is- part of the RAW. You're not arguing with just the RAW, you're deliberately ignoring part of it because a DM -might- disagree with you.

[noob]

Unless your CL is 365000
Do you know you are posting in a thread where some people find logical to have free planar bindings?
Of course their CL is near infinity.

[RoboEmperor]

Okay seriously, you did see where a magic circle only lasts for 1 day/ CL when used with planar binding, right? It's right there in the spell text.

Here,

and here

Unless your CL is 365000, you're not holding it there for 1000 years.
Ah, my mistake. I got teleportation circle and magic circle mixed up on the permanency chart.



Everything is subject to DM's making houserules but not everything -explicitly- calls for DM interpretation. Planar binding is among the few things that falls into the latter category. That a DM must roleplay the called creature and adjudicate bonuses and penalties based on the services requested and the payment offered -is- part of the RAW. You're not arguing with just the RAW, you're deliberately ignoring part of it because a DM -might- disagree with you.

I'll just try to show why RAW rules in my favor. Please note that I'm not antagonistic in anyway. I've rewritten the following several times trying to sound friendly, but it's out of my ability, so please don't take it the wrong way.


Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell’s range.
Description of what this spell does


The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.
PAYMENT = FREEDOM


To create the trap, you must use a magic circle spell, focused inward. The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that individual’s proper name in casting the spell.
Trapping and calling instructions


The target creature is allowed a Will saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the creature resists the spell. If the saving throw fails, the creature is immediately drawn to the trap (spell resistance does not keep it from being called). The creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check, by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier). It can try each method once per day. If it breaks loose, it can flee or attack you. A dimensional anchor cast on the creature prevents its escape via dimensional travel. You can also employ a calling diagram (see magic circle against evil) to make the trap more secure.
Creature's escape mechanics

Now this part is where you're contesting me

If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward.
"and perhaps", mean OPTIONAL.
Definition of Perhaps in the English dictionary: used to express uncertainty or possibility.
Synonyms: Maybe, possibly
In other words, some sort of reward = OPTIONAL
Right there, in RAW.


You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.
Instruction for the charisma check. Nowhere does it say the reward is mandatory.


Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.
Impossible demands = Bring me the moon in a bag of holding. Slay a dragon in one shot by solely by throwing this knife at its face. Make Demogorgan my bitch in the next 10 seconds. Demands that are literally impossible.

Unreasonable commands:
This is what you've been fighting me with, but unfortunately for you, according to the English dictionary, the definition of the word command does not include the words "deal, agreement, negotiation, or reward.

Examples of (unreasonable) commands:
1. Marry me
2. Kiss the floor until you die.
3. Kill yourself.
4. Get eaten by a dragon and try to survive.

Examples of stuff that are not commands.
1. I'll give you gold if you carry my backpack for a day
2. I'll give you gold if you dance for me for 5minutes
3. I'll sacrifice some sheep for you if you pour me a drink.

Your argument, to the best of my understanding, is that someone would say "work for me for free" as a command, and you will shoot it down as an unreasonable command, but that problem lies in wording. I agree that if the caller uses the word "for free" in his command, he will never, ever get what he wants, but what if he doesn't? What if he never uses those two words in his command? "Dance for 5 minutes" is not unreasonable unless the creature has no limbs.

Now a DM who uses RAW to screw people over, he can simply blanket everything as unreasonable, saying even standing still for 5 seconds is an unreasonable command. So you are correct that you cannot use planar binding without the DM's cooperation, but the point I'm trying to make here is, By RAW Rewards are optional, payment is optional, and free service not only achievable, but is also the default.


Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
Service instructions/limitations.

[daremetoidareyo]

We do free planar bindings with a gentleperson's agreement of no more than a single wish can be derived from any casting of this spell. Even if you wish for something that gives you access to more wishes. Cuz I don't like wish loops.

As a DM, I had a malconvoker player make planar bindings like this all the time. He wore a different disguise for every planar binding so he would be less trackable and scryable. And like others said, he tended to run these spells in sequence. He'd planar bind something with divination powers about the task at hand. They would dispell themselves. Then he'd planar bind the right demon, devil, modron, or yugoloth to get the right resistances and run them as body guards. Some of whom would strike up negotiations for loot.

So he ran his malconvoker a lot like a druid who could swap out his animal companion for any outsider. And his schtick was to grab the right outsider tool for the job.

As a player, I ran a summoner who did something much different. He would subcontract out missions to planar bound critters. Composing entire adventure teams, typically under control of the strongest devil he could get. (Usually one devil with a number of elementals.) He would seek out a number of missions and build these motley parties of outsiders to do them. The deal he set up was he gets first pick of magic items or 10% of the treasure accrued in the mission. The adventuring crew got the rest. And everything they did happened off screen with the DM determining the results. Meanwhile I developed favorite outsiders with whom a working relationship developed and the plot went in the direction of our PC group basically doing reconnaissance missions to set up the outsiders to do all of the heavy lifting in the adventure.

The DM hated it at first. We sent groups of outsiders down entire adventure paths. Then the DM adapted and the campaign became real weird. In order to get the PCs to do stuff rather than just collect our payday system, he would have to appeal to our individual vanity projects, and we would collect info/ go exploring to get access to more and more specific outsiders to draw them into our employment stables.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is what you've been fighting me with, but unfortunately for you, according to the English dictionary, the definition of the word command does not include the words "deal, agreement, negotiation, or reward.

I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not but you're misinterpreting the phrase here with an appeal to dictionary fallacy. Yes, a command is not a request or a plea. In the cotext of the sentence, however, it's clear that the command can be -ignored- if it's unreasonable. The deal, negotiation, or whatever you want to call it is inherent in the call to make -reasonable- commands.


Your argument, to the best of my understanding, is that someone would say "work for me for free" as a command, and you will shoot it down as an unreasonable command, but that problem lies in wording. I agree that if the caller uses the word "for free" in his command, he will never, ever get what he wants, but what if he doesn't? What if he never uses those two words in his command? "Dance for 5 minutes" is not unreasonable unless the creature has no limbs.

My position is that the service you're demanding, requesting, whatever, must be filtered through a DM and that the text in the book -cannot- give a definitive answer as to whether you're going to get what you want for simply freeing the creature or if you're going to have to sweeten the pot.

It is also my position that a good DM will weigh not only what you ask for and the particular wording you apply but also what makes sense for a creature of the type you've called, using the game's lore as a guideline, and how fulfilling your request will affect game balance.

Generally; non-descript, open-ended service in exchange for nothing but being released from the circle should be considered unreasonable, IMO. The creature cannot weigh what it will be pitted against in comparison to simply being stuck in place for an equal length of time, at which point it will be freed anyway. You might get something -really- dumb, really chaotic and moderately dumb, or mindless to agree to such terms but most intelligent and/or wise creatures will recognize that their immortal patience will yield the same results in the same time with far less effort. Simply outlining the expectations of what the creature will face and/or be doing can be enough to make the difference and get you service for no cost outside the spell-slots burned.

Ultimately, however, it's up to -individual DM's- to determine what is or is not a reasonable service for you to have commanded and -that- is the bottom line.


Now a DM who uses RAW to screw people over, he can simply blanket everything as unreasonable, saying even standing still for 5 seconds is an unreasonable command. So you are correct that you cannot use planar binding without the DM's cooperation, but the point I'm trying to make here is, By RAW Rewards are optional, payment is optional, and free service is achievable.

That's true. It sucks if you get stuck playing with such a DM. However, that's the RAW situation at hand, like it or not.

Even the most non-interventionist, RAW is law style DM -must- make a judgement call when planar binding comes up in play. That's just how it is.

[RoboEmperor]

Ok, I think I've pinpointed exactly where we disagree.

