I'm trying to understand Planar Binding - what is a valid service?

[Jon_Dahl]

You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward.


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

Just to be clear, are the following services completable through one's own actions and therefore valid?
- Guard a place against intrusion twice. However, there is no intrusion for thousands of years...
- Guard a place for a month. But during that time the place will be under heavy attacks several times every week...
- Serve in an army for the duration of a war. But later on, there is a truce in the war that lasts for several years, and in the end the war is not even waged anymore but there is no peace either...
- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...

[Deeds]

If I ask you in person to tie my shoes, that would be considered a suitable request with both a condition and an action to complete the deal. If I ask you to stop any dogs from sniffing my shoes then we're left with a deal with a condition and a triggered action to complete the deal. Frankly, we may never encounter any dogs so who's to say when the job is done?

You can make a deal with a demon to guard Starbucks from pesky elves all you want. Just know that the caster level per day is in effect and the demon is allowed a saving throw immediately upon the request.

In other words, avoiding the open-ended requests means you need to setup a course of action with a specific time frame for completion.

- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...
This is a valid request. Your DM may decide that the CL/day applies, however.

[Beheld]

Just to be clear, are the following services completable through one's own actions and therefore valid?
- Guard a place against intrusion twice. However, there is no intrusion for thousands of years...
- Guard a place for a month. But during that time the place will be under heavy attacks several times every week...
- Serve in an army for the duration of a war. But later on, there is a truce in the war that lasts for several years, and in the end the war is not even waged anymore but there is no peace either...
- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...

I think all of those would be open ended end in 1 day per CL terms.
I'm also not sure "serve in an army" is one service, sure looks a lot more like hundreds of services.

[rel]

Just to be clear, are the following services completable through one's own actions and therefore valid?
- Guard a place against intrusion twice. However, there is no intrusion for thousands of years...
- Guard a place for a month. But during that time the place will be under heavy attacks several times every week...
- Serve in an army for the duration of a war. But later on, there is a truce in the war that lasts for several years, and in the end the war is not even waged anymore but there is no peace either...
- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...

Adjudicating that spell is always tough.

I'd say guarding the place against intrusion is not completable through personal action since it requires someone to actually attack and that might never happen.

Guarding a place for a month is fine but if the creature dies it is perma dead and it knows that. So if the guard duty looks like a suicide mission that will likely trigger the unreasonable demand clause

Duration of a war again seems open ended, a fixed timeframe maybe a maximum period should be added.
Service in an army also has the issue of not being specific enough. what kind of service? The possibility of being sent on a suicide mission or forced to do something unacceptable looms large making the request unreasonable. Clauses on what is and isn't an acceptable order and what service will mean need to be added.

hunt someone down might not be achievable either because the target is dead or just very good at hiding so it needs clauses to make it not open ended.

As a GM I try and consider these things from the creatures point of view.

What are things the creature absolutely refuses to do? Any service that might result in the angel shedding innocent blood is unreasonable for example.

Next question the creature asks is just how screwed am I?
A calling diagram (the magic circle that stops escape through dimensional travel and so on) only lasts 1 day per caster level so any creature that can use such an escape and knows how magic works has to weigh any service and reward up against standing in a circle for a few weeks.

And any creature can eventually escape by just resisting your requests till you roll a 1 on the opposed check so you never have a perfect trap.

Finally, most creatures will probably want to test the trap a few times just to make sure you did the binding properly before they are willing to bargain so they might flat out refuse a few times just to test the wards.

This doesn't mean creatures will auto refuse all services as unreasonable but if you are asking a demon to serve you loyally for 1 year and 1 day you probably have to sweeten the pot some or offer a credible threat.

The credible threat part is significant. A big part of how the trapped outsider acts will depend on your relative power. If the creature thinks it can take you on it is a lot more likely to resist and flat out refuse.
If an efreet finds itself in a room with 3 others of its kind all bound and watches you offer some crazy request to the other 3 then effortlessly kill them when they refuse it then that last efreet is a lot more likely to accept your deal of 'wishes. Just start casting 'em. I'll tell you when to stop.' than it was when you first walked in.

Finally, the spell compels the creature but it doesn't seem to compell the wizard casting it. This makes sense but adds a complication of the wizard being able to easily screw the creature over if it agrees to a deal. Killing the creature off instead of providing the agreed payment for example.
This generally changes the specifics of deals instead of flat out preventing them though. Rewards are generally requested upfront and self defence and early termination clauses are usually demanded.

[frogglesmash]

They'd untie and retie them.

[Darth Ultron]

Simply put: a valid service is a simple, straight forward task that will take less then a couple of days to complete.

If you try a ''be my slave until the next leap year'' or such, you will simply get the day per caster level.

I'd say any of the silly ''be my slave for a year'' would end at one day per caster level.

[Segev]

There is a certain amount of mythological tie in this. Convince the creature to accept a task which it CAN complete, but which will take longer than 1 day/level, and it is bound until it completes it (or it does become impossible for it to do so, at which point the 1 day/level kicks in...and may well have long been passed).

"Serve in this army until the end of a war" is actually potentially valid, as long as "serve in the army" doesn't prevent the creature from taking action to force the war to a conclusion.

"Get me safely to Xanadu" would be a valid task; the creature can hustle you along if you start dallying too long, as long as it doesn't harm you to do so.

"Bring the Artex of Atlantis to me," is a valid task, because the creature can go and get this person and bring him to you.

"Serve me on this quest as my minion" is valid, but kicks in the 1 day/level clause, since he can't define the end of the quest and his service to you might not permit him to take action to bring it to an end.

"Build me a mighty city-fortress with a luxurious palace in the center," might take decades, but the creature would be bound until the completion of the task. Because it CAN finish it through its own power.

[rel]

I also think the creatures intelligence and nature should factor into what tasks are allowed and how they are worded.

Stupid creatures might not be able to keep track of or understand a comlpex request and thus treat it as unreasonable.

Chaotic creatures probably treat anything with more than 2 or 3 caveats as unacceptable but are willing to tolerate quite broad requests.

Lawful creatures will want everything spelled out and might not accept overly broad or vague suggestions.

[Zancloufer]

Just to be clear, are the following services completable through one's own actions and therefore valid?
- Guard a place against intrusion twice. However, there is no intrusion for thousands of years...

If you don't specify for how long they have to guard it for it would probably fall under the 1day/CL rule. Or until they had to "fight off two intruders". What ever came first. Heck a exceptionally chaotic outsider might leave early claimed it had to fight off squirrels or something.


- Guard a place for a month. But during that time the place will be under heavy attacks several times every week...

That is well defined and isn't terribly unreasonable. Though they might refuse the quest or call it an unreasonable request if it is constantly under attack and your never mentioned it.


- Serve in an army for the duration of a war. But later on, there is a truce in the war that lasts for several years, and in the end the war is not even waged anymore but there is no peace either...

That is a little vague. They would probably want more details or a limited time contract made up or they'd just bugger off after 1 day/CL.


- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...

This is not only 100% reasonable but also totally unreasonable. They would probably do it until they have proof that the person is dead. Unless the person was scary powerful in life then they might renegotiate based off that.