I'm saying by RAW
1. Payment of Freedom is enough to roll the charisma check
2. There is no way a monster can resist the charisma check.
3. This means if the player wants to roll a charisma check, the monster has no choice but to accept and if he fails, he performs free service even if he's a pit fiend.
4. Unreasonable command is restricted to commands. Lack of payment and rewards cannot trigger the unreasonable command clause because they are not commands or part of the commands. They are there merely to make the charisma check easier..

You're saying, by RAW
1. There is a way a monster can resist a charisma check. Through the unreasonable commands clause.
2. Monster can trigger the unreasonable command clause due to lack of payment and rewards.

I think your style is more fun, balanced, and roleplay rewarding, but I still stand by that my way of ruling is RAW.

Lore-friendly justification of my way of ruling:
1. My Force of Personality is so powerful it beat and overwhelmed the pit fiend's force of personality to the point where he cowered and submitted to my will.
2. While persuading I hit a sweet spot (rolled high), and he had a momentary lapse in judgment (rolled low), so I got him to agree to work for me for free.

[Kelb_Panthera]

4. Unreasonable command is restricted to commands. Lack of payment and rewards cannot trigger the unreasonable command clause because they are not commands or part of the commands. They are there merely to make the charisma check easier.

Here lies the problem: there is -no- raw justification for this point. In the context given, the term 'command' is synonymous with the service being demanded. The service being demanded must not be unreasonable or it is -guaranteed- to be refused and no cha check is rolled. The english used is not ambiguous here. It's nothing less than a deliberate, torturous twisting of language to try and make sense of it in any other way.

Think about it, unless the service demanded is something to the effect of "obey my commands" when would issuing commands even come into play? If you task the creature with retrieving something for you, there are no commands given beyond "go get the thing." If you demand someone slain, there are no commands beyond "kill the guy." Even -if- you make a demand to serve you for a day/CL and take it that 'command' refers to the orders given after the deal is struck, there's nothing to stop the creature from simply deciding any order you give it is unreasonable since you didn't pay it squat beyond freeing it. Protect me gets twisted into locking you in a box and/or killing anything that comes near you, including allies and random innocents because "they might have been plotting to betray you," and any countermand to doing so could be ignored as unreasonable obstructions to the service demanded. Any service demanded can be completely screwed over because you can't control the creature once it's set in motion by this interpretation. That strikes me as both a bad interpretation of the language used in the spell description -and- a worse, less useable interpretation of what the spell does overall.

There's no way to get around the fact that you must either make a reasonable deal or you have no -real- control over the creature at all beyond what the DM gives you.

[Troacctid]

Especially since by RAW, it is possible for asking a simple service with no payment to be considered an unreasonable demand. Look at the rules for binding devils. Let's say you ask a simple service that would be expected to take maybe a minute to complete--for example, "Help me move my couch into the other room."

Okay, that's up to 1 round per caster level, which is a -1 penalty. Simple task, so no change there. No wealth offering, no sacrifice, and none of the special circumstances apply (if you had a hundred followers, you could probably just ask them to move your couch). Sum it all up and you have a total modifier of -1. The deal automatically fails.

[RoboEmperor]

The service being demanded must not be unreasonable or it is -guaranteed- to be refused and no cha check is rolled.

Service = kill a bandit.
"The killing of a bandit being demanded must not be unreasonable or it is -guaranteed- to be refused and no cha check is rolled."

See how I substituted that part? XD.

Let's just agree to disagree! You believe the payment is part of unreasonable command, I don't, and it seems nothing we say is going to persuade each other seeing as how we're keep repeating the same thing so let's agree to disagree right here! XD

@Troacctid
I can argue that fiendish codex 2 stuff for planar binding is rules to reach a willing, happy agreement where neither side will harbor any ill will or attempt vengeance.

Actually, samething with Kelb_Panthera's ruling. If I was DM I'd rule that Kelb_Panthera's ruling is also solely for a willing, happy agreement, but a wizard attempting extortion, who will have to deal with assassination attempts for the rest of his life, don't need to bother with payments.

I have lost countless characters to pit fiends to the point where I switched over to mariliths. No more pit fiends for me.

Pit fiend's 1/year wish spell can be used to utterly slaughter the wizard as soon as he escapes service. "I wish he dies!" BAM!
One Pit Fiend used his wish spell to break the planar binding contract he had with my wizard and then BAM! Coup de grace while he was sleeping
Even if DM plays wish solely like a spell its described as, he gets some mega powerful magic item and then proceeds to use it to slaugther my wizard.
A poorly worded contract made my wizard die to collateral damage of the pit fiend.
Mind control spells don't work because he has an at-will magic circle.
The worst pit fiend encounter was, i was in a very intense battle with a group of monsters, then BAM Pit fiend teleports behind me for revenge and slaughters me and my entire party. This was when I stopped using pit fiends. My irl friends got too mad at me from the constant tpks. XD

[Troacctid]

@Troacctid
I can argue that fiendish codex 2 stuff for planar binding is rules to reach a willing, happy agreement where neither side will harbor any ill will or attempt vengeance.
The Fiendish Codex II rules explicitly say that you automatically fail the Charisma check if you don't bring the modifier above +0.


You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

No Charisma check, no service.

[RoboEmperor]

The Fiendish Codex II rules explicitly say that you automatically fail the Charisma check if you don't bring the modifier above +0.



No Charisma check, no service.

I will counter your argument, so hard, like unbelievably hard. My counter is...

Those rules only apply to devils! XD


A spellcaster who calls a devil using planar binding

I win! You can't force those rules by RAW unto demons and such!

Joking aside, I guess if fiendish codex is allowed, by RAW, you can't get free service from pit fiends. Back to geas/quest via limited wish! Except not pit fiends, they have at-will magic circle.

[Segev]

"Unreasonable commands" are, as has been stated, services demanded which are not reasonable. The payment is independent of whether or not the command itself is reasonable. It is a violation of the RAW to treat an offered payment as changing how reasonable the command is. First, whether the command is reasonable is determined. Then the bribery of the reward can be considered as to how much it influences the charisma check.

Telling a Modron to hunt down and kill Primus - even if the Modron theoretically could achieve this task - is unreasonable because of the gross violation of its nature. Telling any outsider to submit itself to (what it considers) torture for your CL in days is unreasonable. Note, when I say "torture," I don't mean "anything it hates." I mean literal torture, like using a fire hose as a scribble-laser on a fire elemental. Anything which permanently maims the outsider or is sure to get it killed is unreasonable.

The "unreasonable" clause is there to indicate that the creature can't be compelled to ruin itself, not to allow you to decide that all the outsiders the PCs manage to summon for binding purposes mysteriously hate servitude so much that merely expecting them to be civil after having summoned them is "unreasonable."

[Deadline]

"Unreasonable commands" are, as has been stated, services demanded which are not reasonable. The payment is independent of whether or not the command itself is reasonable. It is a violation of the RAW to treat an offered payment as changing how reasonable the command is. First, whether the command is reasonable is determined. Then the bribery of the reward can be considered as to how much it influences the charisma check.

I disagree. "Give me your house" is unreasonable. "Sell me your house" is not. Offering payment can absolutely influence what can be considered "reasonable".

The rest is just negotiation of terms to get a favorable bonus on your Charisma check.

[Segev]

I disagree. "Give me your house" is unreasonable. "Sell me your house" is not. Offering payment can absolutely influence what can be considered "reasonable".

The rest is just negotiation of terms to get a favorable bonus on your Charisma check.

Actually, if "give" is unreasonable, so is "sell." Both imply a lack of choice to simply refuse to make the deal.

I recently bought a house. For argument's sake (because I don't want to release real information), let's say I bought it for 10,000 gp. A guy drags me into a room and orders me to sell him my house. Given the deal I got on it vs. what it would cost to replace it, under normal circumstances of "I want your house badly please sell it to me," I wouldn't consider selling it for less than 30,000 gp (because we're not talking about a situation where I am selling due to other circumstances making it necessary). I promise you my house isn't worth 30,000 gp (in this example) to anybody but me, right now. That is not a reasonable price for it (which would be closer to 15,000 gp). I, however, would consider an offer of 15,000 gp "unreasonable" as a price for my house.