[Psyren]

- Guard a place against intrusion twice. However, there is no intrusion for thousands of years...

This one is pretty clearly impossible for the creature to complete through its own actions. Countdown applies.



- Guard a place for a month. But during that time the place will be under heavy attacks several times every week...

This is finite; no countdown. If the nature of the attacks put the creature's life in disproportionate danger it may consider this unreasonable. (Note that merely being dangerous is not unreasonable though - if the place is being attacked by demons, an archon may very well risk their life to help.)



- Serve in an army for the duration of a war. But later on, there is a truce in the war that lasts for several years, and in the end the war is not even waged anymore but there is no peace either...

It can't end the war on its own. Countdown applies.



- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...

No countdown here, but it probably wouldn't take the creature long to find out that its task is impossible.

[Segev]

This is finite; no countdown. If the nature of the attacks put the creature's life in disproportionate danger it may consider this unreasonable. (Note that merely being dangerous is not unreasonable though - if the place is being attacked by demons, an archon may very well risk their life to help.)I disagree with this one. It can't bring about the end of the month with its own actions. The 1 day/CL limit applies as the maximum duration you can demand a service. Otherwise, you could take any indefinite service and make it bypass the 1 day per CL limit by saying "for 10,000 years."


It can't end the war on its own. Countdown applies.Questionable. It would depend on how much leeway it has in "serving in the army." The creature may well be able to make the war come to an end, if not forbidden from certain actions it's fully capable of performing.

Take a simple Lantern Archon. Looking solely at its powers (and not its nature) for a moment, it can greater teleport at will and has a ranged touch attack that ignores DR. If it knows where the enemy army's seat of power is, it can bamf in and disrupt their entire command structure with mayhem, if not outright assassination. It certainly could find its way into their planning meetings and listen in, and even if caught, they'd have to spend a lot more resources on keeping it out than would be healthy when trying to plan military engagements.

So if it's allowed to do things like that, and it's willing to (or able to bring itself to), it might well be able to use its own power to bring the war to an end.



Otherwise, I agree with your assessments.

[Psyren]

I disagree with this one. It can't bring about the end of the month with its own actions. The 1 day/CL limit applies as the maximum duration you can demand a service. Otherwise, you could take any indefinite service and make it bypass the 1 day per CL limit by saying "for 10,000 years."

I'd say that falls under reasonableness but I see your point.



Questionable. It would depend on how much leeway it has in "serving in the army." The creature may well be able to make the war come to an end, if not forbidden from certain actions it's fully capable of performing.

Fair enough, that is indeed a broad instruction.

[Segev]

I think it's worth noting, additionally, that "can bring it about under his own power" is a bit fuzzy. That dretch you bound and tasked to kill Mephistopheles probably can't bring that about under its own power. Probably. But it is something he could potentially, with the right plan and work and luck, do. It is a task with a completion condition that is not out of the dretch's hands. So arguably, you may have just set the little guy on a very long task that involves building his own power base, developing into something greater than he is, scheming and colluding to gain influence in the right places, and eventually bring down Mephy.

Or the DM might rule that it's impossible and thus the demon only has to try for CL days.

But there's at least a fuzzy boundary between "can do it with its own power" and "has a 100% chance of success the first time it tries."

To me, the "can't do it under its own power" clause is meant to prevent indefinite tasks with no termination condition. "Serve in this army as an infantryman until the war is over" would qualify because, bound to solely serving as an infantryman, there's nothing he can do under his own power to arrange for being in a position to bring an end to the war. It's out of his hands.

"Guard this tomb" is indefinite because there's no way for the bound entity to take proactive steps to bring the task to a conclusion. The same is true for "Guard this tomb for a year and a day." There's nothing the creature can do to make "a year and a day" happen sooner. "Guard this tomb until Bob tries to break in; once you've stopped him, you're free to go," is also out of the creature's hands; he has no way of making Bob come to the tomb and try to break in. Certainly not while guarding the tomb.

--actually, that last one might be something you could do, but you probably don't want to if your goal is to keep Bob away from your tomb. Because what the creature CAN do to bring it about is lure Bob there and cajole him into attempting to break in. Creatures with remote-contact powers and the ability to otherwise project influence at a distance could do things like send minions to kidnap Bob's love interest and hold her hostage until Bob comes and tries to break in.

[Psyren]

That's what I was saying though - the whole point of the reasonableness clause is to deal with this kind of fuzziness. A Dretch taking down Mephistopheles is indeed a clear "win condition" - it's also utterly unreasonable and so it will decline. It won't even have to "try for CL days" because "unreasonable commands" are vetoed, full stop, no matter how powerful you as the binder may be.

The reason I don't want to toss out "Guard this tomb for a year" prima facie is because I think the CL restriction really is intended for more open-ended requests; it should allow for getting a guardian of a specific site or some other limited-scope service for longer than your caster level would allow if the creature itself wants to do so. Doing it your way shuts off a lot of iconic stories, because very few people will have a caster level that allows for more than a fortnight of service otherwise, and the ones that do probably don't need help from anything in the MM.

[Segev]

That's what I was saying though - the whole point of the reasonableness clause is to deal with this kind of fuzziness. A Dretch taking down Mephistopheles is indeed a clear "win condition" - it's also utterly unreasonable and so it will decline. It won't even have to "try for CL days" because "unreasonable commands" are vetoed, full stop, no matter how powerful you as the binder may be.Oh, I agree. The "reasonableness" clause would catch those, which perhaps makes the concern over where the line is drawn a little less important.

I was mainly trying to clarify the distinction between "things where the length of time it takes is in their hands, even if not perfectly under their control" vs. "things where there is literally nothing they can do to bring about the task's completion." And I wanted to make the point clear that "wait for the time to run out" is no different than "wait for somebody else to decide to do something when I have no way to influence their decision" in terms of being out of the creature's hands.


The reason I don't want to toss out "Guard this tomb for a year" prima facie is because I think the CL restriction really is intended for more open-ended requests; it should allow for getting a guardian of a specific site or some other limited-scope service for longer than your caster level would allow if the creature itself wants to do so. Doing it your way shuts off a lot of iconic stories, because very few people will have a caster level that allows for more than a fortnight of service otherwise, and the ones that do probably don't need help from anything in the MM.
I understand. I mean, "for a year and a day" is a fairly classic idiom.

In PF, perhaps you could do it with a magic item that just has a much higher CL than you do. One-shot casting of planar binding, Spellcraft DC bumped up to high enough to handle that CL. Of course, a DC of 371 is a bit ludicrous. So that's probably still not viable.


It may just not support those effects, by the RAW. Which is a little unfortunate. But "CL days" becomes meaningless if you can just tack an arbitrary "reasonable" timeframe on it.

I believe the primary purpose behind the "CL days" limit is to prevent, essentially, "Be my minion forever!" The creature is bound as your minion for a number of days; that's it. If you could make it, "Be my minion for a year and a day," you just wind up having players experiment until they find the limits of "reasonable" duration. I think CL days is meant to, in some sense, tell us what that "reasonable" duration is.