Either "Give me your house" is reasonable or it isn't. Offering a price for it makes it more palatable. But "reasonable" starts with the nature of the request.

I would argue that "give me your house" actually is unreasonable in the bounds of planar binding, simply because it's such a permanent loss to the entity in question. "Negotiate in good faith for the sale of your house," however, would be just fine, and offering a bribe of some free beverage for the duration might sweeten that particular deal.

At that point, if I'm the planar entity being bound and I just paid 10,000 gp for my house (which I'm still paying off the loan on), I can - possibly with slight reluctance - name my starting price (150,000 gp). And then negotiate in good faith down to my breaking point (30,000 gp), citing that any less than that and the inconvenience plus difficulty replacing it with something I want at least as much is just not worth the money.

But the command there was to negotiate, which makes it reasonable. It is not a long-term, crippling thing for me to negotiate even if I didn't really want to before the spell bound me to it.

[LTwerewolf]

There's a fallacy in your reasoning. Just because you don't find it palatable does not make it entirely unreasonable. Being compensated a fair market value for your house, while not what you would want, is still fair (thus the term). The compensation matters. While you may not prefer to only make a 5,000 gp profit out of the effort of buying your house and then needing to buy a new one, you still do in fact make a 50% profit. This is not an unreasonable request. The entire point of the spell isn't to make them happy, but to offer fair compensation for their services. I work in real estate. Ask any realtor ever. They all have to deal with some deals where they make next to nothing in order to make the deal work. It's not preferable, but it's not unreasonable.

[Segev]

There's a fallacy in your reasoning. Just because you don't find it palatable does not make it entirely unreasonable. Being compensated a fair market value for your house, while not what you would want, is still fair (thus the term). The compensation matters. While you may not prefer to only make a 5,000 gp profit out of the effort of buying your house and then needing to buy a new one, you still do in fact make a 50% profit. This is not an unreasonable request. The entire point of the spell isn't to make them happy, but to offer fair compensation for their services. I work in real estate. Ask any realtor ever. They all have to deal with some deals where they make next to nothing in order to make the deal work. It's not preferable, but it's not unreasonable.

It's quite unreasonable: it puts me out of my house and forces me to find another, when I am not at all sure I can do so at the "fair market price" as determined by somebody other than me. (In this case, I'm running off of what the tax assessor put it at; I need to get what I actually paid to their office to get my property taxes lowered, honestly.) It's in quite a nice neighborhood, and looks very nice from the outside, but requires a lot of internal updating. And lacks features that others might have wanted.

In any event, "I demand that you move to a new domicile that is worth no more than whatever I deign to offer you for your current one," is not a reasonable demand, no. Because, again, it's not just a short-term inconvenience, but a long-term crippling. It cuts off my investment and forces me into an uncertain position where I am possibly unable to find a new home of anything resembling comparable quality.

"Host me for CL days" is 'reasonable' in that it is something that I can recover from fairly quickly after it's over. "Find me a house" is reasonable, as it's annoying but not going to permanently cripple me.

But I'm afraid demanding something as personal and irreplaceable as one's home, permanently, is definitely in "unreasonable" territory.

Of course, this IS one of those DM-adjudicated things. One DM may think it fine, another may agree with me. In any event, my argument is that whether it's reasonable or not is dependent on the demand, not the offered payment.

Honestly, if the offered payment makes it "reasonable," I could see the DM forgoing the roll simply because the Outsider in question is willing to do it for that pay. He voluntarily fails and accepts the offer. (By this, I mean that if you're offering payment that the Outsider finds worth the service being demanded, you don't have to persuade/coerce him into it anymore for the same reason that if you offered a teen a new car in return for mowing your half-acre lawn, he'd almost certainly jump at the opportunity.)

[icefractal]

Depends on the creature. Pit Fiends, I find particularly unlikely. If it was a low-ranking devil, and the task was something it would enjoy (such as "make this town suffer for being rude to me"), then sure, free break from the blood war, plenty of mortals to eat, why not?

But for a Pit Fiend, it's the one running things - you're dragging it away from ruling its realm and giving its rivals an opportunity to exploit, even if the task is trivially easy for it. No way it's going to do that without hefty payment, unless you're so powerful you can convincingly threaten it into serving.

Also with lawful and greedy creatures like devils, Efreeti, etc, it's entirely possible that the high-up ones engage in price fixing - commanding the lower ranking ones to never serve a mortal for less than [agreed amount], because they get a cut of it. You might be better off with demons.

Celestials, on the other hand - yes, I could see many of them serving for free if it was for a good cause. Especially so if the PCs don't have the resources to pay them, rather than just being cheap. You'd want to keep things friendly though, which probably means summoning them without a binding circle.

[Segev]

Depends on the creature. Pit Fiends, I find particularly unlikely. If it was a low-ranking devil, and the task was something it would enjoy (such as "make this town suffer for being rude to me"), then sure, free break from the blood war, plenty of mortals to eat, why not?

But for a Pit Fiend, it's the one running things - you're dragging it away from ruling its realm and giving its rivals an opportunity to exploit, even if the task is trivially easy for it. No way it's going to do that without hefty payment, unless you're so powerful you can convincingly threaten it into serving. Sure. That's what the Charisma check is for: can you browbeat/convince it?

"Unreasonable," again, is whether the task itself is reasonable to expect somebody of that power to be able to do and to do without permanently crippling themselves in some way. Pit Fiends clearly have things in place in case they're missing for long periods of time, or they'd NEVER be planar bound since it would always be "unreasonable" to expect them to risk their permanent position for any service. (Notably, 20 days' "personal time" probably won't cripple any bureaucrat or despot.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

"Unreasonable commands" are, as has been stated, services demanded which are not reasonable. The payment is independent of whether or not the command itself is reasonable. It is a violation of the RAW to treat an offered payment as changing how reasonable the command is. First, whether the command is reasonable is determined. Then the bribery of the reward can be considered as to how much it influences the charisma check.

An offer of compensation -can- make an unreasonable thing into something reasonable. It's simply a matter of perspective. What is reasonable is an inherently subjective thing. That's why you can refute Deadline's example that way. It's not because they're essentially the same thing in point of fact but because you -feel- they are essentially the same thing. It is your interpretation.


Telling a Modron to hunt down and kill Primus - even if the Modron theoretically could achieve this task - is unreasonable because of the gross violation of its nature. Telling any outsider to submit itself to (what it considers) torture for your CL in days is unreasonable. Note, when I say "torture," I don't mean "anything it hates." I mean literal torture, like using a fire hose as a scribble-laser on a fire elemental. Anything which permanently maims the outsider or is sure to get it killed is unreasonable.

That's one interpretation. I don't disagree with it but it's still just that; an interpretation.


The "unreasonable" clause is there to indicate that the creature can't be compelled to ruin itself, not to allow you to decide that all the outsiders the PCs manage to summon for binding purposes mysteriously hate servitude so much that merely expecting them to be civil after having summoned them is "unreasonable."

Note that I -never- said that payment would or should always be necessary. I only said that it -can- make an otherwise unreasonable demand into a reasonable one. It's simply a matter of interpretation. This has always been my entire point. What is reasonable to one DM or creature is not necessarily reasonable to another. Because of the vagaries of the english language you -cannot- come to a definitive conclusion on this. No one can. It -must- be interpretted by each individual DM for his own game.

I -strongly- advise any DM's following this thread to treat planar binding with caution because of the profound impact it can have on the game but that's all it is; advice.

I also strongly advise any players that you -shouldn't- expect to get exactly what you want, no questions asked, with planar binding because that is an unreasonable expectation, IMO, and the RAW does -not- explicitly support such an interpretation.