As an interesting side note, you can't actually use the Extend Spell feat on it to double those days, because the duration of the spell itself is Instantaneous. On the other hand, if you cast it on a creature already bound to serve you in a fashion that forbids it from attacking you or leaving the negotiation, you don't need the trap anymore.

[AnachroNinja]

If it's not already clear from the discussion at hand, the long and the short of it is that it works however your DM thinks it works. There is a very large amount of variance in how people interpret this spell and you're not going to get one clear answer.

[Psyren]

Oh, I agree. The "reasonableness" clause would catch those, which perhaps makes the concern over where the line is drawn a little less important.

I was mainly trying to clarify the distinction between "things where the length of time it takes is in their hands, even if not perfectly under their control" vs. "things where there is literally nothing they can do to bring about the task's completion." And I wanted to make the point clear that "wait for the time to run out" is no different than "wait for somebody else to decide to do something when I have no way to influence their decision" in terms of being out of the creature's hands.

Oh you're right, it isn't. But one can still be reasonable while the other is not. And whether the "own actions" clause even comes into play depends entirely on how you define "open-ended," which is also subjective since it has no rules definition.


It may just not support those effects, by the RAW. Which is a little unfortunate. But "CL days" becomes meaningless if you can just tack an arbitrary "reasonable" timeframe on it.

I don't see how it's meaningless. Again, allowing this enables all kinds of iconic stories and idioms that CL caps would otherwise prevent - that has meaning to a lot of people, myself included.

And of course it's arbitrary - you're talking about the individual preferences and goals of a wide variety of extraplanar beings. It's designed to be highly subjective on its face, which is why the GM needs to play a role. The spell is primarily there to let the caster cut through the Celestial Bureaucracy's red tape - a given angel might be dying to come down and aid the mortals in their fight against evil for example, but simply doing so on his own breaks the rules and allows fiends to do the same for the opposing side, resulting in the Material drowning in an escalating series of pogroms. By requiring that they only do so when a mortal has Called them for that purpose, there is a check put in place that makes mortals the chief architects of mortal destiny.



I believe the primary purpose behind the "CL days" limit is to prevent, essentially, "Be my minion forever!" The creature is bound as your minion for a number of days; that's it. If you could make it, "Be my minion for a year and a day," you just wind up having players experiment until they find the limits of "reasonable" duration. I think CL days is meant to, in some sense, tell us what that "reasonable" duration is.

This is absolutely correct too - but I don't actually think "guard my father's laboratory for a year while I try to complete his research" is the same as "be my minion forever" either. For the creature, it might even be a great deal - a year of likely boredom carved out of an eternal lifespan in exchange for considerable negotiated reward that could potentially jump them ahead by far more in whatever planar progression track their home allows.

[Segev]

I'll happily grant that the "reasonable" clause precludes some of my examples. I'm bad with examples. The point was more to illustrate "open-ended" vs. not.

Let's look at the clause in question:
If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free (with the same chance to resist as when it was trapped).

I don't think "open-ended" is subjective. It means that the task has no termination condition. "Guard this door," "Map the multiverse," "Serve in the army," "Be my butler," and a number of other things qualify.

By itself, that would mean that, as you suggest, specific-duration tasks ("Guard my father's library for a year") would not trip this clause, since it's not open-ended.

The other part of the clause seems to be redundant, though. An open-ended task is automatically one "that the creature cannot complete through its own actions." But I doubt that anybody casually reading it is given pause with cognitive dissonance over the redundancy. Denotatively, it may be, but contextually, it seems clear that it's meant as an expansion rather than a restriction. It's meant to help define "open-ended" in this context. That is, as tasks which the creature cannot complete through its own actions.

That said, interpreting it that way is not strict denotative RAW. So you may be right.

The trouble I have with that is that it does render parts of the spell text utterly meaningless.

1) "that the creature cannot complete through its own actions" is pointless, since all open-ended tasks are automatically such, and
2) the CL days duration is meaningless, because you just always specify the longest time your DM won't declare "unreasonable." If "Be my butler" will end after 9 days, you'll just always say, "Be my butler for a month" or "a year" or however long you think the DM won't declare "unreasonable." Heck, doing it with a specified time period prevents the extra save to break free, too.



It's worth noting that, if your target extraplanar creature LIKES the task set before it, the duration becomes meaningless, too. That angel you summoned to protect the library and offered to allow to stay and study in it while he does so can choose to stay beyond the 1 day per CL; he's HERE now. If you and he hit it off and he wants to join your household staff, he's free to do so like any other NPC.

If you negotiate for "a year and a day," and he genuinely likes the deal, I'd personally rule that the spell still only binds him for CL days and he still gets the extra save for an "open-ended" task that he "cannot complete through his own actions." But that he'd probably choose to stay anyway even if he passed the save, and in any event would stay beyond the mandatory CL days because he likes the deal offered.

I mean, it's like calling up your friend Steve the Studious Swordsage and asking him to come guard your library; you'll let him live in the guest suite of your palace and give him access to your extensive collection of books on the history of blade magic: he WANTS to do it, and doesn't NEED to be magically bound to it.


Heck, don't bother setting the trap up, and if you call an Outsider with whom you're friends, they probably won't flee or attack right away and would instead ask what you wanted. It's like a poor man's plane shift in that regard. "Hey, man, I have a party tonight. I'd like to bind you to attend it for as long as it goes and you're enjoying it. You in?"

[Madwand99]

As far as I'm concerned, 1 day/CL is the maximum timeframe of *any* service, regardless of how clever your wording. You can ask the creature to volunteer it's time to stay later, though, or even pay it a wage if desires money. If the service is something it enjoys doing, it might.

The only time I tried to use this spell, I tried to summon hound archons to serve the kingdom I was ruling for 1 day/CL. The kingdom was in chaos and needed law enforcement. I thought this was pretty reasonable; the DM said "no" and we went back to dungeon delving, an activity which a group of hound archons would have no impact on. I still don't understand why the DM thought extraplanar law enforcement would have been overpowered for our little kingdom.

[Segev]

As far as I'm concerned, 1 day/CL is the maximum timeframe of *any* service, regardless of how clever your wording.That explicitly isn't what the spell says, though. That only applies to "an open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions."

Give it a task with a definite termination condition which it has the power to bring about through actions it can take, and it lasts until the task is done. Even if the Solar you've bound to murder the Good King desperately doesn't want to, and so does his level best to drag his feet and take the slowest possible path to completion, he still has to keep trying until the King is dead.


The only time I tried to use this spell, I tried to summon hound archons to serve the kingdom I was ruling for 1 day/CL. The kingdom was in chaos and needed law enforcement. I thought this was pretty reasonable; the DM said "no" and we went back to dungeon delving, an activity which a group of hound archons would have no impact on. I still don't understand why the DM thought extraplanar law enforcement would have been overpowered for our little kingdom.

That stinks. Condolences.

[Beheld]

As far as I'm concerned, 1 day/CL is the maximum timeframe of *any* service, regardless of how clever your wording. You can ask the creature to volunteer it's time to stay later, though, or even pay it a wage if desires money. If the service is something it enjoys doing, it might.

I believe you can get it to perform a task outside that time period, provided the task only really starts outside that time.

So for example, you are level 11 Wizard and playing Red Hand, if you do some divinations that tell you what day the battle is, you can spend the next month casting Planar Bindings and Lesser Planar Bindings all day every day and tell them their service is "Fight in this one specific battle" and even if that battle is more than Caster Level days away, you can still get them to perform that service.

However, any service like "Guard this room for X days" is always going to be "either X or Caster Level whichever is shorter."

[Psyren]

The trouble I have with that is that it does render parts of the spell text utterly meaningless.

You keep using that word, which is why we keep disagreeing.



1) "that the creature cannot complete through its own actions" is pointless, since all open-ended tasks are automatically such, and
2) the CL days duration is meaningless, because you just always specify the longest time your DM won't declare "unreasonable." If "Be my butler" will end after 9 days, you'll just always say, "Be my butler for a month" or "a year" or however long you think the DM won't declare "unreasonable." Heck, doing it with a specified time period prevents the extra save to break free, too.

1) This is why I would require the task to be specific, like the lab example I gave earlier. "Guard {specific location} for {specific timeframe} while I complete {specific task}" is not open-ended because the creature has options/agency; it could potentially assist with the task, eliminate the threat, or otherwise render its guardianship moot. It may not choose to do so, but as long as it can (and doing so is not unreasonable), that clause is satisfied. Thus it has meaning.

2) "A timeframe my DM won't declare unreasonable" is not a constant; it depends on a wide variety of factors. The nature of the creature, the nature of the binder, the specific request being made, known and likely obstacles to that task being completed and their relative danger to the creature's capabilities, etc. These are all subjective but not completely arbitrary; thus this has meaning too.

So with both of these having meaning, and it being up to convincing the GM (acting as the creature in question) is precisely how the spell should function, and I would argue was meant to function.



It's worth noting that, if your target extraplanar creature LIKES the task set before it, the duration becomes meaningless, too. That angel you summoned to protect the library and offered to allow to stay and study in it while he does so can choose to stay beyond the 1 day per CL; he's HERE now. If you and he hit it off and he wants to join your household staff, he's free to do so like any other NPC.

If you negotiate for "a year and a day," and he genuinely likes the deal, I'd personally rule that the spell still only binds him for CL days and he still gets the extra save for an "open-ended" task that he "cannot complete through his own actions." But that he'd probably choose to stay anyway even if he passed the save, and in any event would stay beyond the mandatory CL days because he likes the deal offered.

I mean, it's like calling up your friend Steve the Studious Swordsage and asking him to come guard your library; you'll let him live in the guest suite of your palace and give him access to your extensive collection of books on the history of blade magic: he WANTS to do it, and doesn't NEED to be magically bound to it.

Outsiders are not your buddy Steve though. If they were, this would raise an obvious question - if, like Steve, they didn't need to be Called and could just use their powers to show up whenever they wanted, why aren't they? It's the planar equivalent of the Fermi Paradox.

I personally believe that the existence of certain spells implies certain facts about the default setting. Just like the presence of magic like Detect Evil and Atonement implies that morality is a force that can be quantified and altered, I similarly believe the presence of magic like Planar Ally and Binding suggests that these creatures can't simply pop over on their own, or at least there are restrictions on when and how they can do so. The specific nature of these restrictions may very by setting, but their existence is a constant in nearly all of them. There's a reason that, for example, the world isn't crammed with infinity demons throwing a nonstop raucous party as they destroy Creation - and that reason is tied into the necessity of using these spells to bring Outisders in.



Give it a task with a definite termination condition which it has the power to bring about through actions it can take, and it lasts until the task is done. Even if the Solar you've bound to murder the Good King desperately doesn't want to, and so does his level best to drag his feet and take the slowest possible path to completion, he still has to keep trying until the King is dead.

Bad example as this one also trips the "unreasonable" clause; the Solar would simply say "no."

[SecretlyaFish]

I'm going to bind a Solar once I'm high enough level, create a situation where some very "nasty" creatures with toxic feces begin to use the river as their choice place of bathrooming. This river will connect to the happiest most beautiful village with the most innocent wonderful children who wills stay children and innocent for the rest of time. The Solar will then be instructed to save the village by way of consuming the feces the animals excrete. These animals will also be the most wonderful beautiful happy animals in existence who do wonders for all around and keep the children safe from all harm, except for the toxic feces. I will then threaten to overturn an entire civilization causing millions and millions of deaths if it does not sign a contract stating it will forever keep the children of the village safe in this manner. Of course, I will forget to mention that the civilization in which I speak is just a giant ant hill. My god Asmodeus, I just know he'd be proud of me :smallcool:

[Psyren]

I would cleverly subvert those instructions by moving the anthill. Followed by smacking you upside the head with my wings :smalltongue:

[SecretlyaFish]

I would cleverly subvert those instructions by moving the anthill. Followed by smacking you upside the head with my wings :smalltongue:

I have summoned you and through my conjuring/malconvoking/thaumaturging/clericing/master specialisting gestalting perfectfeating everysinglecharismastackingiteminthegaming power, you will be beaten on every single roll you make repeatedly until you eat that poop for the greater good of the most wondeful place in the world for the rest of time!

[Darth Ultron]

As far as I'm concerned, 1 day/CL is the maximum timeframe of *any* service, regardless of how clever your wording. You can ask the creature to volunteer it's time to stay later, though, or even pay it a wage if desires money. If the service is something it enjoys doing, it might.


This is how I do it. Sure the spell was written by someone who...well..could not write a simple paragraph that makes sense...and worse they just cut and pasted the text from the older editions.

I feel the having the creature around *forever* is just game breaking. There is nothing to stop a spellcaster from having an army of outsiders, as *a year* is basically *forever* in game time. And the cost is pointless, as if your going to say a spellcaster can have dozens of outsider servants, then they can also use every other dirty trick in the book to become rich.

I think the intent of the spell is a temporary servant, basically an advanced from of the summon monster type magic, ...not one *forever*.

[Segev]

You keep using that word, which is why we keep disagreeing.Please spell out under what conditions it becomes meaningful, then.


1) This is why I would require the task to be specific, like the lab example I gave earlier. "Guard {specific location} for {specific timeframe} while I complete {specific task}" is not open-ended because the creature has options/agency; it could potentially assist with the task, eliminate the threat, or otherwise render its guardianship moot. It may not choose to do so, but as long as it can (and doing so is not unreasonable), that clause is satisfied. Thus it has meaning.Eh. It's not open-ended denotatively, no. But in context with "that a creature can complete through its own actions," it looks like it is, to me. I mean, if "he can render his guardianship moot" is the "through his own actions" clause, then it wouldn't matter if you gave a time frame or not.