[RoboEmperor]

I also strongly advise any players that you -shouldn't- expect to get exactly what you want, no questions asked, with planar binding because that is an unreasonable expectation, IMO, and the RAW does -not- explicitly support such an interpretation.

It does support such an interpretation. Its your interpretation that needs to jump through hoops.

"I'm gonna twist the word command by changing it to service and then linking service with the word payment to make it include monetary amounts and ignore the direct dictionary definition of both command and service."


Sure. That's what the Charisma check is for: can you browbeat/convince it?

This guy understands what a charisma check is.

Let me just quote Planar Ally.

You may ask the creature to perform one task in exchange for a payment from you.

Can you people just not see the difference in tone and language with that spell? You want to pay for services, use planar ally. If you don't use planar binding. That simple. Stop turning planar binding into planar ally.

Planar ally says payment from you, planar binding says payment for its freedom, yet to these people, these are identical sentences.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It does support such an interpretation. Its your interpretation that needs to jump through hoops.

"I'm gonna twist the word command by changing it to service and then linking service with the word payment to make it include monetary amounts and ignore the direct dictionary definition of both command and service."

There are no hoops here. That's just how english works. Synonyms and allusions and equivocations are things. That's why context is important and why the dictionary is usually a very poor source for gleaning the information in a sentence.

It's not twisting command into service, it's recognizing the equivocation in the text. If you torture english hard enough you can divorce that particular sentence from the rest of the paragraph it's in but I outlined why that makes the spell do what you want even -less- than it does when you look at the sentence in its proper context.

Your interpretation is seeking to pretend that sentence doesn't even exist.

Edit: if we're pretending it's planar ally, you're pretending it's dominate monster. It is, in fact, between the two.

[RoboEmperor]

There are no hoops here. That's just how english works. Synonyms and allusions and equivocations are things. That's why context is important and why the dictionary is usually a very poor source for gleaning the information in a sentence.

It's not twisting command into service, it's recognizing the equivocation in the text. If you torture english hard enough you can divorce that particular sentence from the rest of the paragraph it's in but I outlined why that makes the spell do what you want even -less- than it does when you look at the sentence in its proper context.

Your interpretation is seeking to pretend that sentence doesn't even exist.

See how long it took you to justify changing the word command into service? That's not jumping hoops?

I can do the exact same thing for my benefit too. I can give a long winded explanation of why the word command means mind control, and say its my interpretation of context, blah blah blah.

Edit: Anyways, it takes a shorter path to reach charisma check = force of will/extortion/decepetion (malconvoker) than your explanation that command = fair trade deal.

I'm not ignoring anything. Unreasonable command is" kill yourself right now", nothing more. You're making it mean more than it actually is.

[Kelb_Panthera]

See how long it took you to justify changing the word command into service? That's not jumping hoops?

Nope. It's explaining english to someone who's desperately trying to misuse it.


I can do the exact same thing for my benefit too. I can give a long winded explanation of why the word command means mind control, and say its my interpretation of context, blah blah blah.

As if you haven't been already?


Edit: Anyways, it takes a shorter path to reach charisma check = force of will/extortion/decepetion (malconvoker) than your explanation that command = fair trade deal.

A) This is acknowledging that you're making an interpretation.

B) I never said -fair- even once. You can offer a raw but reasonable deal.

[RoboEmperor]

Nope. It's explaining english to someone who's desperately trying to misuse it.

As if you haven't been already?

If I make an analogy, i see you doing:
My boss told me to paint this red, but red is close to orange so it should be ok. Orange is close to yellow, so it should be ok to paint yellow. Yellow is close to green so green should be ok. I'm painting this green.

Command = Command.
payment for its freedom = payment for its freedom
charisma check = charisma check.

The end.

Command = Service = Payment for its service = fair trade deal...
so you're saying....
command = fair trade deal? red = green?

edit: We're both editing our posts at the same time XD. I guess it's my fault since i have a bad habit of posting then editing

Oh and synonyms are words that are similar, not exact. So every synonym you use changes the original meaning.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If I make an analogy, i see you doing:
My boss told me to paint this red, but red is close to orange so it should be ok. Orange is close to yellow, so it should be ok to paint yellow. Yellow is close to green so green should be ok. I'm painting this green.


Command = Command.
payment for its freedom = payment for its freedom
charisma check = charisma check.

The end.

Command = Service = Payment for its service = fair trade deal...
so you're saying....
command = fair trade deal? red = green?

I'm not sure how I can get this through to you.

There's a whole paragraph here.


If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

The highlighted sentence is part of the paragraph. It's meaning is included in the meaning of the -whole- of the paragraph. It's not an independent clause on the spell as a whole.

In the context of the paragraph, the terms command, demand, and service are all referring to the thing you're trying to get the called creature to do. If you changed the second and highlighted sentences to read, "You attempt to compel the creature to obey your commands," and "impossible requests and unreasonable services are always refused," the meaning of the paragraph wouldn't change at all.

This is how the english language works. You can try to twist it around however you like but you can't get it to read how you want without -eliminating- the highlighted sentence's meaning from the paragraph.

[RoboEmperor]

That's a terrible analogy.

To torture the metaphor a bit further, I'm saying the boss said paint it red, but magenta is close enough and I'm not going to do more than half-ass the paint job because he's not paying me enough for this crap.


You misunderstood the analogy. Boss = d20srd RAW rules, and you were the one making those chains of similar colors to get a totally different color.

I'm not arguing that forced slavery via geas/quest or planar binding results in half-assed jobs, subversions, revenge, unexpected and horrible results, etc., I'm saying geas/quest and planar binding are capable of causing forced slavery where as you are saying forced slavery is too close to dominate, so no, they can't cause forced slavery, only deals.

Anyways, sorry for bringing geas/quest up. Let's not get into a discussion about that in a planar binding thread. ^^;;


[S]
Gimme a minute. THis is too petty and stupid for me to leave like this.

It's ok, I'm in a petty and stupid mood right now XD. Take your time.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My previous post is fixed now.

[RoboEmperor]

About that give me your house and sell me your house example, giving up wealth for nothing (or its freedom) may actually be unreasonable, because he might not value his freedom as much as his house.

Oh my god... wait... I just contradicted my entire position with this one sentence....

OK! SO! I guess it depends on how much the creature values its freedom. How much will trapped creature pay to not be tied up in a circle for 1day/CL,? And I guess that's what DMs decide. Little room to maneuver, some creatures might just agree to the deal just to be able to move around, while I guess other creatures who are more patient might be immune...


The highlighted sentence is part of the paragraph. It's meaning is included in the meaning of the -whole- of the paragraph. It's not an independent clause on the spell as a whole.

In the context of the paragraph, the terms command, demand, and service are all referring to the thing you're trying to get the called creature to do. If you changed the second and highlighted sentences to read, "You attempt to compel the creature to obey your commands," and "impossible requests and unreasonable services are always refused," the meaning of the paragraph wouldn't change at all.

This is how the english language works. You can try to twist it around however you like but you can't get it to read how you want without -eliminating- the highlighted sentence's meaning from the paragraph.

I still disagree. That paragraph was very clear that rewards were optional and it was just explaining how rewards would boost the charisma modifier. You're turning the instructions as the defacto main message of the paragraph and is changing several words (and perhaps, unreasonable commands). That's how I see it so I think you're wrong, you see it differently, so we'll never come to an agreement, as stated before XD.

[Alex12]

The other thing to remember is that, well, most outsiders are immortal. Yes, some of them might have things to do back home- and if you're asking for something quick, then that can matter, but if you're trying to compel them for the same length of time that your magic circle would last, then they get no meaningful benefit from going out and exerting effort and possibly getting hurt (after all, they might not be able to be killed on the Material, but they can still be injured, and pain hurts) over sitting in your circle and waiting. They've got time, after all. Just throwing that out there.

[RoboEmperor]

Alright so if I was a DM I'd say...