2) "A timeframe my DM won't declare unreasonable" is not a constant; it depends on a wide variety of factors. The nature of the creature, the nature of the binder, the specific request being made, known and likely obstacles to that task being completed and their relative danger to the creature's capabilities, etc. These are all subjective but not completely arbitrary; thus this has meaning too.Sure, but irrelevant to my point. My point is that the CL Days pseudo-duration is pointless because you'll never use it. You'll always ask for a specific duration to overwrite it.


Outsiders are not your buddy Steve though. If they were, this would raise an obvious question - if, like Steve, they didn't need to be Called and could just use their powers to show up whenever they wanted, why aren't they? It's the planar equivalent of the Fermi Paradox.Steve the Lantern Archon might not be ABLE to just pop in. I don't think he has plane shift as a native ability. I know **** the Dretch doesn't. (Hey, CE demons can have friends, too.)

That's besides the point of the part to which you were responding, though: the point there was that negotiating with Lenny the Lemure to do a job for you that Lenny is willing to do for the offered pay means that he could easily choose to stick around beyond the spell-enforced binding to complete it, as long as the pay remains satisfactory. Maybe I should've compared him to a hireling you hire to guard your library.


I personally believe that the existence of certain spells implies certain facts about the default setting. Just like the presence of magic like Detect Evil and Atonement implies that morality is a force that can be quantified and altered, I similarly believe the presence of magic like Planar Ally and Binding suggests that these creatures can't simply pop over on their own, or at least there are restrictions on when and how they can do so. The specific nature of these restrictions may very by setting, but their existence is a constant in nearly all of them. There's a reason that, for example, the world isn't crammed with infinity demons throwing a nonstop raucous party as they destroy Creation - and that reason is tied into the necessity of using these spells to bring Outisders in.*shrug* Sure.



Bad example as this one also trips the "unreasonable" clause; the Solar would simply say "no."Subjective, since whether "The creature would absolutely hate doing it" is "unreasonable" or not is not spelled out. Carry that sentiment too far and you wind up with the spell being unable to bind any creature to do anything it wouldn't have done if you just asked it to. "No way, that's unreasonable because I don' wanna."

But fine, let's say you instead bind it to build a palace to the glory of Tyrant Ghengis Hitler the XIII. The Solar has no real animus towards palace-building, and even though he loathes that Tyrant and everything he stands for, it's not exactly hurting anybody to build the palace. But he really doesn't want to. He could drag his feet and hem and haw and work at a sub-union-workers-not-allowed-to-go-on-a-strike pace, but he wouldn't be freed from the task after CL days because completing the palace is something he CAN do through his own actions.

[SecretlyaFish]

Subjective, since whether "The creature would absolutely hate doing it" is "unreasonable" or not is not spelled out. Carry that sentiment too far and you wind up with the spell being unable to bind any creature to do anything it wouldn't have done if you just asked it to. "No way, that's unreasonable because I don' wanna."
.

THIS! So this. Utterly ridiculous of DM's to do this. For F's sake, its not a wish spell, its a creature you conjured and needs to serve/do what you want. You could simply tell the Solar the king is a bad guy, even if he isn't, just lie to it. The Solar needs to obey your demands, it doesn't get to sit there and debate whether its a good idea or not with you, once you've summoned it proper and its yours to command. I mean, at least with gate, maybe you'd need to do this in its binding contract, which is what were talking about so maybe its kinda relevant... Still, a DM abusing this will quickly make me not want to play with him. If you can manage to trick the Solar into thinking its doing good, but its actually doing evil, well, its already agreed to do your bidding by that point right? If it decides/realizes you tricked it halfway through, it doesn't just get to stop lmfao. The contract was made. Also Psyren I want to imagine you liked my response to your response :)

[Psyren]

Please spell out under what conditions it becomes meaningful, then.

...I did, and you even quoted where I did :smallconfused:



Eh. It's not open-ended denotatively, no. But in context with "that a creature can complete through its own actions," it looks like it is, to me. I mean, if "he can render his guardianship moot" is the "through his own actions" clause, then it wouldn't matter if you gave a time frame or not.

It does matter because he can choose to do that or not. If you don't specify a hard limit as a fallback, it becomes an unreasonable binding and he'll simply refuse.



Sure, but irrelevant to my point. My point is that the CL Days pseudo-duration is pointless because you'll never use it. You'll always ask for a specific duration to overwrite it.

Only if the task itself is specific enough to allow it to be overwritten. If yours is not, then the CL/day applies and becomes meaningful.


Since whether "The creature would absolutely hate doing it" is "unreasonable" or not is not spelled out.

It doesn't have to be - there just needs to be wiggle room for the GM to say no without coming off like an ass. "Requiring Solars to murder good people is unreasonable" is precisely the kind of stance that clause is meant to defend.



But fine, let's say you instead bind it to build a palace to the glory of Tyrant Ghengis Hitler the XIII. The Solar has no real animus towards palace-building, and even though he loathes that Tyrant and everything he stands for, it's not exactly hurting anybody to build the palace. But he really doesn't want to. He could drag his feet and hem and haw and work at a sub-union-workers-not-allowed-to-go-on-a-strike pace, but he wouldn't be freed from the task after CL days because completing the palace is something he CAN do through his own actions.

There are consequences to building such a monument though. Could it inspire future tyrants to deeds of similar depravity? Could such a site be easily unhallowed or corrupted since it already glorifies someone evil, and thus become a bastion of iniquity on the Material Plane? Are Solars even suited for construction of any kind? Plenty of routes for this one to be unreasonable too.

[SecretlyaFish]

There are consequences to building such a monument though. Could it inspire future tyrants to deeds of similar depravity? Could such a site be easily unhallowed or corrupted since it already glorifies someone evil, and thus become a bastion of iniquity on the Material Plane? Are Solars even suited for construction of any kind? Plenty of routes for this one to be unreasonable too.

Already thought around that. Give him only part of the blueprints for the building, the general structure and layout but no fine details up front. Make many many many blueprints and make them confuse and overlap in a way that the solar needs your help to make sense of them. The solar won't know what he is building until its too late and by that point he's already agreed to the terms of the contract, which would be worded by me that being he needs no food nor rest and since he regenerates its safe to assume he has near limitless stamina as well, he will work to 100% of his physical and mental abilities for the duration of the contract. He will not be hoofing it under my iron fist. He will have already agreed to my contract stipulations and by the time he knows what he's building it will be too late for him to do anything about it. If the DM still tries to get out of this, that's a bad DM. Sometimes you gotta give the player their moment.

[Psyren]

I think you'd have better luck getting something Neutral to build your monument - they tend to care less about consequences and sapient beings' welfare, so long as they're paid.

[Segev]

...I did, and you even quoted where I did :smallconfused:Then I contend that you have not demonstrated a place where CL days is relevant, because in what I quoted, I only see you discussing when it can be overridden by setting a specific timeframe. I have just re-read it, and I still don't see an example of when the CL days limit would kick in. Please provide another; I genuinely want to get where you're coming from, but I don't see it in what you've said so far.


It does matter because he can choose to do that or not. If you don't specify a hard limit as a fallback, it becomes an unreasonable binding and he'll simply refuse.How so? "Unreasonable" is not the same as "triggers the CL days duration limit," because if it were, it would render that limit even more meaningless since "unreasonable" commands are automatically rejected.