DM gets to decide how much the creature values its freedom.
DM decides how much about spells the creature knows.
If the creature doesn't know much about spells, he will say the creature is confused and bewildered, and is easy to persuade into service out of fear.
Creatures who know lots about spells and is patient (angels, smart devils and demons), they will know it's planar binding, its duration, and just wait out the magic circle duration in order to kill its caller.


Now the biggest factor here is the charisma check. Charisma check is persuasion/intimidation/extortion/offensive willpower/etc. So it's fair to say that charisma can force creatures to do things they won't usually do through one of the aforementioned methods (persuade, etc)

And that is what I believe DMs can use as a balance tool. They decide how powerful the charisma check is, whether or not it can make creatures almost kill themselves, or do absolutely nothing.

Which is why I will say, if you want free service from intelligent powerful outsiders, switch to geas/quest and dominate.

And all this is done without questioning whether what an unreasonable command is. Hooray for me!

As for Tippy's TO of charisma debuff on the creature, that's torture, so it's justifiable that a creature would agree to serve in order to stop the pain. I believe geas/quest is extremely painful.

edit: But still, by RAW, there is nothing in the spell rules about a creature being able to refuse a charisma check... so i guess I'm back to where I started XD. I'd say if a character won a charisma check against a pit fiend, he/she cozied and sucked up to the pit fiend enough to get him to help you or... you tricked it with lies (malconvoker).

EXCEPT In fiendish codex II.

edit2: So to further expand that.
Sorcerer rolled a 20 and got a 27, and the pit fiend rolled a 1 and got a 9. Mechanically the pit fiend agrees to free service. So what happened in-game?

The sorcerer's arrogance impressed the pit fiend
The pit fiend saw potential in a relationship
The pit fiend fell in love with the sorcerer
The pit fiend got tricked


So there is practically infinite reasons why a pit fiend would help a sorcerer/wizard out for nothing.

Anyways whatever @_@. I had enough self-doubt dealing with whether or not a charm monster's charisma check can force anyone to do anything. By RAW charm monster's charisma check can make the guy act like it's dominated, but that's not the spirit of the spell, and yadda yadda yadda, one can argue the samething for this.

I hate charisma checks.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I still disagree. That paragraph was very clear that rewards were optional and it was just explaining how rewards would boost the charisma modifier. You're turning the instructions as the defacto main message of the paragraph and is changing several words (and perhaps, unreasonable commands). That's how I see it so I think you're wrong, you see it differently, so we'll never come to an agreement, as stated before XD.

No, the second sentence of the paragraph suggests that payment is optional by presenting it as an option. Payment -is- optional. I never said it wasn't. The paragraph, on the whole, however, is outlining the fact that you're trying to get the creature to enter into an agreement with you.

I said that, because unreasonable service is always refused, -sometimes- payment -may- be necessary. You -can- get free service but you have to frame the service you're asking for in such a way as to make it seem reasonable.

This can be achieved by outlining what you expect the creature to do and that outline matching up with something it would do if left to its own devices anyway or by presenting it with consequences (not necessarily a threat of torture) of not doing the thing that it would consider undesireable. You can freakin' lie to the blasted thing to make your proposed service seem reasonable when it is, in fact, completely unreasonable when looked at through an honest lense and get free service (expect repraisal).

What I said was unreasonable and, thus, likely to be ignored entirely was non-descript service for no compensnation. "Do what I say, when I say, and like it," is a completely unreasonable thing for anything that isn't mindless or so ridiculously disposed to unquestioning obedience as to be virtually mindless to -agree- to as a reasonable command. A monodrone modron would probably accept such service without a second thought. A lemure devil literally -can't- think to disagree. A quadrone, on the other hand, knows you are not its superior and has work to do that you are prohibiting and -may- demand compensation in something as simple as a promise that you won't call it again after this term of service is complete.

[RoboEmperor]

I agree with you now Kelb, after like a year. WOW, did not see myself reversing my position. Next time someone brings this up though, you should argue with the "give me" and "sell me" example instead of the english language thing.

"Give me your house" (for your freedom) is an unreasonable command.
"Sell me your house" (for your freedom) might be an unreasonable command depending on your offer.
And there's your link. Your link to linking payment/rewards with unreasonable command. Therefore unreasonable command is tied to the offer at hand, and if the offer is insufficient, getting it to agree to the offer is an unreasonable command.

edit: So now the only way a player can elicit free service is
1. Prove that the creature doesn't know the planar binding spell. If the creature does know planar binding spells, well, he'll probably judge that being locked up for 1day/caster level isn't worth much... If he doesn't then for all he knows he could be trapped there for all eternity.
2. Prove that the creature is dumb.
3. Prove that the creature has urgent business to attend to.
4. Compulsion spells!!!!!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Did I just convince someone of my position?

On the internet?

:eek:

That doesn't happen often.

Edit: not gloating. Genuinely surprised.

I mean, you always hope, but that hope is usually dashed.... over and over.

[RoboEmperor]

Did I just convince someone of my position?

On the internet?

:eek:

That doesn't happen often.

it was Deadline's example so it's only fair that he gets the credit, not you :P

[Kelb_Panthera]

it was Deadline's example so it's only fair that he gets the credit, not you :P

Just couldn't let me have it could you?

[Judge_Worm]

It depends on the creature in question, as has already been said prior.
Just focusing on outer planes denizens...
An LG outsider will generally follow along as long as they aren't being asked to do something evil and/or chaotic.
An LN will uphold their end of the deal if an agreement can be made.
LE will generally do whatever as long as they themselves are not put in any real danger.
NG will try to be helpful, may or may not actually do what's asked of them.
NE will do anything as long as they are properly bribed.
CG will also try to be helpful, but are unlikely to obey orders.
CN1 (ex. Titans) will do their own thing, but can be convinced to do the summoner's thing.
CN2 (ex. Slaad) will do something random, usually with no relevance to the task given to them.
CE will stab the summoner in the back at the closest opportunity.

[Segev]

if we're pretending it's planar ally, you're pretending it's dominate monster. It is, in fact, between the two.If you can press it to accept the task of "obey my every command as I intend it to be obeyed" or the like, it is functionally the same. Now, that might be considered "unreasonable" for the simple reason that any number of unreasonable commands could be included in that. Like "kill yourself" or "give me absolute control of your throne in Heaven."

But it's pretty close for most purposes.

The "unreasonable" clause really is meant to prevent somebody from just forcing an existence-ruining task on something by virtue of nothing but a high cha check.

I suppose I see your point, though, in one respect: an offer of payment might turn an otherwise-unreasonable offer into a reasonable one. But I hesitate to allow that simply based on the fact that the offer of payment is supposed to be represented by the bonus to the Charisma check (up to +6).

I suppose the DM can adjudicate it as there being a bare minimum that turns an otherwise-unreasonable demand into a reasonable one (for a +0 bonus).

That...actually...might be what the Fiendish Codex II is getting at, now that I think about it: it automatically fails if you can't get the bonus to at least +0 through your bribes because it counts as "unreasonable" at anything less. You need, for instance, to offer me enough for my house that I can replace it adequately before I can even consider your offer "reasonable." I still will be resistant until you get to a high enough number that I could replace my house and be better off afterwards, to boot, though, so you get a +0 at first, with an increasing bonus until you get to something so good I'm sorely tempted no matter what. (I figure, if you get past the +6, the creature just automatically agrees; the deal is just so awesome that it would consider it unreasonable to turn it down.)


B) I never said -fair- even once. You can offer a raw but reasonable deal.
Er... A raw deal isn't unfair, inherently. It's just a deal that doesn't leave the participant for whom it's "raw" feeling satisfied.

"I'll save your life if you turn over career-ruining evidence of your sins in a way that lets me make them public knowledge" is a raw deal, but it can certainly be a fair one. I think "fair" and "reasonable" are actually synonymous, here.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The "unreasonable" clause really is meant to prevent somebody from just forcing an existence-ruining task on something by virtue of nothing but a high cha check.

You're free to rule that way in your own game but there's nothing there to suggest this is what's intended.


I suppose I see your point, though, in one respect: an offer of payment might turn an otherwise-unreasonable offer into a reasonable one. But I hesitate to allow that simply based on the fact that the offer of payment is supposed to be represented by the bonus to the Charisma check (up to +6).

I suppose the DM can adjudicate it as there being a bare minimum that turns an otherwise-unreasonable demand into a reasonable one (for a +0 bonus).

That...actually...might be what the Fiendish Codex II is getting at, now that I think about it: it automatically fails if you can't get the bonus to at least +0 through your bribes because it counts as "unreasonable" at anything less. You need, for instance, to offer me enough for my house that I can replace it adequately before I can even consider your offer "reasonable." I still will be resistant until you get to a high enough number that I could replace my house and be better off afterwards, to boot, though, so you get a +0 at first, with an increasing bonus until you get to something so good I'm sorely tempted no matter what. (I figure, if you get past the +6, the creature just automatically agrees; the deal is just so awesome that it would consider it unreasonable to turn it down.)

That's pretty much how I see it.



Er... A raw deal isn't unfair, inherently. It's just a deal that doesn't leave the participant for whom it's "raw" feeling satisfied.

"I'll save your life if you turn over career-ruining evidence of your sins in a way that lets me make them public knowledge" is a raw deal, but it can certainly be a fair one. I think "fair" and "reasonable" are actually synonymous, here.

You and I seem to have different ideas about what the terms 'reasonable,' 'fair,' and the phrase 'raw deal' mean. Fair and reasonable can be used synonymously but I don't think they were used in such a way here. There is no circumstance under which I'd call getting the short end of the stick on a deal fair. It might be reasonable to take the deal anyway, unwantned consequences of refusal and all that, but if it was fair it wouldn't be a raw deal.

Hurrah for the vagaries of the english language, eh?

[Segev]

Because I'm a stickler and a pedant, I will argue the case at least a little more.

A "raw deal" is one where there was no "good" outcome for you. "Sell the last memento of your long-dead mentor for enough money to buy the cure to a fatal disease you've contracted," is a raw deal, because the value of the memento to you is far greater than to anybody else, but if it's all you've got to sell for that medicine...it's still fair.


A "fair deal" is one wherein neither side is getting a disproportionate return. Both, presumably, are getting "more than they're giving up" as far as they are concerned, or there'd be no reason to deal at all, but there's nothing special about this circumstance that is allowing one side to extort far more than they otherwise could from anybody else.

An unfair deal usually only results when there is deception or a special circumstance wherein, for the brief moment of the deal, the service or good one side has to offer is worth way, way more than it should be due to pressing need of the other side. The classic example of charging a man his life savings to pull him up off of a cliff to which he's clinging for dear life, or a more contrived example of having the only dose of an antidote for a rare, fatal poison that a man needs RIGHT NOW, but which under any other circumstances would be worth only a few copper pieces, would probably qualify. (Wealthy individuals offering huge rewards for this service after the fact are a different matter entirely; that's voluntary expression of gratitude, not extortion and exploitation of a life-or-death situation.)


What differentiates a raw-but-fair deal from an unfair one is that the raw-but-fair deal is not exploitation by the "other" side of the deal. The apothecary selling the cure for the disease sells it for the same price to everybody. The memento is worth only a handful of gp to most people, even though it's nearly priceless to the sick man. It's a raw deal, but there's nothing unfair about it.



I am curious what you would see as "reasonable, but not fair," though. Can you think of any examples?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Because I'm a stickler and a pedant, I will argue the case at least a little more.

A "raw deal" is one where there was no "good" outcome for you. "Sell the last memento of your long-dead mentor for enough money to buy the cure to a fatal disease you've contracted," is a raw deal, because the value of the memento to you is far greater than to anybody else, but if it's all you've got to sell for that medicine...it's still fair.

Here's where we have run into a difference in opinion. I wouldn't begin to call that a fair deal. Accepting the deal would be reasonable, your fallen mentor wouldn't want you to die and sentiment is rarely worth dying for in its own right, but that doesn't make it fair. It's not fair to have to choose between your feelings and your health.



A "fair deal" is one wherein neither side is getting a disproportionate return. Both, presumably, are getting "more than they're giving up" as far as they are concerned, or there'd be no reason to deal at all, but there's nothing special about this circumstance that is allowing one side to extort far more than they otherwise could from anybody else.

I can agree to that.


An unfair deal usually only results when there is deception or a special circumstance wherein, for the brief moment of the deal, the service or good one side has to offer is worth way, way more than it should be due to pressing need of the other side. The classic example of charging a man his life savings to pull him up off of a cliff to which he's clinging for dear life, or a more contrived example of having the only dose of an antidote for a rare, fatal poison that a man needs RIGHT NOW, but which under any other circumstances would be worth only a few copper pieces, would probably qualify. (Wealthy individuals offering huge rewards for this service after the fact are a different matter entirely; that's voluntary expression of gratitude, not extortion and exploitation of a life-or-death situation.)

I can agree to that too.


What differentiates a raw-but-fair deal from an unfair one is that the raw-but-fair deal is not exploitation by the "other" side of the deal. The apothecary selling the cure for the disease sells it for the same price to everybody. The memento is worth only a handful of gp to most people, even though it's nearly priceless to the sick man. It's a raw deal, but there's nothing unfair about it.

It's not unfair from the perspective of the merchant. What's fair is a matter of perspective. The phrase "raw deal" means a deal that is unfair, as I always understood it. A raw-but-fair deal strikes me as an oxymoron. It's a reasonable deal, certainly, in that following through with it lines up with logical reasoning and the merchant certainly isn't trying to be unfair but that doesn't console the sick man much at all. He's still having to give up something precious for something worth far less to him under any other circumstance than the one he's in. Hell, this even fits with your description of an unfair deal. It's exactly the same as the contrived, poison-antidote example you gave except that, presumably, the merchant didn't give the man the disease that's killing him.




I am curious what you would see as "reasonable, but not fair," though. Can you think of any examples?

Your own examples of 'raw-but-fair' strike me as exactly that; reasonable but unfair. You can't really -not- take the deal, taking the deal is the reasonable thing to do. That doesn't make it fair that you're in that position.

[AnachroNinja]

It's worth noting that the classic fluff for demons and devil's is that their plane sucks, and the generally relish the chance to come to the material plane to experience things other then hellfire. The trick is generally to overcome their arrogance and distaste for obeying a puny human, but still many evil outsiders would agree to service purely for the chance to fight and kill things other then other evil outsiders.

In regards to the unreasonable command thing.... I'd always seem that as similar to the Charm Person clause in that while under your control, it won't obey any blatantly unreasonable commands. That is to say, not applying to the negotiations but rather applying to what it will do while on your service. I can see an argument for it applying to the negotiations phase, but that would mean that it doesn't apply once it has agreed. So if I were to offer a demon 3 souls to be my valet and bodyguard for 1 day, obeying me as it's employer and Commander, and it found that to be a reasonable deal, it would not be able to disobey any of my commands with the possible exception of obviously suicidal ones. That seems like something you would disagree with also kelb, but I don't see any logical support for it applying to both situations.

Now if it applies to commands given during service rather then negotiations, it would remove most of the arguments for it refusing deals, but that also makes sense to me. If I were to request that it kill a nearby dragon, while that might be unreasonable for it to do in a straight up fight, there are likely any number of reasonably possible ways for a powerful demon to arrange it's death, up to and including letting it die of old age of I was foolish enough to not stipulate a reasonable deadline.

That said, it could also call in a couple favors from other demons. It could set a trap. It could collapse the dragons cave. If I'm say... CL 15, then I'm sure in 15 days the demon could arrange any number of plans, all while enjoying the material plane rather then being stuck in a magic circle for the same amount of time.