Only if the task itself is specific enough to allow it to be overwritten. If yours is not, then the CL/day applies and becomes meaningful.Please give an example. You've given examples of when it doesn't apply, and said "when it's not this," but I can't come up with examples that seem to meet "not this."


It doesn't have to be - there just needs to be wiggle room for the GM to say no without coming off like an ass. "Requiring Solars to murder good people is unreasonable" is precisely the kind of stance that clause is meant to defend.I mostly agree. It's just something to be cautious of.


There are consequences to building such a monument though. Could it inspire future tyrants to deeds of similar depravity? Could such a site be easily unhallowed or corrupted since it already glorifies someone evil, and thus become a bastion of iniquity on the Material Plane? Are Solars even suited for construction of any kind? Plenty of routes for this one to be unreasonable too.Okay. Please define a task where a creature would not WANT to do it, but could be compelled to by planar binding, without it being "unreasonable."


As to, "You'd be better off getting a Neutral thingie to do it," sure. That's not the point. The point of the example was to come up with something the being could be compelled to do that it wouldn't want to. The point evolved to include "something it wouldn't want to, but wouldn't be considered 'unreasonable' and thus make it auto-rejected."

[SecretlyaFish]

I like how I'm just completely ignored entirely in the conversation lol :D Like my words had invisible ink.

I think players should be able to outsmart certain things or have the ability to. I wouldn't see the example I gave as an abuse of the spell but rather good roleplaying/forethought. If the players character is high enough level to summon a Solar, its safe to assume he's got some pretty rockin stats and magical items enhancing his abilities. Even if the player himself is not as articulate as his in game character might be you still need to take his statistics into account and say "hmmm, well a character like that would probably be able to trick the solar enough to take advantage".

It should in no way EVER become this back and forth debate where its the players intelligence vs the DM's intelligence. The fun of the game is ruined at that point for me and I just want to face palm. Keep in mind as well that players will be discussing context in front of the DM, trying to formulate a plan to trick the Solar, come up with the right wording or strategy for it. You shouldn't be taking advantage of this either.

[Segev]

I like how I'm just completely ignored entirely in the conversation lol :D Like my words had invisible ink.Mainly, I just don't have much to add pro or con to what you said. It seemed a bit tangential to what I was trying to get across.


I think players should be able to outsmart certain things or have the ability to. I wouldn't see the example I gave as an abuse of the spell but rather good roleplaying/forethought. If the players character is high enough level to summon a Solar, its safe to assume he's got some pretty rockin stats and magical items enhancing his abilities. Even if the player himself is not as articulate as his in game character might be you still need to take his statistics into account and say "hmmm, well a character like that would probably be able to trick the solar enough to take advantage".

It should in no way EVER become this back and forth debate where its the players intelligence vs the DM's intelligence. The fun of the game is ruined at that point for me and I just want to face palm. Keep in mind as well that players will be discussing context in front of the DM, trying to formulate a plan to trick the Solar, come up with the right wording or strategy for it. You shouldn't be taking advantage of this either.
I suppose they could be tricking the creature. Honestly, since it's brought physically to you, there's a lot you can do to it even if it never agrees to do a task for you. You can hold it "as long as you dare," after all.

If you can overwhelm its saves, for instance, you could magic jar it. If you wanted its body parts as components, and are powerful enough to forcibly remove them, you can do that. If you can, again, overcome its mental defenses, you can try using suggestion and charm monster or even dominate monster on it. It's not entirely helpless, but it can't really fight back and is more or less at your mercy.

If you're a Diplomancer, you can blow one-off or charged bonuses and ping a 150+ Diplomacy check and make it a Fanatical devotee, if you're in 3.5.

That forcibly-taken body part could be used to make a simulacrum of it.

There's a lot you can do that's outside the scope of the spell while it's bound in your trap.

[Bucky]

The last time I used planar binding, it involved several archons and the task was "apprehend this dangerous criminal and deliver him to the lawful authorities."

The dangerous criminal got out of it when confronted by convincing the archons he was innocent; this caused them to refuse the task as unreasonable despite having agreed to it previously.

[Segev]

The last time I used planar binding, it involved several archons and the task was "apprehend this dangerous criminal and deliver him to the lawful authorities."

The dangerous criminal got out of it when confronted by convincing the archons he was innocent; this caused them to refuse the task as unreasonable despite having agreed to it previously.

That's a bit of a jerk move on the DM's part. The reasonable thing for them to do would have been to take him back to the Lawful authorities and help him prove his innocence legally. Unless it was very clear the "lawful authorities" were running a kangaroo court.

[Psyren]

Then I contend that you have not demonstrated a place where CL days is relevant, because in what I quoted, I only see you discussing when it can be overridden by setting a specific timeframe. I have just re-read it, and I still don't see an example of when the CL days limit would kick in. Please provide another; I genuinely want to get where you're coming from, but I don't see it in what you've said so far.

...

Please give an example. You've given examples of when it doesn't apply, and said "when it's not this," but I can't come up with examples that seem to meet "not this."

"Guard my tower" - no specifics given. If deemed reasonable, will definitely trigger CL/days.
"Guard my tower for a year and a day" - a specific timeframe is given but nothing else that can help the creature complete the task through its own power. This will also trigger the CL/days limit.
"Guard my tower for a year and a day while I gather the Holy Holly needed to cure my ailing wife within." - Now we're approaching a level of specificity that gives the creature agency. If the wife is cured, the creature is free. If the wife dies, the creature is also free. If you get the holly early, the creature is free. Here you'd have to exercise a bit of prudence as far as what you bind.

Those are all subject to the reasonableness clause of course (and thus the creature's acquiescence would depend on numerous factors like threats to the tower and whether the herb exists) but assuming it's reasonable, he might be on board, and furthermore be allowed to do so longer than your CL would enable on its own.


Okay. Please define a task where a creature would not WANT to do it, but could be compelled to by planar binding, without it being "unreasonable."

That's actually easy - stop binding angels to do morally questionable things. For example, get a Dao to build your monument instead; not only would he likely be better at it, he wouldn't give a rat's behind about the consequences to other mortals of having done so. He'd still rather not do it at all, because you're a pink fleshy mortal yourself and thus automatically beneath him, but it's not immediately unreasonable for an earth genie to build a monument.


I like how I'm just completely ignored entirely in the conversation lol :D Like my words had invisible ink.

You were talking about binding Solars to eat feces for your lord Asmodeus. I wasn't aware you were actually looking for a serious response to any of that. (I gave one anyway though, more fool me.)

[Segev]

"Guard my tower" - no specifics given. If deemed reasonable, will definitely trigger CL/days.
"Guard my tower for a year and a day" - a specific timeframe is given but nothing else that can help the creature complete the task through its own power. This will also trigger the CL/days limit.
"Guard my tower for a year and a day while I gather the Holy Holly needed to cure my ailing wife within." - Now we're approaching a level of specificity that gives the creature agency. If the wife is cured, the creature is free. If the wife dies, the creature is also free. If you get the holly early, the creature is free. Here you'd have to exercise a bit of prudence as far as what you bind.But anything he could do to hasten the end would be failing to "guard the tower." It's still not something he can achieve with his own actions, because HIS actions have to guard your tower. So unless he can guard your tower while also collecting the herb, or he happens to be something that can already cure your wife (in which case why didn't you just bargain for that directly?), this still seems to fall afoul of the "can't do it" clause.