Not only that but while it may know that it can just wait out the circle, for that to be a viable option it would probably have to feel pretty confident it can kill the spell caster who summoned it, presumably the rest of the party, and that it can avoid simply being trapped in another magic circle as soon as it escapes. I could simply banish it and summon it again after all. Just some alternate views I thought I'd share.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not only that but while it may know that it can just wait out the circle, for that to be a viable option it would probably have to feel pretty confident it can kill the spell caster who summoned it, presumably the rest of the party, and that it can avoid simply being trapped in another magic circle as soon as it escapes. I could simply banish it and summon it again after all. Just some alternate views I thought I'd share.

It doesn't require any confidence at all. As a consequence of being a called creature it has a one time use ability to simply return to its home plane. As soon as the circle fails, poof.

[RoboEmperor]

Actually I reverse my position. You can get free planar bindings when you pass the charisma check.

The deal was 1/day service for payment of freedom right? WRONG! The deal is...

1/day service in exchange for...
Freedom and...
Life! Because if you don't do what I say I'm gonna splatter you across this circle with spells.

Freedom may not be worth as much as waiting until the magic circle ends, but not dying is!

[AnachroNinja]

Like I said kelb, it can leave, and since I personally prefer to bind creatures I know the name of, I just bind it again. It's either got to come back and kill me before I finish, or is just stuck again.

[Segev]

Here's where we have run into a difference in opinion. I wouldn't begin to call that a fair deal. Accepting the deal would be reasonable, your fallen mentor wouldn't want you to die and sentiment is rarely worth dying for in its own right, but that doesn't make it fair. It's not fair to have to choose between your feelings and your health.Okay.




It's not unfair from the perspective of the merchant. What's fair is a matter of perspective. The phrase "raw deal" means a deal that is unfair, as I always understood it. A raw-but-fair deal strikes me as an oxymoron. It's a reasonable deal, certainly, in that following through with it lines up with logical reasoning and the merchant certainly isn't trying to be unfair but that doesn't console the sick man much at all. He's still having to give up something precious for something worth far less to him under any other circumstance than the one he's in. Hell, this even fits with your description of an unfair deal. It's exactly the same as the contrived, poison-antidote example you gave except that, presumably, the merchant didn't give the man the disease that's killing him.No, a deal is "fair" or it isn't. Fairness is intrinsic. It can't be "more fair" to one person than the other.

The difference between the "last memento" example and the "extortion for antidote" example lies not in the merchant having poisoned the victim or not. In fact, it could be that the victim foolishly stuck his hand in a hole and got bitten by something that only ever bites if you do that, or somesuch, and the extortion is because the poison makes your limbs go numb so he can't crawl the 20 feet to the common plant that is the antidote...but the "merchant" can do it easily.

The difference lies in the fact that the merchant who buys the memento is not getting anything of disproportionate value to himself. He'd happily give the same price for anything else of similar market value. He won't feel too badly about not being sold it, either, if the disease victim doesn't want to part with it; he can buy other things to sell for similar profit margins. In the antidote case, the "merchant" is extorting enormous value for a service that would normally be cheap to free. He is deliberately exploiting circumstance to arrange a deal that is not "fair."

A "raw deal" is one wherein everybody is treating each other fairly, but one side feels it cost him more than he would have given up if he had any other choice. Alternatively, it's a deal where no matter what he chooses, he feels screwed. The situation might be "unfair" in a colloquial sense, but the deal can still be perfectly fair.

Unfairness implies some measure of malign action on the part of the one for whom the unfairness is an advantage. Exploitation or cheating. An unfair deal is one which should be morally and possibly ethically thrown out after the fact. "Unconscionable contracts" in US legal parlance are unfair deals. Raw deals, like the housing market collapsing while you still owe more on the house than it is worth, are not unfair to you. They just suck. You got what you agreed to, and the lender did what he agreed to. It's not even in his interest that this has happened, because now if you default he's out his money. It could turn into a raw deal for BOTH of you, despite being perfectly fair.



Your own examples of 'raw-but-fair' strike me as exactly that; reasonable but unfair. You can't really -not- take the deal, taking the deal is the reasonable thing to do. That doesn't make it fair that you're in that position.I think the main problem is that you're equating the "fairness" of the situation with the fairness of the deal. These are two separate things.

Situations, honestly, can't be fair or unfair, but we use the terms to describe levels of favorability. If you're playing a class which requires a roll of a d100 every level-up, and on a 100, all the magic items and wealth the character has turn to worthless dust, rolling that 100 isn't "unfair." It's just unfortunate and really frustrating. But chance is chance. Things happen.

We tend to say it's "unfair" when horrible things happen to people who we don't feel have bad enough karma to deserve them. But in truth, unless you believe there is some sort of karmic contract, it's not unfair. It's just sad, frustrating, and awful.

Fairness is all about interaction. Fairness of a deal is about the real worth of things to people. The greedy jerk doesn't really value the effort it would take to walk 20 feet, grab the antidote-plant, and walk back to administer it to the wealthy poison victim at the enormous price he's demanding, but he sees that he can get it. The merchant really does value that memento of the disease victim's mentor at the price he offers. The merchant giving the money for the cure for something else the victim has would be giving charity, because he'd be hurting himself financially (if only a little).

Charity is inherently unfair, but it's not "bad" because the unfairness is willingly given. It is the willingly-given unfairness on the part of the one getting the worse of the exchange that makes it charity.

But a raw deal can still be a fair deal.


I think I would tend to define a "reasonable" deal as one that is fair without being raw. That is, both sides are satisfied with it, and neither is taking unfair advantage.



...and that phrase, "unfair advantage," is where I think I hang the crux of my definition. An unfair deal involves somebody gaining advantage at another's expense. The merchant buying the memento and the apothecary selling the cure is gaining no more advantage than he would in any other deal of that sort. The greedy jerk walking 20 feet to get an antidote is gaining unfair advantage due to the circumstances.

[Kelb_Panthera]

-snip-

I think I've identified our disagreement. You're equating fairness with equitability. If a deal is an equitable one then it's -likely- a fair one but fair and equitable are not synonymous to my understanding.

I disagree with the notion a deal can't be more fair for one party than the other. Like I said, fair is a matter of perspective. You're looking from the perspective of a neutral, third party.

I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Segev]

I think I've identified our disagreement. You're equating fairness with equitability. If a deal is an equitable one then it's -likely- a fair one but fair and equitable are not synonymous to my understanding.

I disagree with the notion a deal can't be more fair for one party than the other. Like I said, fair is a matter of perspective. You're looking from the perspective of a neutral, third party.I disagree. A deal can be objectively determined to be fair or not. I do equate fair with equitable; I don't see how they can be different. That's the whole meaning of "fair." That nobody cheated, nobody extorted, nobody exploited.


I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It seems you are right about this, however.

[gogogome]

Hey guys, one of my players pointed this out.

The "The creature might later seek revenge." part of the rules kind of suggest that this is a forced slavery right?

Malconvokers have Bluff checks because they are lying to the creature.
Thaumaturgist, although is planar ally, has diplomacy to reduce the payment.

But a naked charisma check is neither diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate, meaning its not a lie, negotiation, or a threat, but a force of will right?

And all that talk about optional payment just signifies that this spell can be like planar ally, but not always.

So wouldn't all this suggest that planar binding can force free service and cause vengeful actions?

He read this thread I showed him and he claims that demanding wealth from the victim is not unreasonable. If it's give up your house or die, then the outsider would probably give up his house, unless he has some means of surviving the execution (like being a devil or a demon), in which case is the price of the house worth a demotion? It is reasonable that the slain demon or devil will not get demoted immediately, but would be allowed one attempt at vengeance before being labeled worthless.

He also suggested that an outsider with a means of vengeance would give up the house to survive the encounter, then bring his friends, his boss, the outsider police or whatever to exact justice, but still, the planar binding can at the time force a free house.