That's actually easy - stop binding angels to do morally questionable things. For example, get a Dao to build your monument instead; not only would he likely be better at it, he wouldn't give a rat's behind about the consequences to other mortals of having done so. He'd still rather not do it at all, because you're a pink fleshy mortal yourself and thus automatically beneath him, but it's not immediately unreasonable for an earth genie to build a monument.No, the Dao just resents being put to your service at all.

I'm looking for something that the creature would object to doing so much that it might want to drag its feet and be as recalcitrant as possible, and only the promise of freedom when it's done is keeping it from doing so.

But I suppose this is wandering afield of where I was starting, and that was simply explaining that something which takes longer than CL days, but which the creature CAN do through its own actions, will last until the creature finishes the task.

On the "stop asking angels to do morally reprehensible things" note, would it also be unreasonable to ask a succubus to help some orphans find new adoptive, loving, kind parents?

[InvisibleBison]

Okay. Please define a task where a creature would not WANT to do it, but could be compelled to by planar binding, without it being "unreasonable."

How about eating a large amount of food that it vehemently dislikes?

[Psyren]

But anything he could do to hasten the end would be failing to "guard the tower." It's still not something he can achieve with his own actions, because HIS actions have to guard your tower. So unless he can guard your tower while also collecting the herb, or he happens to be something that can already cure your wife (in which case why didn't you just bargain for that directly?), this still seems to fall afoul of the "can't do it" clause.

Ahh, but you're thinking a bit small here. Remember that what started this tangential discussion was trying to enable the sorts of iconic/idiomatic tropes we typically see in fantasy. Things like a spirit or angel being bound to a particular site for some period of time - the kind of being that could, for example, function as a quest-giver to a party of heroes. If it enlists aid that the binder could not, that would still be fulfilling the terms using its own actions.

As for bargaining directly, that's a great question - maybe the binder just wasn't aware of such an ability. Or maybe the circumstances changed from something the being couldn't cure to something it could. There are all kinds of possibilities.



No, the Dao just resents being put to your service at all.

Why he doesn't feel like doing it is irrelevant. You asked for a scenario and I gave you one - undesirable but reasonable.



I'm looking for something that the creature would object to doing so much that it might want to drag its feet and be as recalcitrant as possible, and only the promise of freedom when it's done is keeping it from doing so.

Asking an angel to murder an innocent in cold blood strikes me as far beyond "well, I'll drag my feet but I'll do it."



On the "stop asking angels to do morally reprehensible things" note, would it also be unreasonable to ask a succubus to help some orphans find new adoptive, loving, kind parents?

Not at all - but asking it to refrain from any demonic behavior while doing so (or after the task is complete) might be.

[SecretlyaFish]

You were talking about binding Solars to eat feces for your lord Asmodeus. I wasn't aware you were actually looking for a serious response to any of that. (I gave one anyway though, more fool me.)

I made ONE joke, and then gave you a back and forth to just be funny and say I liked your comment. I then made 3 serious responses to which I was addressing you and you completely ignored them when they had valid points and none of it was jokes. I didn't realize a single joke discounts everything you say afterwards here. Given your back and forth constant "Well it could still be this" responses to the other guy, if I didn't know better I'd be left to assume that my points are just completely 100% accurate and you can't argue with them without being obviously wrong, otherwise you would have gone back and forth with me too! Go back and read my serious responses.


Mainly, I just don't have much to add pro or con to what you said. It seemed a bit tangential to what I was trying to get across.


I suppose they could be tricking the creature. Honestly, since it's brought physically to you, there's a lot you can do to it even if it never agrees to do a task for you. You can hold it "as long as you dare," after all.

If you can overwhelm its saves, for instance, you could magic jar it. If you wanted its body parts as components, and are powerful enough to forcibly remove them, you can do that. If you can, again, overcome its mental defenses, you can try using suggestion and charm monster or even dominate monster on it. It's not entirely helpless, but it can't really fight back and is more or less at your mercy.

If you're a Diplomancer, you can blow one-off or charged bonuses and ping a 150+ Diplomacy check and make it a Fanatical devotee, if you're in 3.5.

That forcibly-taken body part could be used to make a simulacrum of it.

There's a lot you can do that's outside the scope of the spell while it's bound in your trap.

I understand how you felt then. I did try to include myself and I was on your side of the discussion. Also had to look up the word tangential, since I'm 27 but can't ever recall hearing that word used before. In the words of the little rascals "I LEARNED A NEW WORD!!" So thanks ;)

That's a really huge bonus so if I were DM I'd definately like to see some effort back up those numbers, but I'd be game. Sometimes the players do get to mess around. But the Solar is one of the most powerful creatures in the MM, and all of D&D really. Not wise to make an enemy of, and once it knows you have the power to trick beings of its power into doing misdeeds, it might decide you are an evil worth extinguishing, which could be fair. Though, this could also fall into the trap of when and when not to punish the players. If you need to go back and forth with your DM over whats an issue I think he would certainly try to get that one up on the player since he technically "lost" and had to let the player do what he wished with the Solar. I'd say depending on the severity and what happened while the Solar was under the control of the player, would determine if it thought that or not. Building a temple, probably not. Tricking it into killing a king and throwing a kingdom into disarray causing the death of tens of thousands of innocents, maybe the Solar has some work to do.

[Psyren]

I made ONE joke, and then gave you a back and forth to just be funny and say I liked your comment. I then made 3 serious responses to which I was addressing you and you completely ignored them when they had valid points and none of it was jokes. I didn't realize a single joke discounts everything you say afterwards here. Given your back and forth constant "Well it could still be this" responses to the other guy, if I didn't know better I'd be left to assume that my points are just completely 100% accurate and you can't argue with them without being obviously wrong, otherwise you would have gone back and forth with me too! Go back and read my serious responses.

I did respond to you - when I said you'd be better off with something neutral than trying to trick a Solar into building a monument to evil with partial blueprints etc. After that you quoted Segev so I had just assumed you were done asking me anything.

[SecretlyaFish]

I did respond to you - when I said you'd be better off with something neutral than trying to trick a Solar into building a monument to evil with partial blueprints etc. After that you quoted Segev so I had just assumed you were done asking me anything.

Fair enough, it didn't have a quote and I couldn't be sure. The point is, its FUN to tempt that Solar into doing things. I did slightly side with you as will in my response to the other guy. Depending on just how severe you tricked it, and what it did for you and what the fallout was, you may have just made a very mighty enemy. A Solar with cadre of Planetars, Astral Deva's, and other lower end celestials might make the player wish they had not gone so far, or summoned something else entirely. Just so long as its fair and the DM's ego doesn't get in the way because he feels he needs to "win". This assumes the players are good and do not abuse their spells/DM/game world. If they were, and you know what players I'm talking about here, then have at it!