He also said that devils are the exception thanks to fiendish codex II, and that that is because devils probably have a system that don't demote devils that are slain in this manner.

What would be your counterarguments? Sorry if it feels like I'm asking the same thing over and over again... Just to clarify, I just want to be as close to RAW as possible, and I don't want to use my judgement for spell rules unless its the last resort.

[Deadline]

Just to clarify, I just want to be as close to RAW as possible, and I don't want to use my judgement for spell rules unless its the last resort.

Well, you've got a problem then. Planar Binding requires DM judgement to function.

[Segev]

"Give up your house or die" really doesn't even get into the charisma check portion...if he believes you both can and will follow through.

Planar binding can bypass all the force-of-will stuff if you can really just resort to a different means of coercion. Just remember that killing him probably requires breeching the circle containing him, so it will still be a fight. But if you can and are willing to do it...hey, why do you think weaker extraplanar entities wind up slaves to powerful mages? They KNOW better than to refuse.

And there's always dominate monster, if you're powerful enough.

[Deophaun]

Or you could read it in the plain english that the PHB was writtten in and realize that there's no seperation created by that 'and.'
Wait, first you tell me to read it in plain English, then you go and read it in bizzaro English. Make up your mind.

Logic would read "stress" as shorthand for "threatened," because only distractions and being threatened actually restrict you from taking 10. Ergo, since stress is distinct from a distraction, yet is also referring to something that prevents you from taking 10, the only thing stress could be is being threatened. Because, and I repeat this for the thousandth time, nowhere is stress, in-and-of-itself, stated to prevent you from taking 10. This is the hurdle your argument has to clear, and yet it faceplants on it right out the gate.

There's an -enormous- degree of difference in the complexity of climbing and trying to negotiate a contract or stuff somebody's guts back into them (which I also don't see as a take 10 situation, btw). Careful measured concentration can allow you to put your hand where it needs to go on the ciff you're climbing. No ammount of concentration can accuratey predict how another creature will react to your posturing and words.
Great. Now we need to make Concentration checks to take 10. Your house rules really hate mundanes.

Concentration does not play into taking 10. Taking 10 is just how you normally go about doing something, which is why you can't do it when distracted or threatened, because there are now other factors that physically prevent you from behaving normally. Rolling is taking an added risk. When you roll on a Charisma check, you're not just being charming and putting on a nice face; you're playing a gambit or you're rushing to the conclusion of your proposal because you need to get it out before there's a sword in your gut. In film and media, it's the equivalent of throwing out that perfect, one-word argument that makes the villain hold off on the execution. That's the roll.

By the way, this: "stuff somebody's guts back into them (which I also don't see as a take 10 situation, btw)" is the perfect illustration of why you're wrong. While you might decide mountain climbing is fine, so climbers aren't routinely falling to their deaths, you have turned surgeons into the greatest killers of all time. Way to go.

Stress is not a feeling you can choose to have or not. It's something you can try to controll. By that logic you should never be disallowed from taking 10 on anything because you're so cool and collected at all times.
No, it's your logic that always allowing taking 10, because your logic conditions taking 10 on an emotional state. RAW doesn't. A distraction is a distraction regardless of what you feel. You are threatened by virtue of being in reach of an enemy's weapon, regardless of what you feel. The only way stress is something you cannot control is IF YOU HAVE FAILED A SAVE. That is the only time the DM can control your character's reaction. So, at what point did that roll occur? It didn't? Great, you can't tell me my character feels stress because you cannot tell me my character feels anything. I take 10.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wait, first you tell me to read it in plain English, then you go and read it in bizzaro English. Make up your mind.

All the players and the quarterback are on the field. Is there any doubt in your mind that the quarterback is a player in the preceding sentence? If you want to hilight a specific member of a set, you call it out specifically. That doesn't make it not part of the set.


Logic would read "stress" as shorthand for "threatened," because only distractions and being threatened actually restrict you from taking 10. Ergo, since stress is distinct from a distraction, yet is also referring to something that prevents you from taking 10, the only thing stress could be is being threatened. Because, and I repeat this for the thousandth time, nowhere is stress, in-and-of-itself, stated to prevent you from taking 10. This is the hurdle your argument has to clear, and yet it faceplants on it right out the gate.

Circular logic. You're presuming your conclusion as a premise. You can't say stress is distinct from other distractions until you can prove it. It also looks to me like you're angling for being able to take 10 under any circumstance short of somebody with a sword breathing down your neck.


Great. Now we need to make Concentration checks to take 10. Your house rules really hate mundanes.

A) I never posited such a houserule and don't have it. You can either take 10 or you can't.

B) Nice ad-hominem. You don't have to prove my position wrong if you can prove I'm a bad DM, right?


Concentration does not play into taking 10. Taking 10 is just how you normally go about doing something, which is why you can't do it when distracted or threatened, because there are now other factors that physically prevent you from behaving normally. Rolling is taking an added risk. When you roll on a Charisma check, you're not just being charming and putting on a nice face; you're playing a gambit or you're rushing to the conclusion of your proposal because you need to get it out before there's a sword in your gut. In film and media, it's the equivalent of throwing out that perfect, one-word argument that makes the villain hold off on the execution. That's the roll.

Distraction is the antithesis of concentration. It's -literally- defined as something that draws away your attention from what you're trying to concentrate on. You're now arguing to throw out distraction as a reason you can't take 10 as well. Why bother with dice at all when you could just make your skill value a fixed number by adding 10?



By the way, this: "stuff somebody's guts back into them (which I also don't see as a take 10 situation, btw)" is the perfect illustration of why you're wrong. While you might decide mountain climbing is fine, so climbers aren't routinely falling to their deaths, you have turned surgeons into the greatest killers of all time. Way to go.

You're not really familiar with medical history, are you? Surgeons -are- the greatest killers of all time. They just usually kill people that are going to die anyway. Modern technology and training push the total skill modifier high enough that they only rarely fail on a natural 1 for routine surgeries but in a medieval (or pseudomedieval) setting most surgeons would be lucky to be below 25-30% mortality, at a generous estimate. In a fantasy setting it gets even worse since not all patients will have the same internal anatomy with different races having slightly different insides.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy we have modern, western medicine and I certainly wouldn't turn down a surgery if it was what had the best chance of ensuring my continued survival but medicine has a long, bloody history and there are a -lot- of bodies between where we started and where we are now.


No, it's your logic that always allowing taking 10, because your logic conditions taking 10 on an emotional state. RAW doesn't. A distraction is a distraction regardless of what you feel. You are threatened by virtue of being in reach of an enemy's weapon, regardless of what you feel. The only way stress is something you cannot control is IF YOU HAVE FAILED A SAVE. That is the only time the DM can control your character's reaction. So, at what point did that roll occur? It didn't? Great, you can't tell me my character feels stress because you cannot tell me my character feels anything. I take 10.

You're arguing for the most favorable to the player reading of the rules to allow taking 10 as often as possible and -I'm- the one whose argument allows it? Hell, you're even throwing out false equivalences (Stress = in a threatened area) and ignoring plain english for keywords (threatened = in a threatened square, rather than under threat of harm in general) to support your argument and just added 'distraction is meaningless' by pretending it has nothing to do with concentration (the idea, not the game skill).

Ask any soldier, any surgeon, or any psychologist and they'll all tell you the same thing; you can't not feel stress, you can only deal with it. If you're good at dealing with it, it -looks- like you don't feel it but it's still there. Adrenaline doesn't care what you think.

When your action only affects you and there are no distractions, by all means, take 10. If you're interacting with another creature or some other element of random events over which you can neither predict nor exert control, roll it.

[RoboEmperor]

Everyone knows you can beat a polygraph test (lie detector), but some people get nervous despite knowing this and fail it. Other people with supreme confidence in their lies pass it.

The nervous people arguably feel stress, the confident ones definitely don't. The same logic can be applied to planar binding.

You can't blanket statement that everyone feels stress for the same things.