[Zanos]

Warning: This post contains opinions. The surgeon general recommends against consuming opinions while sober.

I'm going to assume, in general, that the creature is acting in accordance with the spirit of the request, as I could go on for quite some time about ways they could subvert these requests to end sooner.

- Guard a place against intrusion twice. However, there is no intrusion for thousands of years...
The time limit applies. As the creature is serving as a guardian, no action of it's own will hasten the completion of its task. Intrusion depends on the actions of others.



- Guard a place for a month. But during that time the place will be under heavy attacks several times every week...

Time limit applies. In general, guarding things is pretty open ended.


- Serve in an army for the duration of a war. But later on, there is a truce in the war that lasts for several years, and in the end the war is not even waged anymore but there is no peace either...
Time limit applies. Even if there wasn't a peace treaty, serving in the army is an open ended request. However, asking a creature to end a war is not an open ended request, and would be a valid unlimited time bargain. Many callable creatures could work towards bringing about the end of a war, one way or the other.


- Hunt someone down and bring him/her in. But the person has been long dead and no one knows that...
Hunting someone down in general and bringing them to you is a valid unlimited time bargain. Them being dead might change that, but planar binding isn't a divination spell. I'd say whether or not this is valid depends on what you and the target know.

I think a fair rule might be: does the creature's performance affect the rate at which the task is completed? If yes, it's probably a valid extended request for a binding. "Guard me until I get to Waterdeep" will invoke the limit because you could do any number of things on your way to Waterdeep. "Get me to Waterdeep safely" allows the creature to take initiative to fulfill the binding.

[Psyren]

Fair enough, it didn't have a quote and I couldn't be sure. The point is, its FUN to tempt that Solar into doing things. I did slightly side with you as will in my response to the other guy. Depending on just how severe you tricked it, and what it did for you and what the fallout was, you may have just made a very mighty enemy. A Solar with cadre of Planetars, Astral Deva's, and other lower end celestials might make the player wish they had not gone so far, or summoned something else entirely. Just so long as its fair and the DM's ego doesn't get in the way because he feels he needs to "win". This assumes the players are good and do not abuse their spells/DM/game world. If they were, and you know what players I'm talking about here, then have at it!

I don't think expecting angels to behave consistently/reasonably means the DM is being unfair or that he "needs to win." There are all kinds of beings that don't have morality hangups you can bind instead - Inevitables, Slaadi, Genies, Elementals, and of course Fiends. It might be fun for you to, say, trick a Solar into committing murder or slavery or who knows what other depredations, and that's fine. But not every GM would be okay with that, and I'm willing to bet that they included that clause in the spell specifically to give such GMs a little air support.

[TheBrassDuke]

"Guard my tower for a year and a day" - a specific timeframe is given but nothing else that can help the creature complete the task through its own power. This will also trigger the CL/days limit.

You seem to be operating under the impression that all Binding captives are looking for the quickest way out of his/her service.

A specific timeframe is given, but the creature has everything it needs to complete the task through its own power. It was tasked with guarding the tower for a year and a day. It can certainly do this, through his own power, because it alone was tasked with doing it. So no, I wouldn't tack on the CL/days limit. Unless I didn't want my player controlling this creature.

[SecretlyaFish]

I don't think expecting angels to behave consistently/reasonably means the DM is being unfair or that he "needs to win." There are all kinds of beings that don't have morality hangups you can bind instead - Inevitables, Slaadi, Genies, Elementals, and of course Fiends. It might be fun for you to, say, trick a Solar into committing murder or slavery or who knows what other depredations, and that's fine. But not every GM would be okay with that, and I'm willing to bet that they included that clause in the spell specifically to give such GMs a little air support.

I think that is fair yeah. But its good practice for the player too, summoning such creatures as a form of actual experience or player character research etc, not just to try and jerk the DM's chain around. Obviously, if you Gate something in, the Solar needs to do what you tell it, at least in an immediate task, telling it to throw an earthquake into a random city immediately upon being summoned or to fire storm a group of enemies who are using child hostages, well, its got no choice. If you command it to do something the moment its summoned it doesn't get a chance to think and say "hmmm whats the morality of this" its compelled to do it. If its a longer task, does the creature NEED to accept the deal provided you give ample payment for the rendered service? "If you choose to exact", meaning to demand or obtain, this means that, even something totally evil and against its alignment, as long as you pay it for services rendered under the rules of the binding spells, it has to follow and has no ability to say no. I'd give the player multiple checks over the course, say once a day and right before every combat when it has to do something against its alignment, for the Solar to break control, so that it can't be totally abused at least.

During a binding, the amount of skill and preparation on the players part to actually trick a lawful good... Well jesus its CR 23, basically an Arch Angel, the amount of skill and good rolls needed to do that, should technically be rewarded right? I'm pretty sure a binder/malconvoker with all the stacked feats etc could summon a Solar via GPB, or perhaps Implore? Either way it would be very tricky to get right, and of course, the Solar would be as well versed on the laws and contracts *almost* as well as a Pit Fiend (has less mental stats and being a master of the dotted line isn't its bread and butter), so actually being able to trick it is still very difficult. I mean, if the player absolutely needs to have it do something against its alignment, or wants it to do some sort of menial task to humiliate it, Gate is a better option, and in most cases you'll be able to use Gate by the time you can summon a Solar via anything else. I guess I could see it as more a waste of time than anything else. Wasting other players time and the DM's time by NOT using Gate.

[SecretlyaFish]

You seem to be operating under the impression that all Binding captives are looking for the quickest way out of his/her service.

A specific timeframe is given, but the creature has everything it needs to complete the task through its own power. It was tasked with guarding the tower for a year and a day. It can certainly do this, through his own power, because it alone was tasked with doing it. So no, I wouldn't tack on the CL/days limit. Unless I didn't want my player controlling this creature.

I'd say the CL/day rule could be relaxed as long as adequate payment was given for the task. Any creature would require an incredible payment in almost any case with rare exceptions, binding an Angel when it could be out fighting evil, preventing it from doing so from a year and a day, would require something the player likely couldn't provide easily.

[Zanos]

So no, I wouldn't tack on the CL/days limit. Unless I didn't want my player controlling this creature.
Having to conjure another creature every few weeks isn't really a big deal.

[Segev]

Most TO discussions actually assume that the "task" is an open-ended "be my minion" sort of thing. Regardless of how you worded it, it amounts to an open-ended "do what I say." The CL days duration is thus also assumed.

It's not a BAD limitation, except, as Psyren points out, for where it interferes with some classic tropes.

[Dragonexx]

It should be pointed out the rules on services only apply to the spell's effects, not the outsider itself. The outsider you summon is usually still an intelligent creature and thus can be reasoned with. If you want it to do stuff for you that the spell won't allow, then you can just convince it with other means, like befriending it with diplomacy or offering rewards and so forth. Of course, likewise it's not bound by any agreements it makes from this, but it's important to know that you can do this.